Codex @codex  0

An electrical synapse passes ionic electric current directly between neurons through gap junctions, whose paired channels connect the two cytoplasms. It does not require synaptic vesicle release and postsynaptic neurotransmitter binding. Transmission across the junction is very fast; the receiving cell membrane's capacitance and other conductances still determine its voltage response. Electrical coupling can coordinate the timing of activity across neurons. See Purves and colleagues: electrical synapses and gap junctions.

For a passive junction with constant conductance $g_j$, the inward electric current into cell 2 iswhere each $V_k$ is the cell's membrane potential, measured against a common extracellular reference. Taking $g_j=2\mathrm{nS}$, $V_1=-55\mathrm{mV}$ and $V_2=-65\mathrm{mV}$ gives $20\mathrm{pA}$ into cell 2 and the equal opposite electric current into cell 1. Exchanging the voltages reverses the electric current. Both depolarization and hyperpolarization can therefore be transmitted; an electrical synapse is not inherently an excitatory connection.

Many electrical synapses conduct in both directions, but this does not guarantee equal voltage responses: the cells can have different effective electrical resistance and capacitance. Some junctions rectify, meaning they conduct preferentially in one direction, so the constant-$g_j$ formula is insufficient. A concrete molecular example is the original study ^[ref]. Bidirectionality is thus a common property with important qualifications, rather than part of the definition.

Electric charge is an additive, signed property of matter that determines its coupling to the electromagnetic field. Write a particle's electric charge as $q$, or a collection's total electric charge as $Q$; the SI unit is the coulomb, $\mathrm{C}$. A stationary test particle in an electric field experiences electric force $\mathbf{F}=q\mathbf{E}$, while motion adds the magnetic part of the Lorentz force. Electric charge both produces an electric field and determines the response to one. For two stationary point particles in vacuum, Coulomb's law makes like signs repel and opposite signs attract. The choice of which sign to call positive is a convention, used consistently: protons carry $+e$ and electrons carry $-e$, where $e$ is the elementary charge. ^[ref].

Additivity means adding signed electric charges, rather than their magnitudes:for ordinary matter containing $N_p$ protons, $N_e$ electrons, and electrically neutral neutrons. A toy collection with seven protons and ten electrons has $Q=-3e$, however much neutral material accompanies it. Charge neutrality means $Q=0$; it does not mean an absence of charged constituents. Nor does it guarantee an absence of electric force: the spatial arrangement of positive and negative electric charges matters, as illustrated by an electric dipole. This makes a tiny imbalance in an otherwise nearly neutral object physically important. ^[ref].

Charge conservation states that a collection closed to transport of electric charge keeps its total signed $Q$. If $n$ electrons move from object A to object B without other exchange, then $\Delta Q_A=+ne$ and $\Delta Q_B=-ne$; the sum is unchanged. The amount of positive electric charge alone need not be conserved: creation of an electron and a Positron adds opposite electric charges with zero sum. These bookkeeping rules let us distinguish separation or transport of electric charge from creation of net electric charge. ^[ref].

A simple motivating experiment uses two charge-producing paddles, a conducting pail on an insulating support, a grounded outer shield and a high-input-impedance electrometer. Zero the pail, then isolate it. Rub the initially neutral paddles together, keeping their charged surfaces away from other objects. Lower each deeply into the pail without touching: the electrometer gives opposite signs. Inserting both together tests cancellation. For a separate contact test, insert one charged paddle without touching and withdraw it: the reading returns to zero. Repeat after zeroing, this time touching the inner wall before withdrawal: a residual reading shows transfer of electric charge. Zero the pail and reinsert the paddle to test how much electric charge remains on it. PASCO describes these procedures in Basic Electrostatics System manual, demonstrations 1A and 1B, printed pp. 13–16.

The crucial control is withdrawal without contact: a response during insertion can come from electrostatic induction, which redistributes the pail's existing electric charge. In the fixed-geometry approximation, the electrometer measures electric potential difference proportional to enclosed electric charge, with conversion set by effective capacitance; a voltage reading is not already a measurement in coulombs. Opposite readings and their cancellation test additivity and charge conservation within resolution. Leakage or accidental contact spoils that interpretation, and contact need not transfer all the paddle's electric charge. This macroscopic experiment cannot resolve elementary charge steps: that requires the much smaller particles of the oil drop experiment.

The dimensionless quantity relating induced electric polarization to the internal electric field through $\mathbf{P}={ϵ}_0{\chi }_e\mathbf{E}$ in the static scalar model. It describes the material contribution; relative permittivity includes the vacuum term as well, ${ϵ}_r=1+{\chi }_e$. Zero electric susceptibility gives ${ϵ}_r=1$, not zero permittivity.

The scalar ${\chi }_e$ assumes a local response with linearity and isotropy, settled electric polarization, fixed material conditions, and no residual electric polarization at zero electric field. It relates $\mathbf{P}$ to the averaged total internal electric field, which already includes the field of the bound electric charges. It does not relate $\mathbf{P}$ to the field the external electrodes would produce in vacuum. The distinction is essential for a self-consistent calculation.^[ref]

Substitute the scalar relation into the definition of electric displacement field:Comparison with $\mathbf{D}=ϵ\mathbf{E}$ proves $ϵ={ϵ}_0(1+{\chi }_e)$ and ${ϵ}_r=1+{\chi }_e$. Both $\mathbf{D}$ and $\mathbf{P}$ have units $C/{\mathrm{m}}^2$, so ${\chi }_e$ is a dimensionless quantity. In a stipulated static model with ${ϵ}_r=3$, ${\chi }_e=2$: at a prescribed internal electric field, the material contribution $P$ is twice ${ϵ}_{0}E$. This is a hypothetical response, not a measured material constant. The electric susceptibility is a convenient bridge from microscopic dielectric polarization to a macroscopic capacitance measurement, but it is not a measure of electrical conductivity.

Electrolysis uses an external source of electrical work to drive redox chemical reactions at the electrodes of an electrolytic cell. Its characteristic application is forcing a chemical reaction in a direction that is nonspontaneous under the specified conditions: a discharging galvanic cell supplies electrical work, whereas electrolysis consumes electrical work. This makes electrolysis useful for producing otherwise difficult-to-obtain chemical substances, charging a rechargeable battery, and depositing a metal coating on a conducting object.^[ref]

Always identify the anode by oxidation and the cathode by reduction. In ordinary driven two-terminal operation, the source withdraws electrons from the positive anode and delivers electrons to the negative cathode. In a discharging galvanic cell, the anode is negative and the cathode positive. Thus terminal signs change with operating mode, while the reaction definitions remain valid. Through the electrolyte, ions transport electric charge; they need not all be consumed at an electrode. The electrolyte and electrolytic cell articles explain this transport and its conventional current direction.

For a net chemical equation transferring $z$ electrons per reaction event, the molar reaction Gibbs free energy obeyswhere $F$ is the Faraday constant and $E_{\mathrm{chem}}$ is the reversible cell electromotive force for the reaction in the written direction. A nonspontaneous direction has ${\Delta }_{r}G>0$ and $E_{\mathrm{chem}}<0$ at fixed temperature and pressure. The ideal opposing voltage magnitude is ${\Delta }_{r}G/(zF)$; sustaining a finite electric current generally needs additional drive because of electrical resistance and finite electrode reaction rates. This thermodynamic voltage concerns the actual composition, rather than necessarily standard conditions.^[ref] Not every use of electrolysis increases bulk chemical Gibbs free energy: transferring copper between equivalent surfaces can have zero bulk ${\Delta }_{r}G$ while the source still supplies dissipated electrical work. See the existing electrolytic cell example.

A particularly revealing experiment measures copper transfer instead of merely looking for a coating. Two separated copper electrodes stand in aqueous $\mathrm{CuS}{\mathrm{O}}_4$ electrolyte in a vessel, with insulated leads to a regulated direct-current power supply, a series ammeter and a switch. A balance reads each electrode's mass before and after a timed run. The Institute of Physics describes copper cells with ammeters, adjustable current and removable cathodes; its comparison uses three similar cells at $1\mathrm{A}$ for ten minutes, $0.5\mathrm{A}$ for ten minutes, and $0.5\mathrm{A}$ for twenty minutes. The specified observation to test is that deposited copper mass is proportional to electric current times time. These are documented experimental settings, not measurements generated here.^[ref]

The ideal half-reactions areEach deposited copper chemical atom requires two electrons, so $z=2$. The anode loses copper and the cathode gains it; ideally their mass changes have equal magnitudes, and the bulk copper cation inventory stays constant. Local concentrations near the electrodes can nevertheless differ. The sulfate anions participate in ionic transport without appearing in these net half-reactions; electronic electric current in the wires becomes ionic electric current in the electrolyte through the two interfaces.^[ref]

Clean, rinse, dry and identify the electrodes before their initial weighing. After interrupting the electric current, rinse away adhering electrolyte, dry again and weigh without rubbing off the deposit. KIT's university practical explicitly calls for distilled-water rinsing, careful drying and weighing both electrodes; it warns that loose copper grains can be lost during handling.^[ref] Useful additional controls are repeated drying and weighing until the reading stabilizes, and a matched unpowered immersion followed by the same rinse/dry cycle. These controls test retained liquid, residual dissolved salts, handling loss and chemical changes unrelated to passed electric charge; they are proposed checks, not additional observations reported by KIT. Keep immersed electrode area, spacing, electrolyte composition and temperature comparable across runs, and keep the electrodes from touching.

Record the electric current as a function of time, together with the exact switch-on and switch-off times. Taking $I(t)\ge 0$ in the chosen deposition direction, the transported electric charge isFor constant electric current, $Q=I(t_1-t_0)$; with sampled readings, use numerical integration rather than assuming that one ammeter reading remained constant. The two equal-charge Institute of Physics settings each give $600\mathrm{C}$, while its shorter $0.5\mathrm{A}$ setting gives $300\mathrm{C}$. With $M_{\mathrm{Cu}}=63.546\mathrm{g}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}$, the mass per amount of substance tabulated by KIT, and $F\approx 96485.33212\mathrm{C}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}$, ideal Faraday's laws of electrolysis predictThese are calculated predictions for complete conversion of the measured electric charge into retained copper, not experimental results. For a stable process, doubling the electric charge doubles the deposited mass; equal electric charge gives equal deposited mass even when the electric current and duration differ.

The balance reading is a test of the whole model. Competing reduction of water or other chemical species can divert electric current from copper deposition; transient electrode capacitance can also consume part of a short pulse without producing copper. A fragile deposit can detach even when its formation used the expected electric charge. Conversely, retained electrolyte or salts can increase an apparent mass gain. Comparing anode loss with cathode gain helps detect such problems but does not identify every cause. A slope below $M_{\mathrm{Cu}}/(2F)$ alone cannot distinguish competing chemical reactions from lost deposit. Current efficiency measures the fraction of transported electric charge assigned to a specified electrode reaction, rather than the fraction of electrical energy stored chemically.^[ref]

The beautiful connection is that an electrical measurement counts chemical events: integrating electric current and reading a balance provide two ways of following the same electron stoichiometry. This makes electrolysis useful for controlling coating quantity and for testing a charge-to-amount of substance relation. It does not determine coating uniformity, adhesion or the required voltage, which depend on transport and electrode chemical kinetics as well.

An electrometer measures small electric potential differences or electric charges while drawing very little electric current. The conducting-pail experiment in electric charge uses a voltage response to infer electric charge with a fixed effective capacitance.

Conversion using changes in capacitance of a charged or electrically biased structure.

Two isolated conducting drops of radius $a$ and equal charge merge at fixed total charge and volume. The new radius is $2^{1/3}a$, so its capacitance grows by only $2^{1/3}$ while total charge doubles. Relative to the sum of the initially separated self energies, the final electric field energy grows by $2^{2/3}$. Decreased surface energy and/or applied mechanical work can supply that increase. Sufficiently large like charges need not coalesce spontaneously; energy conservation is not a guarantee of merging. A maintained external voltage would define a different problem.

Leo Esaki's 1958 report describes alloy-fabricated germanium p-n junctions, with acceptor impurity concentration $1.6\times 10^{19}{\mathrm{cm}}^{-3}$ and donor impurity concentration approximately $10^{19}{\mathrm{cm}}^{-3}$. Its readout was the current-voltage characteristic: a forward peak occurred at $0.035\pm 0.005\mathrm{V}$. The report says specimens could be reproduced; above $0.3\mathrm{V}$ the forward branch approximately followed the ordinary Shockley diode equation.^[ref]

In his 1973 lecture, Leo Esaki recalls an earlier junction whose strong room-temperature reverse conduction preceded a negative-slope forward segment revealed by cooling. Its estimated zero-bias width was about $200$ ångströms ($20\mathrm{nm}$), supported by capacitance measurements. Increasing semiconductor doping further made the negative slope visible across the measured temperatures, including room temperature. Thus preparation and temperature variation were experimental controls, not merely changes to a theoretical diagram. The low onset voltage argued against avalanche production of electrons and electron holes; the energy band explanation connected the forward decline to loss of available final states.^[ref]

The historical readouts were junction electric current versus applied electric potential difference and a separate capacitance check; preparation and temperature were varied. The cited descriptions do not identify a meter model or give a complete wiring diagram.

For a modern repetition, measure junction voltage directly while stepping the supply and recording electric current, repeat both sweep directions, and compare temperatures and differently doped specimens. These are proposed controls, not a reconstruction of the historical apparatus. Lead electrical resistance, Joule heating, contact quality and voltage resolution can obscure the result. The tunnel-diode load-line stability calculation also predicts that an external resistor can make a negative-slope operating point inaccessible in a slow sweep. A jump in terminal readings then need not mean the underlying current-voltage characteristic is discontinuous.

The farad, symbol $\mathrm{F}$, is the SI unit of capacitance:A capacitor of capacitance $1\mathrm{F}$ carries separated electric charge magnitude $1\mathrm{C}$ at terminal electric potential difference $1\mathrm{V}$. A picofarad is $10^{-12}\mathrm{F}$, so the worked parallel-plate capacitor's capacitance $88.54\mathrm{pF}$ is $8.854\times 10^{-11}\mathrm{F}$. ^[ref].

Faraday's ice pail experiment distinguishes redistribution of electric charge by electrostatic induction from transfer of electric charge by contact. Lower a charged body into an initially neutral isolated metal pail: an externally connected electrometer responds even though the body never touches the metal. Withdraw the body without contact and the response disappears. Repeat with conductive contact before withdrawal and a residual response can remain. The striking point is that an exterior response does not establish that the pail has gained net electric charge.

Apparatus and readout. A modern implementation uses two concentric wire-mesh cylinders: a 10 cm diameter, 15 cm high inner pail on insulating rods and a grounded outer shield. Connect the electrometer's signal lead to the inner pail and its reference lead to the shield. Momentarily ground and zero the signal assembly, then isolate it; the shield remains grounded. A charged disk on an insulating handle goes into the lower half without touching. The electrometer measures electric potential difference in volts, with sign determined by the lead connections. It does not directly measure electric charge in coulombs.^[ref]

A charge ledger before contact. To separate exact reasoning from the open apparatus, first idealize the pail as a closed cavity in a conductor with one internal body of total electric charge $q$. Let the isolated metal have total electric charge $Q_0$. The metal's electric field is zero at electrostatic equilibrium.^[ref] A Gaussian surface enclosing the cavity in a conductor but lying wholly in the metal therefore has zero electric flux. Gauss's law and charge conservation giveFor $Q_0=0$ and $q>0$, the inner-wall total is $-q$ and the outer-wall total is $+q$: the metal remains neutral. The exterior electric field can therefore be nonzero without any transfer from the body. The connected electrometer and signal cable belong to the same isolated conducting assembly and share its exterior electric charge. The zero-electric field assertion concerns metal, not the occupied cavity in a conductor.

This ledger fixes totals, not the local surface charge density. Moving an off-center body changes the inner-wall distribution while its integral remains $-q$. With fixed outer geometry, fixed $Q_0+q$ and unchanged exterior sources, Uniqueness of the Dirichlet problem together with the fixed total outer electric charge determines the same exterior solution: the outside cannot reveal the body's position or detailed internal distribution. For example, internal bodies with stipulated electric charges $+2q$ and $-q$ give the same total exterior response as a single body with $+q$. Internal bodies with $+q$ and $-q$ can give a null exterior response while retaining a nonzero internal electric field. This is why a null reading cannot establish an empty cavity in a conductor.

Withdrawal is the control. Record a baseline, insert without contact, withdraw, and check return to baseline. After a fresh zero, repeat with the charged disk touching the inner wall, then withdraw and record the residual response. Finally zero the pail and reinsert the disk without contact to test remaining electric charge. Keep the operator grounded, discharge unwanted handle electric charge, and keep the unused charged disk distant. Dirty supports and humidity promote leakage. These controls separate transfer from electrostatic induction and stray coupling.^[ref]

In the ideal contact test, the internal body is itself an electrical conductor and makes a conducting connection to the wall. After charge relaxation, body and enclosure become a single equipotential; the remaining charge-free void has zero electric field. The body then carries no excess electric charge on surfaces facing that void. Withdrawal without subsequent charging leaves total metal electric charge $Q_0+q$. A coated paddle can retain electric charge on insulating patches, so merely touching it does not guarantee complete transfer. A residual reading establishes some transfer under the controls; the disk retest checks the stronger claim of complete transfer. The ideal argument assumes no leakage and no relevant contact-generated charging.

Grounding changes the ledger. With no exterior sources and zero electric potential at infinity, a closed grounded enclosure has zero exterior electric field, inner-wall electric charge $-q$ and zero outer-wall electric charge.^[ref] Consequently, disconnecting ground before withdrawal retains total metal electric charge $-q$, which moves to the exterior after withdrawal. Keeping ground connected during withdrawal instead restores zero electric charge. A lasting opposite-sign response can therefore arise through grounding without body–wall contact.

For the real open pail, no Gaussian surface lying wholly in metal closes over the mouth. Increasing insertion depth and seeking a stable response tests whether enclosure is a good approximation; mesh openings, rim proximity and nearby objects limit it. In a fixed-geometry approximation, the positive insertion response obeys $\Delta V\simeq q/C_{\mathrm{eff}}$, where $C_{\mathrm{eff}}$ is the effective capacitance of the pail, shield, cable and electrometer input. Changed geometry changes that conversion. Wait for charge relaxation and instrument settling at each step, while keeping the observation short compared with leakage. The experiment probes settled electrostatics; it does not establish shielding against arbitrary changing electromagnetic fields.

For a quasistatic change of capacitance at fixed terminal electric potential difference, the capacitor energy is $U=C{V}^2/2$ and plate electric charge is $Q=CV$. Electrical work supplied to the electric field by the battery is $VdQ$, so mechanical work done on the capacitor is $d{W}_{\mathrm{mech}}=dU-VdQ=-V^{2}dC/2$. Increasing the separation of a parallel-plate capacitor makes $dC<0$: mechanical work is positive even though electrostatic energy decreases, because electrical energy returns to the source. Conversely, when $dC>0$, the battery supplies $V^{2}dC$: half increases capacitor energy and half is available as mechanical work done by the electric field. Differentiating capacitor energy alone at fixed terminal electric potential difference omits this exchange with the battery.

Southern Methodist University's teaching lab, Introduction to the Parallel Plate Capacitor Lab, makes the response tangible with a capacitor assembled from aluminium foil, paper and taped wire contacts. Its instructions specify approximately $10\mathrm{cm}\times 10\mathrm{cm}$ foil rectangles, aligned with the paper completely separating them. A multimeter in capacitance mode supplies the readout; a ruler measures plate dimensions and a micrometer measures specimen thickness. The lab replaces the paper with other sheets, including cardstock, plastic wrap and wax paper. It asks students to keep foil area and alignment consistent, measure thickness at several positions, estimate thickness uncertainty, and wait for the capacitance reading to stabilize. These are published preparation and measurement instructions, not measured results reported here.^[ref]

The inference uses each specimen's own thickness $t$, not just a comparison of raw meter readings. With corrected capacitance $C_s$ and overlapping area $A$, the ideal estimate is ${ϵ}_r=C_{s}t/({ϵ}_{0}A)$. A thicker sheet can give a smaller capacitance despite larger relative permittivity. This is why changing material while letting the plate gap change does not isolate electric susceptibility by itself.

Useful additional controls are to keep leads in the same positions, use capacitance measurement calibration, repeat one sheet after the others to check drift, and repeat the assembly to assess contact reproducibility. An air-gap reference must have known spacers maintaining the same separation; removing a supporting sheet and letting the foil touch is not such a reference. Record the instrument's test frequency and measurement mode when available. A capacitance display alone does not establish negligible dielectric loss or a strictly static permittivity. These are proposed controls extending the published teaching instructions.

Air gaps produce a particularly revealing systematic error. Suppose a uniform sheet of thickness $t$ and relative permittivity ${ϵ}_r$ is separated from the electrodes by air layers of total thickness $g$. Approximate air permittivity by vacuum permittivity, neglect the fringing field of a capacitor and use the same area in each layer. The common normal electric displacement field has magnitude $D=Q/A$, so integrating the electric field through the layers givesIf the analyst inserts the sheet thickness alone into the ideal filled-gap formula, the inferred value isFor the stipulated model ${ϵ}_r=3$ and $g=t/10$, this gives ${\widehat{ϵ}}_r=30/13\simeq 2.308$, not three. These values are calculated examples, not measured sheet properties. If total plate separation $d=t+g$ is used instead, the effective estimate is $(t+g)/(g+t/{ϵ}_r)$; it still mixes the sheet and the air. Thus measuring a thickness accurately cannot compensate for an unrecognized layer.

The fringing field of a capacitor and additive lead capacitance further limit a foil measurement. Keep lateral plate dimensions large relative to separation, and use a guard electrode of a capacitor in a suitable fixture for more demanding work.^[ref] A family of thickness measurements can help distinguish material response from an additive offset, but air gaps can vary with the assembly. A large, repeatable reading supports a capacitance change; extracting a material electric susceptibility requires the geometry, gaps, instrument response and dielectric loss assumptions to survive these checks. No measured relative permittivity is claimed for any of the lab's sheets.

The nonuniform electric field near the edges of finite electrodes, where electric field lines bend away from an ideal uniform or one-dimensional configuration. A parallel-plate capacitor with separation much smaller than its lateral size has nearly uniform interior field, but its edge field contributes a correction to capacitance.

The fringing field of a capacitor is the nonuniform electric field near the edges of its electrical conductors, extending outside the gap. For a parallel-plate capacitor, neglecting it is useful when the gap is much smaller than both plate widths; the approximation $C\simeq ϵA/d$ is less reliable when these lengths become comparable.

Finite plates break the translational symmetry of the infinite-plate model. Each conductor in electrostatic equilibrium is an equipotential, so the electric field must meet a smooth conducting surface normally. Near an edge, the equipotentials curve into the surrounding space and the electric field changes both direction and magnitude. The surface charge density adjusts to enforce the conducting boundary conditions; it is not uniform all the way to a sharp edge. The electrostatic boundary conditions at a conductor explain why zero electric field inside the metal does not imply zero electric field just outside it.

The practical issue is where the nearly uniform region ends. A probe near the centre can support $E\simeq V/d$ while a probe close to an edge detects a lateral component and a different magnitude. A total capacitance reading also includes electric flux outside the simple footprint. The fringing field of a capacitor can therefore matter in permittivity measurements even when a central electric field measurement looks nearly ideal. Keysight's three-electrode fixture diverts the fringe contribution away from the measured response.^[ref]

Consider an ideal uniform graphene sheet connected to an electron reservoir, with an insulated gate. Let $c_g>0$ be geometric capacitance per unit area, $e>0$ the elementary charge, and $V_0$ the neutral-point offset. Neglect temperature, trapped electric charge and spatial inhomogeneity. A change in gate voltage pays for both the electrostatic potential drop, $en/c_g$, and the change in the sheet's Fermi energy, $E_F/e$. Here $E_F$ is measured relative to the band crossing; it is negative for excess electron holes.

Combine this relation with the carrier density in a graphene cone. Write $u=|E_F|/e$, measured in volts, $V=|V_g-V_0|$, and $\alpha =e^3/[\pi (\hslash v_F{)}^2{c}_g]$. ThenThe positive root is unique because $u+\alpha u^2$ is strictly increasing for $u\ge 0$. The often useful geometric approximation $n\simeq c_g(V_g-V_0)/e$ neglects the Fermi energy term. It overestimates $|n|$ in this model, especially near neutrality where relatively few states are available.

For a deliberately chosen model with $c_g=0.010F/{\mathrm{m}}^2$, $v_F=10^{6}m/s$, $V_0=0$ and $V_g=1\mathrm{V}$, the formulas give $E_F\simeq 0.252\mathrm{eV}$ and $n\simeq 4.67\times 10^{12}\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^{-2}$. The purely geometric value would be $6.24\times 10^{12}\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^{-2}$. These are chosen-model predictions, not measurements of the historical devices. Numerical conversion uses the exact Planck constant and elementary charge.^[ref]

A gigaohm seal is the high electrical resistance contact between the glass rim and cell membrane, also called a gigaseal. It suppresses a bypass route around the membrane patch; it does not make the membrane patch itself impermeable. The 1981 methods used pulled, coated and heat-polished pipettes, a chlorided silver electrode and a pressure connection. Clean glass and suction supported tight seals; coating reduced pipette-to-bath capacitance and recording noise, rather than being required for sealing.^[ref]

A conductance-based Hodgkin-Huxley model couples membrane potential to voltage-dependent channel-gating variables. It explains generation of action potentials through regenerative and opposing ionic electric currents, while its parameters and channel assumptions determine its biological domain of validity.

In the classical model, $m$ describes sodium activation, $h$ describes availability against sodium inactivation, and $n$ describes potassium activation. Each follows two-state ion-channel gating, with its own voltage-dependent rates. The available electrical conductances areThe barred quantities are maximum electrical conductances. The factors have the interpretation of independent permissive gates in an ion channel: three activation factors and a distinct inactivation-availability factor for sodium, and four identical activation factors for potassium. Large $h$ means availability; small $h$ means inactivation. These are model assumptions, not a literal structural description of every ion channel. See Gerstner, Kistler, Naud and Paninski, Neuronal Dynamics (2014), §2.2: model definition and stochastic opening.

With inward-positive electric current, a single-compartment form isHere $C$ is membrane capacitance, $I_{\mathrm{ext}}$ is imposed inward electric current, $g_L$ is leak electrical conductance, and each $E$ is a reversal potential. Use consistent units, and either whole-compartment quantities throughout or quantities per membrane area throughout. Opening changes electrical conductance; the reversal potential and present membrane potential determine the associated electric current. Coupling this equation to the voltage-dependent gates makes a generally nonlinear system of ordinary differential equations; a gate's fixed-voltage limit alone does not specify its evolving state during an action potential.

The original quantitative account is ^[ref]. The contrast with the leaky integrate-and-fire model is useful: here an action potential emerges from evolving ionic electric currents, whereas the simpler model records a threshold event and imposes a reset.

Inductance relates electric currents to the magnetic flux linkage they produce. For a single linear coil with fixed geometry and magnetic response, its self-inductance $L$ is the constant inHere $\Lambda$ is magnetic flux linkage from the coil's own electric current $I$. The SI unit of inductance is the henry. Knowing inductance lets us predict the induced electromotive force when electric current changes, and the magnetic energy stored by an inductor. ^[ref].

For example, a coil of self-inductance $0.5\mathrm{H}$ carrying electric current $3\mathrm{A}$ has magnetic flux linkage $1.5\mathrm{Wb}$. If its $100$ turns link the same magnetic flux, each turn has magnetic flux $0.015\mathrm{Wb}$. Keeping the geometry and magnetic response fixed while doubling electric current doubles magnetic flux linkage and quadruples the inductor's magnetic energy.

The comparison with capacitance is useful: a linear capacitor has $Q=CV$ and stores capacitor energy $C{V}^2/2$ in its electric field, whereas a linear inductor has $\Lambda =LI$ and stores magnetic energy $L{I}^2/2$ in its magnetic field. The RLC circuit brings both forms of energy storage together.

For series resistance $R$, inductance $L$ and capacitance $C$, with output measured across the inductor, the $e^{i\omega t}$ transfer function is $H_L=i\omega L/[R+i(\omega L-1/(\omega C))]$. At current resonance ${\omega }_0=1/\sqrt{LC}$ its modulus is ${\omega }_{0}L/R=Q$. Large and oppositely phased inductor and capacitor voltages nearly cancel in the loop sum. This is voltage magnification in a passive circuit, not power gain. The maximum of $|H_L|$ need not occur exactly at the current-resonance frequency.

An ideal operational amplifier with a grounded noninverting input, input resistor $R_i$, and parallel feedback resistor $R_f$ and capacitor $C$ implements a low-pass filter. The virtual short and Kirchhoff's current law give $V_{\mathrm{out}}/V_{\mathrm{in}}=-Z_f/R_i$, where $Z_f=R_f/(1+i\omega R_{f}C)$. The DC gain magnitude is $R_f/R_i$ and the cutoff frequency is $1/(2\pi R_{f}C)$. The capacitance reduces high-frequency feedback electrical impedance, causing the gain magnitude to fall.