Would you get a more consistent measurement if the device had a capability to measure milliamps, so you could measure the voltage when each light was at say 1mA?
I think I'd go with a lower threshold than 1mA, but in principle yes. It wouldn't be difficult to rig up the circuit yourself either, which I find really fun! Anyone can measure such a fundamental universal constant with a few pennies worth of basic equipment
Why don't you divide the Energy by the frequency to give h? If you do, the closest you get to the accurate value of h is the measurement you have discarded. I note with your approach if the formula was E-E_0=h(f-f_0) where E_0 and f_0 are constants you would still get a measure of h. So you are not showing E=hf
Would you get a more consistent measurement if the device had a capability to measure milliamps, so you could measure the voltage when each light was at say 1mA?
I think I'd go with a lower threshold than 1mA, but in principle yes. It wouldn't be difficult to rig up the circuit yourself either, which I find really fun! Anyone can measure such a fundamental universal constant with a few pennies worth of basic equipment
What would you calculate if you fitting the line to include the point you disregarded?
So where is the part of measuting Planck's constant?
At 26m in the video.
Why don't you divide the Energy by the frequency to give h? If you do, the closest you get to the accurate value of h is the measurement you have discarded. I note with your approach if the formula was E-E_0=h(f-f_0) where E_0 and f_0 are constants you would still get a measure of h. So you are not showing E=hf