At normal incidence, with no optical dispersion and zero round-trip reflection wave phase modulo $2\pi$, the resonance condition in Fabry–Pérot transmission from multiple reflections isHere $\nu$ is frequency and $c$ is the speed of light in vacuum. A change of $\nu$ by one free spectral range advances the round-trip wave phase by $2\pi$. At fixed internal angle of incidence $\theta$, the same nondispersive model gives $c/(2nd\cos \theta )$. Holding the external angle of incidence fixed in a dispersive medium need not hold the internal $\theta$ fixed, because of Snell's law.

For stipulated $n=1$ and $d=10\mathrm{mm}$, the free spectral range is $14.9896229\mathrm{GHz}$ using $c=299792458\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$. A frequency difference of $0.10\Delta {\nu }_{\mathrm{FSR}}$ is therefore $1.49896229\mathrm{GHz}$. Transmission repeats every free spectral range: one isolated scan cannot distinguish that separation from $1.10\Delta {\nu }_{\mathrm{FSR}}$. Independent knowledge of the optical spectrum, an additional filter, or a changed mirror separation is needed to assign orders.

Equal spacing in frequency does not imply equal spacing in wavelength. At normal incidence the exact adjacent resonance wavelengths obeyFor example, choosing $2nd=10{\lambda }_{10}$ makes the exact gap to order 11 equal to ${\lambda }_{10}/11$, while the high-order estimate gives ${\lambda }_{10}/10$. The approximation is already ten percent larger at order 10. With optical dispersion or frequency-dependent reflection wave phase, obtain local spacings from the total phase difference instead: $\Delta \nu \simeq 2\pi /(d\delta /d\nu )$ when its derivative varies little over one order.

Consider two identical, lossless parallel mirrors with intensity reflectivity $0\le R<1$, separation $d$, and a uniform transparent medium of refractive index $n$. Fix one polarization of an electromagnetic wave and an internal angle of incidence $\theta$ measured from the mirror normal vector. Illuminate with a monochromatic wave having planar wavefronts; the emerging contributions must overlap coherently in the detected direction. Define $T=I_{\mathrm{transmitted}}/I_{\mathrm{incident}}$ using the same incident and exit media. Each mirror transmits a fraction $1-R$ of incident power. Its reflected wave amplitude has magnitude $\sqrt{R}$, so two internal specular reflections multiply the circulating complex amplitude by magnitude $R$, not $R^2$.

Let $\lambda$ be the vacuum wavelength and choose the reflection wave phase convention in which the product of the two internal amplitude reflection coefficients is real and positive. The phase difference between successive transmitted contributions, evaluated on a common outgoing wavefront, isWith other mirror coatings or phase conventions, use the total $\delta =4\pi nd\cos \theta /\lambda +{\varphi }_{\mathrm{rt}}$, where ${\varphi }_{\mathrm{rt}}$ is the sum of the two internal reflection wave phases. The stated resonance positions presume ${\varphi }_{\mathrm{rt}}=0$ modulo $2\pi$; a constant nonzero ${\varphi }_{\mathrm{rt}}$ shifts them, while a frequency-dependent one can also change their spacing.

Why does the cosine appear rather than its reciprocal? Inside the gap, the extra two legs have optical path length $2nd/\cos \theta$. But the later emerging contribution starts $2d\tan \theta$ farther along the mirror. Comparing both on one outgoing wavefront subtracts $2nd\tan \theta \sin \theta$ from that path difference, leaving $2nd\cos \theta$. Equivalently, a plane wave's mirror-normal wavevector component is $k_z=(2\pi n/\lambda )\cos \theta$, so the round-trip wave phase is $2k_{z}d$. The diagram uses the same medium outside and inside to show the common-wavefront subtraction directly; at a refracting exit interface, tangential wavevector matching in Snell's law supplies the same result.

Absorb the common first-pass wave phase into the incident complex amplitude $E_{\mathrm{in}}$. Successive transmitted contributions are $(1-R)E_{\mathrm{in}}$, $(1-R)E_{\mathrm{in}}R{e}^{i\delta }$, and so on. The superposition principle and the convergent geometric series giveThe last step expands the squared complex modulus as $1+R^2-2R\cos \delta$. This transmission profile is often called the Airy transmission function; it is distinct from the Airy disk, a diffraction image of a circular aperture. The University of Washington's lab handout gives the same transmission profile and distinguishes mirror reflectivity from other sources of peak broadening.^[ref]

For an original example, set $R=3/4$. At $\delta =0$, the amplitudes add to $(1/4)/(1-3/4)=1$, so $T=1$. At $\delta =\pi$, they alternate in sign and add to $(1/4)/(1+3/4)=1/7$, so $T=1/49$. At $\delta =\pi /2$, the amplitude is $4/25+3i/25$ and $T=1/25$. Adding the individual intensities instead would give $(1-R{)}^2{\sum }_j{R}^{2j}=(1-R)/(1+R)=1/7$, independent of wave phase; that discards the wave interference responsible for the peaks.

In general the maximum is $T_{\max }=1$ at $\delta =2\pi m$, with integer $m$, and the minimum is $T_{\min }=[(1-R)/(1+R){]}^2$ halfway between peaks. Perfect resonant transmission requires identical lossless mirrors, coherent illumination, and sufficient time to establish the steady field. Absorption, unequal mirror transmission, finite beams that fail to overlap, and fluctuations of $d$ can reduce it. The exactly reflecting case $R=1$ is excluded: no incident power enters through a perfectly reflecting mirror, and the resonant limit $R\to 1^{-}$ is singular.

The cotangent partial-fraction expansion gives, on $0<|z|<1$,The Bernoulli number generating function gives the same Laurent series in another form:The $B_1$ term cancels the separate $\pi i$; the higher odd Bernoulli numbers vanish. Comparing Laurent coefficients therefore gives $-2\zeta (2r)=B_{2r}(2\pi i{)}^{2r}/(2r)!$, which is the stated real formula because $i^{2r}=(-1{)}^r$. The cotangent partial-fraction expansion justifies the convergent expansion before the coefficient comparison; a finite plot of partial sums alone would not prove the infinite identity.

For a real exponent $s>1$ and a positive integer $N$, the series truncation error in the defining Riemann zeta function series isThe integral comparison for the positive decreasing function $x^{-s}$ gives the explicit boundsOn each unit interval, the area under $x^{-s}$ lies between its endpoint heights. Summing from the first omitted term gives the lower integral from $N+1$ to infinity and the upper integral from $N$ to infinity. This uses positivity and monotonicity, not an assumption that the last computed term equals the remaining error.

At $N=10$, the bounds are $1/11\le R_{10}(2)\le 1/10$, whereas $1/(3\cdot 11^3)\le R_{10}(4)\le 1/(3\cdot 10^3)$. The errors above fit both intervals. Merely looking at the eleventh term would give $1/121\approx 0.008264$ for squares, far smaller than the actual remaining $0.095166$.

For a chosen absolute error target $\epsilon >0$, the sufficient condition is $N\ge ((s-1)\epsilon {)}^{-1/(s-1)}$, rounded upward to an integer. Thus $\epsilon =10^{-4}$ requires $N=10000$ by this bound for squares but only $N=15$ for fourth powers. This is a guarantee from an upper bound, not a claim that those are the smallest successful term counts.

The Joule-Thomson effect is the temperature response of a fluid flowing from higher to lower pressure through a valve or a plug of porous medium, when the throttle is insulated and the other steady-flow energy balance assumptions hold. Its equilibrium endpoints have equal specific enthalpy. The Joule-Thomson coefficient determines whether a small drop cools or warms; cooling is not universal.

A useful contrast is between three insulated expansions. In free expansion of a gas-only closed system into a vacuum, no external work occurs and $U_2=U_1$; an ideal gas returns to its initial equilibrium temperature. In a throttle, continuous flow carries pressure work across the boundary and preserves specific enthalpy under the stated assumptions; an ideal gas again has no endpoint temperature change. In a reversible adiabatic expansion of a loaded closed system, the gas supplies work, loses internal energy and cools, even if it is an ideal gas. That process preserves entropy; throttling generally produces entropy. For a small constant-enthalpy step, $dH=TdS+Vdp=0$ gives $dS=-Vdp/T>0$ when $dp<0$ and $T,V>0$. This equilibrium comparison computes endpoint entropy differences without supplying a reversible path through the plug.

The effect is useful in refrigerators because an appropriately prepared real gas can cool while passing through a simple valve. The inlet must lie in a suitable positive-Joule-Thomson coefficient region. The Joule-Thomson inversion curve makes that requirement precise; a pressure drop by itself is not a guarantee of refrigeration.

For steady flow through a fixed control volume with one inlet and one outlet, the first law of thermodynamics and conservation of mass giveHere $\dot{m}$ is the mass flow rate, $\dot{Q}$ incoming heat per unit time, ${\dot{W}}_s$ outgoing non-flow work per unit time, $w$ the flow speed, $z$ elevation and $g$ gravitational acceleration. The specific enthalpy $h=u+p/\rho$ includes both the transported internal energy per unit mass $u$ and the pressure work needed to push volume through the boundary; $\rho$ is mass density. The inlet supplies that pressure work, while the outlet consumes it to displace the downstream fluid.^[ref]

For an insulated stationary throttle, require negligible heat transfer, no shaft or other non-flow work, and negligible changes in bulk kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy. Then $h_2=h_1$. With unchanged composition this is also equality of molar enthalpy. The upstream and downstream states must admit equilibrium pressure, temperature and property values, although the constriction itself is irreversible and can be far from thermodynamic equilibrium. Start-up storage of energy in the walls and fluid, heat leakage, or a large outlet speed invalidates the reduced balance. A nozzle can convert specific enthalpy into bulk kinetic energy even when it is insulated.

The same accounting for a fixed transported amount is $U_2-U_1=p_1{V}_1-p_2{V}_2$, hence $U_1+p_1{V}_1=U_2+p_2{V}_2$. This explains why dropping the two pressure work terms would give the wrong conserved quantity.^[ref]

An isenthalpic process preserves enthalpy for a fixed amount of material, or preserves specific enthalpy between inlet and outlet when comparing a flowing fluid of fixed composition. It need not preserve temperature or entropy. An insulated throttle satisfying the steady-flow energy balance assumptions is an important example.

Molar enthalpy is enthalpy per amount of substance $n$, measured in $\mathrm{J}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}$. With $u_{\mathrm{m}}=U/n$ and molar volume $v_{\mathrm{m}}=V/n$, $h_{\mathrm{m}}=u_{\mathrm{m}}+p{v}_{\mathrm{m}}$. Its fixed-pressure temperature derivative is the corresponding molar heat capacity $C_{p,\mathrm{m}}$, at fixed composition.

A lock-in amplifier measures the component of an input signal synchronized with a reference at a chosen frequency. It multiplies the input by a reference sinusoid, then uses a low-pass filter to retain the slowly varying product. Two references in phase quadrature recover both amplitude and phase difference. A shared timing source keeps the relative wave phase stable: this is coherent detection.^[ref]

The useful trick is to move the wanted frequency to zero before averaging. An electronic amplifier alone enlarges both the wanted signal and unwanted noise; a lock-in amplifier instead selects a component by its timing. A photodiode's electric current can first be converted to an electric potential difference, so the same calculation can measure weak modulated light. The chopped-light lock-in experiment makes this selection tangible.

Electron microscopy is the practice of preparing specimens, producing images with an electron microscope, and interpreting their contrast. A dark region can reflect electron deflection out of the admitted beam rather than complete absorption. A useful image therefore needs a stated preparation, detection signal and length calibration; brightness by itself does not identify a material. Transmission electron microscopy probes thin specimens, whereas a scanning electron microscope can examine the exposed surface of a bulk specimen.^[ref]

Optical-electrical heating non-equivalence means that equal absorbed optical and electrical powers do not necessarily give identical thermometer responses. Light and the heater may deposit heat in different places, producing different temperature gradients and different routes of thermal conduction to the support. Holding one thermometer reading fixed need not hold every part of the cavity at the same temperature. This differs from incomplete radiometric absorptance: one concerns where absorbed heat goes, the other how much incident light becomes absorbed heat.

A useful accounting convention iswhere the signed correction ${\delta }_{\mathrm{ne}}$ is determined by characterization of the instrument and represents the residual departure from the lumped electrical substitution heat balance. It is not a universal extra source of energy. Varying the beam location or heater location, comparing equivalent temperature excursions, and checking repeatable dark returns can test the assumptions; no single small correction proves that every other correction vanishes.

An explicit lumped model makes the cancellation understandable. Treat the receiver as having uniform temperature $T$, heat capacity $C$, heater power $P_h$ deposited in the receiver, net parasitic input $P_{\mathrm{par}}$, and outward heat transfer $Q_{\mathrm{out}}(T,T_b)$ to a reference at temperature $T_b$. With incident radiant flux $P_{\mathrm{in}}$ and radiometric absorptance $a$, conservation of energy givesThe dark state has no admitted beam. Compare settled dark and light states, denoted $d$ and $l$; each has $dT/dt=0$. Subtracting their balances giveswhere $\Delta Q_{\mathrm{out}}=Q_{\mathrm{out},l}-Q_{\mathrm{out},d}$ and $\Delta P_{\mathrm{par}}=P_{\mathrm{par},l}-P_{\mathrm{par},d}$. At identical $T$ and $T_b$, with unchanged surroundings and parasitic heating, both correction differences vanish. Thus $P_{\mathrm{abs}}=\Delta P_h$, and $P_{\mathrm{in}}=\Delta P_h/a$. Notice the signs: extra stray thermal radiation admitted with the beam also reduces heater power, so it must be subtracted from that reduction before attributing the result to the intended beam.

Measure the heater's own terminal voltage $V_h$ and electric current $I_h$: for steady electrical heating, $P_h=V_h{I}_h=I_h^2{R}_h$, where $R_h$ is its electrical resistance. A supply voltage that includes wire voltage drops counts Joule heating in the leads too; only the portion deposited in the receiver belongs in this balance. Changes in that deposited lead heat belong in $\Delta P_{\mathrm{par}}$. Optical-electrical heating non-equivalence adds a further instrument-specific correction when the uniform-temperature model is insufficient.^[ref]

Electric polarizability relates an induced electric dipole moment to an applied electric field. In a weak-field model with linearity, ${\mathbf{d}}_{\mathrm{ind}}=\mathbf{\alpha }\mathbf{E}$. A tensor response allows different electric field directions to induce electric dipole moments in different directions. A response that changes with molecular rotation enables rotational Raman spectroscopy.

A direct current is an electric current that flows in one direction; its magnitude may vary with time. A constant or steady electric current additionally has a value independent of time. Thus a direct current need not be constant. The steady direct current model of a voltage divider assumes a constant input electric potential difference and fixed electrical resistances.

The institutional handout Measurement of Emf Using a Potentiometer, Oklahoma Christian University laboratory (Experimental Activity: calibration procedure, measuring a test cell, and measuring internal resistance of a cell) compares unloaded and loaded battery readings. Its apparatus uses a slidewire potentiometer, calibrated resistance coils, a reference cell, a galvanometer, a nominal $1.5\mathrm{V}$ flashlight cell, a voltmeter, and a switched variable resistor branch with an ammeter. Calibration uses the reference cell's tagged electromotive force; zero galvanometer deflection establishes a null measurement. With the load branch open, the null reading draws no test-cell electric current. The protocol compares newer and older cells using both instruments, then records simultaneous loaded terminal electric potential difference and electric current. It prescribes brief measurements, opening the load switch between readings, and periodic calibration rechecks. These are documented procedures, not run data.^[ref]

For the battery internal resistance model, $V_L=\mathcal{E}-rI$. The handout's analysis estimates electromotive force from the intercept and $r$ from the negative slope, then compares the intercept with the independent null reading.^[ref]

Additional replication controls are to repeat the open-load reading after the sweep, return to an earlier load setting to detect drift, and record temperature, elapsed time, instrument resolution and measurement error. Include ammeter and contact electrical resistance in the external path; allow for voltmeter loading if a voltmeter replaces the null instrument. The Thévenin measurement experiment gives the corresponding meter-loading correction. Curvature or time-dependent readings can reject the constant-$r$ approximation, but a terminal curve alone does not identify which internal transport or electrode process caused the deviation. These extra controls and interpretations are model-based extensions, not reported outcomes of the handout.

A battery's charge reservoir means a finite amount of electric charge can pass through the external electrical circuit before its usable chemical state is depleted. It does not mean a large net electric charge is sitting inside the casing. For one net cell chemical reaction transferring $n$ electrons per reaction event, an ideal reaction inventory obeyswhere $F$ is the Faraday constant and $\xi$ the extent of reaction in moles, assuming all the electric current serves that reaction. At fixed temperature and pressure, its reversible electromotive force obeys ${\Delta }_{r}G=-nF\mathcal{E}$: a decrease in Gibbs free energy provides the maximum reversible electrical work per mole. The electromotive force also depends on composition; the Daniell cell illustrates this with thermodynamic activity.^[ref]

As an original finite-reservoir exercise, stipulate usable $Q_{\max }=360\mathrm{C}$ and hold the preceding $3\mathrm{V}$, $1\Omega$, $4\Omega$ parameters constant until an abrupt cutoff. Then $t=Q_{\max }/I=600\mathrm{s}$, available electrical work is $\mathcal{E}{Q}_{\max }=1080\mathrm{J}$, load work is $V_L{Q}_{\max }=864\mathrm{J}$, and internal dissipation is $216\mathrm{J}$. This explicitly finite idealization predicts ten minutes, not an experimentally measured runtime. Real accessible charge depends on discharge conditions and the chosen terminal-voltage cutoff. Charge alone is also not an energy: converting it to delivered work requires the terminal electric potential difference throughout discharge.

In the constant-parameter battery internal resistance model, the source's available electrical power splits between the electrical load and internal dissipation:The stipulated $3\mathrm{V}$, $1\Omega$, $4\Omega$ calculation gives $P_L=1.44\mathrm{W}$, $P_{\mathrm{int}}=0.36\mathrm{W}$, and $\mathcal{E}I=1.80\mathrm{W}$. A resistive electrical load converts its share to Joule heating; another electrical load might convert some of it to mechanical work or light. The source term is available electrical work per time, not a complete cell heat budget: reaction entropy can also matter.

Define the delivery efficiency relative to the source's available electrical work, rather than to all chemical energy or to a complete charging cycle:Here $\eta =0.80$. The largest load power occurs at $R=r$: since $(R+r{)}^2\ge 4Rr$,Thus maximum load power and maximum delivery efficiency ask different questions. As $R\to \infty$, $V_L\to \mathcal{E}$ and $\eta \to 1$, but $I\to 0$ and $P_L\to 0$: a high nearly unloaded voltage supplies almost no power. As $R\to 0$, the model gives $V_L\to 0$, $P_L\to 0$ and internal power tending to ${\mathcal{E}}^2/r$. Real high-current operation can invalidate constant $r$ and $\mathcal{E}$; the mathematical maximum does not establish a permissible operating point for an actual battery.

A useful short-interval approximation replaces a battery by an ideal electromotive force $\mathcal{E}$ in series with a positive internal electrical resistance $r$. This is the Thévenin terminal response with open-circuit voltage $\mathcal{E}$ and Thévenin resistance $r$. The model describes the terminals without asserting that there is a separate physical resistor hidden inside the cell. Both $\mathcal{E}$ and $r$ can change with composition, temperature, electric current and history.^[ref]

For a resistive electrical load $R>0$, take $I>0$ to mean discharge: conventional current leaves the positive terminal. Kirchhoff's voltage law and Ohm's law giveFor the stipulated $\mathcal{E}=3\mathrm{V}$, $r=1\Omega$, $R=4\Omega$,An open-circuit voltage of $3\mathrm{V}$ therefore does not promise $3\mathrm{V}$ at this electrical load. Increasing the load electrical resistance reduces electric current and brings $V_L$ closer to $\mathcal{E}$, as in Thévenin load response.

The signed relation also explains charging within this model. If an external source drives electric current into the positive terminal, $I<0$ and $V_L=\mathcal{E}+|I|r$. The terminal electric potential difference then exceeds $\mathcal{E}$. This algebra is not evidence that every battery is rechargeable.^[ref]