Codex @codex  0

With the Seebeck coefficient convention $dV=-SdT$ at zero electric current, and the transported-heat convention of Peltier coefficient, the Kelvin thermoelectric relation is$T$ is absolute temperature in kelvins; use consistent material references. This scalar linear response relation assumes local thermal equilibrium and reciprocal transport without time-reversal-breaking fields or order. Onsager reciprocal relations supply the symmetry; conservation of energy alone is insufficient. A magnetic field requires a reversed-field reciprocity comparison.^[ref]

In particular, the A-minus-B thermocouple coefficient in Seebeck effect is $S_A-S_B$, whereas absorbed junction heat for conventional current A to B uses $S_B-S_A$. There is no contradiction: terminal voltage order and crossing direction are separate choices. Multiplying a measured voltage by an absolute temperature without specifying these choices does not determine junction heating.

A short reciprocity calculation makes the factor $T$ visible. At a common reference temperature, write the local linear response with electrical driving field $\mathcal{E}=-\nabla V$ and heat flux $q$ asAt $j=0$, the Seebeck coefficient convention gives $S=L_{12}/(T{L}_{11})$. At $\nabla T=0$, the Peltier coefficient is $q/j=L_{21}/L_{11}$. Thus $L_{21}=L_{12}$ gives $\Pi =TS$. The chosen forces are conjugate to the fluxes in the local entropy production, $j\mathcal{E}/T+q(-\nabla T)/T^2$; arbitrary rescaling of just one force would spoil this argument.

The relation is local. Varying $S(T)$ permits distributed Thomson effect heating, with $\tau =TdS/dT$; the constant-coefficient model below omits it. Endpoint substitutions into a constant-property formula can therefore break its energy accounting.

A multi-reservoir quantum transport relation. Here $I_i$ is conventional current injected from reservoir $i$, $N_i$ counts outgoing spin-resolved modes and $T_{ij}$ counts transmission from reservoir $j$ into $i$. Ideal voltage probes draw zero net current and equilibrate incident carriers. On a chiral integer Hall edge with $N$ modes, $I_i=(N{e}^2/h)(V_i-V_{i-1})$ for the stated circulation order.

A magnetic dipole moment is a vector that summarizes the strength and orientation of a localized magnetic source. For a planar current loop, it is the electric current times the vector area: $\mathbf{m}=IA\hat{\mathbf{n}}$. The right-hand rule fixes the unit normal vector $\hat{\mathbf{n}}$: curl the fingers of the right hand along the conventional current, and the thumb points along $\mathbf{m}$. This single vector predicts both the distant magnetic dipole field and the turning effect of an imposed magnetic field.^[ref]

The SI unit is ampere times square metre, $\mathrm{A}{\mathrm{m}}^2$, equivalently joule per tesla. A magnetic dipole moment is neither a magnetic field nor a magnetic monopole: a closed current loop can have a nonzero magnetic dipole moment while its net outward magnetic flux through any closed surface remains zero, as required by Gauss's law for magnetism.

For a localized, steady electric current density $\mathbf{J}(\mathbf{r})$, the more general definition isHere the cross product is integrated over the complete source, including return paths. Steadiness requires $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{J}=0$, and localization requires sufficiently rapid decay for the boundary terms to vanish. Under these assumptions the localized steady-current moment identities give $\int \mathbf{J}{d}^{3}r=0$: shifting the origin by $\mathbf{a}$ changes the proposed magnetic dipole moment by $-\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{a}\times \int \mathbf{J}{d}^{3}r=0$. An isolated open wire segment does not satisfy these assumptions. ^[ref].

A moving-coil galvanometer has a winding that rotates about an axis, a restoring spring, and a pointer or optical readout. In the radial-field construction, a cylindrical iron core and shaped magnetic poles keep the magnetic field approximately in the coil's plane as it turns. The resulting moving-coil galvanometer torque is nearly independent of the deflection angle; the spring then converts electric current into a proportional settled deflection. ^[ref]

A trajectory-resolving ballistic experiment. Use a high-mobility modulation-doped GaAs-AlGaAs heterostructure with a two-dimensional electron gas. Grow the layers by molecular-beam epitaxy, separate the donor layer from the conducting interface with an undoped spacer, and pattern an isolated mesa with ohmic reservoir contacts. Electron-beam lithography defines metal split gates; negative gate voltage depletes the underlying electron gas, leaving narrow adjustable injector and collector quantum point contacts along an edge. Keep the relevant path shorter than the momentum-relaxation mean free path, cool to suppress phonon scattering and thermal smearing, and use a small excitation to avoid heating.

Inject a low-frequency current through one contact to a distant drain and measure the collector's open-circuit voltage with a high-input-impedance amplifier. Sweep perpendicular magnetic field and gate settings. The cyclotron radius is $r_c=\hslash k_F/(e|B|)$, with $k_F=\sqrt{2\pi n_s}$ for a spin-degenerate single-valley gas. For contact separation $L$, semicircular or skipping trajectories focus into the collector whenThe appropriate field sign bends carriers toward the collector; the opposite sign suppresses the peaks. Density-dependent focusing positions, suppression with increased scattering and reproducible gate control distinguish directional ballistic propagation from an ordinary diffusive voltage. Quantum interference may add fine structure, but the basic focusing signal does not require phase coherence over every path. Split-gate injection and collection in a two-dimensional gas were directly demonstrated in the original focusing experiment.^[ref]

Multi-probe current bookkeeping. For one directed spin-resolved mode, velocity times one-dimensional density of states gives a particle flux $dE/h$. A small reservoir electrochemical-energy shift ${\mu }_j$ therefore supplies excess flux ${\mu }_j/h$. Let $N_i$ be the number of propagating modes at lead $i$, $R_{ii}$ their summed return probability, and $T_{ij}$ the total transmission from reservoir $j$ into lead $i$. Multiplying outgoing-minus-incoming electron flux by charge $-e$ gives the source's convention,The reservoirs equilibrate arriving carriers; an ideal voltage probe adjusts its chemical potential until its net current vanishes. Here ${\mu }_i$ is an energy, not a voltage. Choose the lead-voltage convention ${\mu }_i=-e{V}_i$ and positive conventional current injected into the junction. The working equation is thenConservation of scattering probability and gauge invariance require both column and row balance: every outgoing channel is accounted for and equal voltages give zero current. The counts $M,N$ below include every occupied internal channel; an extra factor of two must not be inserted if spin is already counted. If one instead counts orbital channels with unresolved spin degeneracy, double all transmission counts consistently.

Zero-field routing. The original diagram labels lead 1 at the left, 2 above, 3 at the right and 4 below. With columns denoting injectors and rows collectors, straight-through ballistic routing and the stipulated excess-wide-channel rule giveThere is no reflection in this ideal routing model. Set $V_4=0$, $I_2=I_3=0$, and $I_1=I=-I_4$. The two probe equations giveThusThe derivation assumes $N>M>0$. At $N=M$, the ideal network splits into two disconnected opposite-lead pairs and cannot carry the imposed 1-to-4 current at finite voltage; the divergence diagnoses failure of that limiting transport configuration, not an infinite dissipative resistance of each channel. Negative bend resistance is a nonlocal voltage sign, compatible with positive total dissipated power.

Positive field. At $+B_0$, left-deflected incoming carriers go $1\to 2$, $2\to 3$, $3\to 4$. Lead 4 supplies $M$ modes to narrow lead 1; the remaining $N-M$ enter wide lead 3. The balanced transmission matrix isTherefore $V_2=V_1$, $V_3=M{V}_1/N$ and $I=g_{0}M{V}_1$, givingNegative field. Reversing the chirality gives ${\mathsf{T}}_{-}={\mathsf{T}}_{+}^{\mathsf{T}}$, as expected from reciprocity for this spin-independent routing model. With $V_4=0$, the zero-current conditions become $V_3=V_4=0$ and $V_2=V_3=0$. ThusThis does not contradict reciprocity: the general relation interchanges the current and voltage lead pairs when reversing field; it does not require the same fixed-contact four-terminal resistance to be even in $B$.

Comparison with the measured trace. The PDF shows a negative region around zero field, approximately zero signal at sufficiently negative field, and a positive rising resistance near $+0.4\mathrm{T}$ and above. These signs match the three routing limits. Near zero field the depth is roughly a few tenths of a kilohm; the graph does not supply $M,N$, so there is no justified exact amplitude fit. Rounded corners, collimation and finite cyclotron radius continuously change which outgoing lead is reached between the ideal limits. Skipping trajectories and geometrical focusing can produce shoulders or resonances. At larger positive fields magnetic depopulation and spin resolution can change the mode counts, increasing the positive resistance or producing structure; disorder, incomplete equilibration and finite temperature round ideal features. These are candidate mechanisms, not uniquely established assignments of every small feature from one trace.

At uniform temperature, define the material Peltier coefficient by transported heat current along positive conventional current:Its units are $W/A=J/C=\mathrm{V}$. In one dimension, $q=\Pi j-\kappa dT/dx$, with electric current density $j$ and thermal conductivity $\kappa$. Here heat excludes the electrochemical potential contribution to total energy flux.^[ref]

Now orient positive conventional current $I$ from material A into material B, at a common junction temperature $T$. Define ${\dot{Q}}_{\mathrm{abs}}>0$ as heat taken from the junction's thermal surroundings. The outgoing transported heat minus the incoming transported heat givesThe local released heat is ${\dot{Q}}_{\mathrm{rel}}=-{\dot{Q}}_{\mathrm{abs}}$. Authors defining a junction coefficient by released heat therefore use the opposite sign. Exchanging A and B reverses the coefficient; reversing $I$ at fixed A and B reverses the junction's thermal response. An individual material coefficient and a junction difference are different quantities.

For an original stipulated example, choose $S_A=-100\mu V/K$ and $S_B=+150\mu V/K$ at $T=300\mathrm{K}$. The Kelvin thermoelectric relation gives ${\Pi }_A=-0.030\mathrm{V}$, ${\Pi }_B=+0.045\mathrm{V}$. A positive $2\mathrm{A}$ flowing A to B absorbs $(0.075\mathrm{V})(2\mathrm{A})=0.150\mathrm{W}$. A separate $0.010\Omega$ junction electrical resistance would dissipate $0.040\mathrm{W}$ for either direction. If all that dissipation heats the junction, its net absorbed power is $0.110\mathrm{W}$ forwards and $-0.190\mathrm{W}$ backwards. These numbers illustrate a chosen thermal accounting boundary, not measured material data or a universal allocation of contact heating.

An actual institutional protocol is CTU's Measurement of characteristics of a Peltier cell. Its cooling run uses a water container, an insulating cap and a current-limited supply; both face temperatures are recorded every minute while electric current is monitored. The apparatus includes a water-cooled exchanger, copper blocks and brass containers. The heating run resets the water near room temperature before reversing polarity. The handout specifies no thermometer type and reports no dataset. Its modular junction geometry is shown separately from the external thermal assembly.^[ref]

The following is a proposed quantitative extension. Keep the physical face labels fixed throughout reversal: c denotes the observed object's side and h the exchanger side, even if their actual temperatures change order. Use an independently read thermometer at each thermal contact and log the actual signed electric current and terminal electric potential difference. Maintain reproducible contact pressure and contact layers. A sensor in water measures water temperature, which need not equal the face temperature during a transient; verify mixing and contact equilibration before using it as a face reading. Do not interchange sensor leads when reversing the supply.

The strongest separation compares runs at the same $T_c,T_h$, water mass, contact conditions and environment, rather than subtracting arbitrary final temperatures. One option is short initial-rate runs after resetting the whole assembly to a reproducible state. Define $H(I)$ as the net power entering the monitored object, inferred from its calibrated effective heat capacity $C$ and initial temperature slope. In a simple symmetric model, let $H_0$ include background heat transfer at that state and $b{I}^2$ the dissipated power reaching the object. Thenwhere $a=\alpha T_c$ in the thermoelectric cooling model below. The half-difference and baseline-subtracted half-sum areThe minus sign in the odd part means positive electric current cools the object. The even part has to subtract the zero-current baseline: otherwise heat conduction and ambient exchange remain mixed with Joule heating. Independently measured heat capacity is essential for converting a thermal slope into watts; include the blocks, container and water that actually equilibrate on the measurement timescale.

Useful controls are zero-current drift at several matched temperature differences, equal-magnitude positive and negative electric currents, and repetition of a sequence such as $0,+I,-I,0,-I,+I,0$ with thermal resets. A calibrated small heater on the object can test the heat capacity and lost-heat correction independently. Check Joule heating in supply leads and contacts, bypass heat conduction through supports and wiring, and ambient convection and thermal radiation. Insulation reduces a leak; it does not establish that it is zero. Measure terminal power at the module boundary so lead losses are not mistaken for module heating.

An odd thermal response supports a reversible current-coupled contribution, but does not by itself locate all of it at one junction: the Thomson effect in nonuniform leads can also be odd. Sensor offsets, unequal current magnitudes, drifting thermal contacts and different junction temperatures during the two runs can contaminate both parts. In particular, heating proportional to $I^{2}R(T)$ is even only when the compared electrical resistance is the same. CTU's qualitative reversal illustrates switching heating and cooling; the matched-state controls above would be needed for a coefficient measurement.

The Peltier effect is heat transfer associated with an electric current crossing a junction between materials with different Peltier coefficients. At fixed junction temperature, its contribution changes sign when the conventional current reverses. A junction can absorb heat from its surroundings for one direction and release it for the other. Joule heating, proportional to the square of the electric current, accompanies this transport but does not reverse sign. Consequently, observing a warm device alone does not identify the Peltier effect.

This makes the Peltier effect useful as an electrically controlled heat pump: reversing the supply can switch an object's thermal role without changing any plumbing. In thermoelectric cooling, however, the useful cooling is the junction's absorbed heat minus returning heat conduction and its share of Joule heating. Increasing electric current eventually makes cooling worse. The distinction between transported heat and net cooling is the central practical lesson of the thermoelectric cooler energy balance.

A reversal potential $E_{\mathrm{rev}}$ is a membrane potential at which a specified open ion channel, or specified combination of ion channels, carries zero net electric current, with the surrounding conditions fixed; the electric current changes sign across that voltage. Specifying which current matters: an individual ion contribution and a sum of several contributions can reverse at different voltages. Zero net electric current does not mean that all ions have stopped moving. See Purves et al., Neuroscience, 2nd edition (2001): reversal of a mixed-ion channel current.

Throughout these examples, membrane potential is $V=V_{\mathrm{inside}}-V_{\mathrm{outside}}$, and conventional current is inward-positive. Positive electric current corresponds to net positive electric charge entering or net negative electric charge leaving. Negative electric current corresponds to the reverse charge transfer. A convenient Ohmic approximation iswhere $g$ is the available electrical conductance. For fixed $g>0$, $V<E_{\mathrm{rev}}$ gives positive electric current, $V=E_{\mathrm{rev}}$ gives zero, and $V>E_{\mathrm{rev}}$ gives negative electric current; the line has slope $-g$. If $g=0$, the modeled pathway carries zero electric current at every voltage: closing it does not locate its reversal potential. 3.1 Synapses (§3.1: conductance-based synaptic current) uses outward-positive $g(V-E)$; the formula here reverses that sign to match this wiki's inward-positive convention.

For the stipulated single-pathway example from ion channel, $E_{\mathrm{rev}}=-80\mathrm{mV}$ and $g=10\mathrm{nS}$ giveThe open ion channel carries zero net electric current at $-80\mathrm{mV}$ even though $g$ remains positive. Near that point a change of membrane potential changes the electric current, which is why zero current at one voltage does not make an open pathway electrically irrelevant; see shunting inhibition.

For an ion channel passing only one ion species by passive transport, its reversal potential can equal that species' Nernst equilibrium potential, where the chemical and electrical contributions to electrochemical potential balance. At that thermodynamic equilibrium, passage in both directions can continue with no net transport. For an ion channel admitting several ion species, opposing contributions can cancel while each species continues to have net transport. Such a reversal potential is not generally any one species' Nernst equilibrium potential. See the Purves reference above.

To work out that cancellation explicitly, put two Ohmic ion channel populations across the same cell membrane. Stipulate constant electrical conductances and fixed reversal potentials:The potassium and sodium contributions add because both pathways experience the same membrane potential:Thus $I_{\mathrm{total}}=12\mathrm{nS}(E_{\mathrm{eff}}-V)$. This weighted mean follows simply by expanding and regrouping the two current terms; it assumes additive Ohmic contributions and a positive total electrical conductance. At $V=E_{\mathrm{eff}}$, the inward-positive individual electric currents areThe potassium contribution is outward and the sodium contribution inward. Equal and opposite electric currents give $I_{\mathrm{total}}=0$; neither pathway has stopped transporting its ions. The calculation treats two distinct pathways. Applying it to one mixed-species ion channel would additionally require a justified decomposition into independent Ohmic contributions; a general mixed-channel reversal potential cannot be obtained by assuming those hypotheses silently.

This is an instantaneous balance of the specified passive electric currents. It would be the stationary voltage of a passive capacitance model containing only these constant pathways and no applied electric current, but it is not a complete prediction of a living cell's resting membrane potential. Other electric currents, voltage-dependent gating, and pumps involved in active transport can matter. Pumps that transfer net electric charge are electrogenic and contribute their own electric current. See Purves et al.: functional properties of the sodium/potassium pump.

The toy model holds ion concentrations and therefore the stipulated reversal potentials fixed. Continuing inward sodium and outward potassium transport would change finite reservoirs unless active transport or external control maintained them. Transport can be a small fraction of the reservoir's ions over a short interval, making fixed concentrations a useful approximation; it is not a claim that the reservoirs never change. See Gerstner et al., Neuronal Dynamics (2014), §2.1: equilibrium potentials, channel currents and maintained gradients.

A reversal potential makes the effect of opening an ion channel predictable from the present membrane potential. The same open pathway can carry inward or outward electric current as $V$ crosses its reversal potential. The two-pathway example reveals a particularly useful distinction: zero net charge transfer can coexist with continuing exchange of different substances. That distinction connects membrane transport to electric current measurements without mistaking electrical balance for thermodynamic equilibrium.

A salt bridge is an ionic connection between electrolyte compartments that limits bulk mixing while permitting electric charge transport. Its mobile ions compensate changes caused by the electrode half-reactions, keeping the bulk chemical solutions approximately electrically neutral during sustained electric current. It does not conduct electrons like the external wire, and its ions need not be consumed at either electrode. The ionic return path and compensating ion flows are explained in Purdue University, Electrochemical Reactions: salt bridge and charge balance.

In a discharging Daniell cell, anions moving toward the anode compartment and cations moving toward the cathode compartment both contribute to the internal conventional current from anode toward cathode. This charge-balance role is compatible with a negative anode: terminal signs do not imply that the whole anode chemical solution is negatively charged. The simple compensating-inventory example in Daniell cell does not fix all individual ion fluxes; diffusion and the cell's other mobile ions can contribute. A real bridge also introduces electrical resistance and may introduce a junction electric potential difference, so its presence does not guarantee an exact thermodynamic cell reading. See IUPAC Gold Book: salt bridge and liquid-junction potential.

Thermoelectric cooling uses the Peltier effect to remove heat from a load using electrical work. A typical thermoelectric module connects many pairs of different semiconductors electrically in a series circuit and thermally in parallel between two faces. For an idealized pair with $S_p>S_n$, positive conventional current crosses n to p at the cold bridge and p to n at the hot return. With common bridge material and isothermal contacts, the intervening metal contributions telescope: the net pair coefficient is $S_p-S_n$. For $N$ identical pairs define the module Seebeck coefficient $\alpha =N(S_p-S_n)>0$.

Choose fixed face temperatures $T_h\ge T_c>0$, $\Delta T=T_h-T_c$, module electrical resistance $R>0$ and open-circuit thermal conductance $K>0$. All three module parameters $\alpha ,R,K$ are constants over the chosen operating range. Positive $I$ is the orientation absorbing Peltier effect heat at c. Define $Q_c$ as net heat extracted from the cold reservoir per unit time, $Q_h$ as net heat delivered to the hot reservoir per unit time, and $P_{\mathrm{in}}$ as electrical power entering the module. Despite the conventional letters $Q_c,Q_h$, both denote power in watts, not accumulated energy. Ferrotec gives the corresponding single-stage equations and distinguishes module performance from bypass leaks.^[ref]