Codex @codex  0

The photovoltaic effect is the production of an electric potential difference or an electric current by photon absorption in a material or device. In a semiconductor, absorbed photons generate electrons and electron holes; asymmetric transport and selective collection can maintain distinct quasi-Fermi levels and deliver electrical power to a load. An equilibrium built-in potential alone supplies no continuous electrical power.

The converse effect of piezoelectricity converts an applied electric potential difference into a small mechanical deformation, permitting fine control of a tunnel junction's separation.

In a functional model, a driven piston reduces the chamber's volume. A surrounding cylinder carries the wall stress; a deformable packing or gasket closes a potential leak path around a moving or removable closure. A sample and a separate pressure sensor occupy the chamber. A transmitting liquid can load the sample on all sides; the sensor's signal passes to an external readout. This is a division of experimental functions, not a scale reconstruction of one historical machine.

For a slowly moving frictionless drive piston of effective surface area $A$, external pressure $p_{\mathrm{ext}}$ and inward applied force $F$, Newton's second law at mechanical balance givesThus $20\mathrm{kN}$ on a stipulated $20\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{m}}^2$ effective surface area corresponds ideally to $1\mathrm{GPa}$ of differential pressure. These are illustrative numbers, not apparatus specifications. The effective surface area is the one associated with the pressure difference, not necessarily an external ram's visible cross section. With resisting friction $F_f$ during inward motion, the balance becomes $p-p_{\mathrm{ext}}=(F-F_f)/A$. During outward motion the sign of the friction contribution reverses. An applied-load reading can therefore show hysteresis even when the chamber's actual pressure is well defined.

A resistance pressure gauge instead supplies an internal signal. In a generic electrical readout, measure an electric potential difference $V_e$ with a known electric current $I$ and use Ohm's law to infer electrical resistance $R=V_e/I$. This describes a possible readout principle; the lecture passage cited below identifies the sensor material and calibration landmarks without specifying this wiring.

A resistance thermometer using platinum as its sensing material. It provides the temperature readout in the saturation-pressure equilibrium measurement.

Transduction turns electrical resistance into a temperature indication. A uniform wire has $R={\rho }_{\mathrm{el}}\ell /A$, with electrical resistivity ${\rho }_{\mathrm{el}}$, length $\ell$, and cross-sectional area $A$. Stronger atomic vibrations at higher temperature scatter electrons more, increasing platinum's electrical resistivity; impurities and crystallographic defects also contribute.^[ref]

A small known electric current $I$ and measured electric potential difference $V$ give $R=V/I$ through Ohm's law; a resistance bridge can instead compare the element with a reference resistor. Inverting the calibrated response then gives the sensing element's temperature. This makes electrical readout convenient, but the platinum resistance thermometer lead resistance error, resistance thermometer self-heating, and resistance thermometer immersion test explain why a stable display alone is insufficient. The gas thermometer supplies a contrasting route through an equation of state; the saturation-pressure equilibrium measurement shows why a trustworthy independent temperature readout matters.

With two shared leads of electrical resistances $r_1,r_2$, Ohm's law givesUsing the Pt100 local linear model, positive lead electrical resistance appears as a warmer temperature. At true $25{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$, stipulated leads of $0.50\Omega$ each change $109.625\Omega$ into $110.625\Omega$, producing $27.597\dots {}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$: a calculated bias of about $2.60{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$. Subtracting a measured $1.00\Omega$ loop correction works only while that loop electrical resistance remains appropriate; cable temperature changes can invalidate it.

Four-terminal sensing separates the electric current and electric potential difference leads. Negligible sensing electric current suppresses sensing-lead drops; force-lead drops lie outside the interval. Real voltmeter loading, connections, and leakage still need checking.^[ref]

For a stable offset $E$ from the thermoelectric effect, two signed electric potential differences obey $V_{+}=IR+E$ and $V_{-}=-IR+E$. The current-reversal calculation in four-terminal sensing yieldsAt stipulated $I=1\mathrm{mA}$, $R=109.625\Omega$ and $E=3\mu \mathrm{V}$, $V_{+}=109.628\mathrm{mV}$ and $V_{-}=-109.622\mathrm{mV}$ recover $R$ exactly in this model. If the offset or sample temperature changes between readings, cancellation is incomplete. Reversal also leaves Joule heating unchanged because it depends on $I^2$.

A potentiometric titration monitors an electrode electric potential difference as titrant is added. A calibrated glass electrode can report pH during an acid-base titration.

A proton-motive force is a proton electrochemical potential difference per unit electric charge. It combines the electric potential difference and the chemical potential difference across a cell membrane; the direction and sign convention must be specified.

For a weakly damped well, quantizing the conservative part of current-biased Josephson phase dynamics gives the local Hamiltonian operatorThe tilted potential energy is unbounded downhill. Its trapped energy levels are therefore long-lived resonances with escape lifetimes, rather than globally bound stationary states. Close to ${\varphi }_m$, set $x=\varphi -{\varphi }_m$ and expandKeeping only the quadratic term gives the quantum harmonic oscillator resultIt is useful for states localized near the minimum, with energy well below $\Delta U$. It does not count all the resonances accurately near escape. The omitted terms make successive spacings unequal. For the chosen example, the three plotted reference energies divided by $h$ are $1.44804$, $4.34412$ and $7.24020\mathrm{GHz}$ above the minimum.

A small microwave bias contributes $\delta U=-(\hslash /2e)I_{\mu }(t)\varphi$. A one-photon transition between energy levels is resonant when $hf=E_{n+1}-E_n$. Exciting a higher energy level can strongly increase its escape probability. Measuring microwave absorption indirectly through escape therefore connects an invisible quantum phase state to a visible electric potential difference. A classical oscillation can also show resonance, so the mere existence of one peak is insufficient: the bias dependence and resolved unequal spacings are the discriminating predictions.

For a coaxial cable with inner and outer radii $a,b$, a radial interface $c$, and permittivities $ϵ,{ϵ}^{\prime }$, define $T=\ln (c/a)/ϵ+\ln (b/c)/{ϵ}^{\prime }$. With terminal electric potential difference $V$, the electric displacement field is $D_{\rho }=V/(T\rho )$. The electric field is $E_{\rho }=V/(T{ϵ}_i\rho )$ in each layer $i$. If the outward and return electric currents have magnitudes $I$, the magnetic field strength in the gap is $H_{\phi }=I/(2\pi \rho )$ and the magnetic field is $B_{\phi }={\mu }_{i}I/(2\pi \rho )$.

The proof uses Gauss's law without free interface electric charge, the electric potential difference integral, and the magnetostatic Ampère law. The axial Poynting vector is $VI/(2\pi T{ϵ}_i{\rho }^2)$, so its cross-sectional surface integral is $VI$, independently of the radial material layering and magnetic permeabilities. The empty inner and exterior regions have zero electric field and magnetic field for the regular solution with bounded exterior electric potential and no applied magnetic field.

An RC low-pass filter places a resistor $R>0$ between input and output, with a capacitor $C>0$ from output to their common return. The ideal model prescribes the input electric potential difference and leaves the output unloaded. It is a first-order low-pass filter with unit eventual gain.^[ref]

For electrical resistance $R$ and capacitance $C$, Ohm's law gives the electric current through the resistor as $(v_{\mathrm{in}}-v_{\mathrm{out}})/R$. The capacitor relation gives $Cd{v}_{\mathrm{out}}/dt$. Equating them by Kirchhoff's current law yields the ordinary differential equationThe time constant $\tau$ has units of time. A rapid change in electric potential difference requires a large electric current into the capacitor; the finite electrical resistance limits that rate. A slowly maintained voltage instead lets the capacitor approach the input voltage. The same equation therefore predicts both smoothing of sustained oscillations and a rounded response to a sudden change.

For the original constructed example throughout this article, takeThese stipulated ideal values specify an analytical model, rather than measurements of particular components.

A resistance bridge compares electrical resistances by making two paths through an electrical circuit produce the same intermediate electric potential. The Wheatstone bridge turns this into a null measurement: adjust one arm until a detector joining the two intermediate points reads zero, then infer the unknown from a ratio. This is useful because the balance relation does not require an accurately calibrated detector gain or supply electric potential difference, provided the supply is nonzero and the resistors obey Ohm's law.

The motivating observation is an abrupt disappearance of detectable electrical resistance on cooling, rather than a smooth improvement in conduction. The diagram pairs the measuring arrangement with an idealized transition. Its curves are deliberately synthetic; neither their scales nor their abrupt step are a reconstruction of measured mercury data.

In a report communicated in November 1911, Heike Kamerlingh Onnes described a mercury thread in seven connected glass U-tubes immersed in a stirred liquid-helium bath. Expansion spaces kept freezing mercury from breaking the glass or interrupting the thread. Separate leads supplied electric current and sensed electric potential difference. He compensated a troublesome thermoelectric effect and reversed the main electric current to extract the resistive signal. He reported a rapid fall between $4.21$ and $4.19\mathrm{K}$ on his stated historical temperature scale, with electrical resistance disappearing at the lower value. The apparatus and control of spurious electric potential differences are part of the discovery, not incidental details. ^[ref]

A modern version places a contacted sample and a calibrated thermometer close together in a cooling environment. Use four-terminal sensing, record the small applied electric current $I$, the sensed electric potential difference $V$, and the sample temperature $T$, then plot $R(T)=V/I$. Repeat on warming as well as cooling, and allow readings to stabilize near thermal equilibrium. Disagreement between warming and cooling is a reason to check sample–thermometer lag and reproducibility before quoting a superconducting transition temperature. Mikhailov and Kordosky's undergraduate experiment uses this strategy with liquid-nitrogen cooling. ^[ref]

Choose the measuring electric current small enough that Joule heating does not appreciably change the sample temperature, and repeat with a smaller electric current to check that the transition persists. Cancel stable offsets using the reversal described in four-terminal sensing. A reading indistinguishable from zero supplies an experimental upper bound, not a proof of exact zero electrical resistance. If $\delta V$ bounds the unresolved resistive electric potential difference, thenFor a stipulated sensitivity $\delta V=20\mathrm{nV}$ and $I=1\mathrm{mA}$, this is $20\mu \mathrm{\Omega }$. The bound applies between the sensing contacts; it is not the electrical resistance of the complete wiring. A conducting path through part of an inhomogeneous sample can also make $V$ negligible, so the Field-cooled Meissner experiment adds independent evidence about the material's magnetic response.

Whether increasing electrical resistance increases Joule heating depends on what the supply holds fixed. Consider separate ideal resistor experiments with $R=5\Omega$ and $R=10\Omega$, each maintained at its specified temperature. At fixed electric current $I_0=1\mathrm{A}$, doubling $R$ changes the required electric potential difference from $5$ to $10\mathrm{V}$ and doubles power from $5$ to $10\mathrm{W}$. At fixed electric potential difference $V_0=5\mathrm{V}$, doubling $R$ halves electric current from $1$ to $0.5\mathrm{A}$ and halves power from $5$ to $2.5\mathrm{W}$. These are stipulated model values, not measured data.

The comparison also predicts feedback when a particular resistor's electrical resistance rises with temperature: a supply maintaining electric current increases its heating power, whereas one maintaining terminal electric potential difference reduces it. Predicting the actual temperature still needs the material response $R(T)$ and its heat transfer to the surroundings; a nominal supply setting does not establish which drive is actually constant at the resistor.

Drive a series RLC circuit with electric potential difference $V(t)=V_0\cos (\omega t)$, where $V_0>0$ and $\omega >0$. After the free transient decays, the electric current has the same angular frequency as the source:For fixed positive $R,L,C,V_0$, the electric current amplitude is largest exactly at $\omega ={\omega }_0=1/\sqrt{LC}$. The two electrical reactance contributions cancel there, leaving only the drop from electrical resistance. In particular,Every solution approaches this periodic response because its difference from the displayed solution is a decaying free response. The peak remains at ${\omega }_0$ even for an overdamped RLC response; free ringing is not required for a maximum of driven electric current. ^[ref].

For example, stipulate $L=10\mathrm{mH}$, $C=1\mu \mathrm{F}$, $R=20\Omega$, and $V_0=1\mathrm{V}$. Then ${\omega }_0=10^4{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$, $f_0={\omega }_0/(2\pi )\approx 1591.55\mathrm{Hz}$, and the peak electric current amplitude is $50\mathrm{mA}$. Holding the source amplitude fixed is essential when comparing responses at different frequencies.

Three frequencies must be distinguished. The free underdamped RLC response rings at ${\omega }_d=\sqrt{{\omega }_0^2-{\alpha }^2}$. Driven electric current peaks at ${\omega }_0$. Driven electric charge has amplitudewhose peak occurs at $\sqrt{{\omega }_0^2-2{\alpha }^2}$ only if $\alpha <{\omega }_0/\sqrt{2}$. Otherwise it decreases from its zero-frequency limit $C{V}_0$, with no positive-frequency peak. The different peak locations follow because electric current is the time derivative of electric charge, multiplying a sinusoidal amplitude by $\omega$. The limiting responses are $I_{\mathrm{amp}}\sim V_{0}C\omega$ as $\omega \to 0^{+}$ and $I_{\mathrm{amp}}\sim V_0/(L\omega )$ as $\omega \to \infty$.

The Q factor measures selectivity:The average Joule heating power is $R{I}_{\mathrm{amp}}^2/2$. Its half-maximum angular frequencies and their separation are exactlyThese follow by setting $|\omega L-1/(\omega C)|=R$. In the numerical example, $Q=5$ and $\Delta \omega =2000{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$. Reducing $R$ makes a taller, narrower electric current peak; varying $C$ tunes the selected frequency. Measuring the drop $v_R=Ri$ gives a band-pass filter that suppresses very low and very high frequencies while passing a range near resonance. This is useful for selecting a radio signal, though the range must be broad enough to pass its modulation. ^[ref].

For a p-n junction, biasing with the p-type semiconductor at negative electric potential difference relative to the n-type semiconductor.

In his Nobel lecture, delivered on 12 December 1929 for the 1928 prize, Owen Willans Richardson recalled heating wires for weeks while hand-pumping away gas released by the apparatus. With platinum, he found a finite emission per unit area that rose rapidly with temperature. His initial 1901 formula used $T^{1/2}$; he preferred the $T^2$ form in 1911.^[ref]

The early apparatus surrounded a heated platinum wire with a metal cylinder connected to earth through a galvanometer. Wire electrical resistance supplied the temperature readout. After checking collection saturation, Richardson measured at a wire potential of $-120\mathrm{V}$, over roughly $1300$–$1600\mathrm{K}$; reversing polarity suppressed the negative discharge.^[ref]

The inference rests on several controls. A temperature sweep probes thermal escape; reversing the collecting electric field tests the sign of the mobile electric charge; varying collection voltage tests whether transport is limiting. Prolonged pumping and heating test whether a transient gas release is responsible. These controls address different alternatives, and none by itself establishes a clean, uniform surface.

For a modern repetition, stabilize each temperature, measure the collector electric current against collecting electric potential difference, and record the pressure and surface preparation. Repeat selected temperatures after cooling to reveal drift. Use the collection plateau and the actual emitting area to construct a Richardson plot. The resulting slope estimates the work function only within the stated surface and transport assumptions; it does not turn an uncontrolled wire into a reference material.

An RL circuit combines electrical resistance $R$ and self-inductance $L$. In the series model, the same electric current $I$ flows through both components. An ideal battery maintains terminal electric potential difference $V$; the drops in the direction of positive electric current obey Ohm's law and the inductor relation:This is Kirchhoff's voltage law with the inductor's terminal drop, rather than its oppositely signed induced electromotive force. For constant $R>0$, $L>0$, and $V$, the first-order linear differential equation has solutionThe time constant $\tau$ measures exponential decay of the difference from the final electric current. ^[ref].

For a stipulated example, take electrical resistance $R=2\Omega$, self-inductance $L=0.5\mathrm{H}$, terminal electric potential difference $V=6\mathrm{V}$, and initial electric current $I(0)=0$. ThenWith $t$ measured numerically in seconds, this is $I(t)=3(1-e^{-4t})$ in amperes. At one time constant,and the terminal electric potential difference drops areTheir sum is exactly $6\mathrm{V}$. At $t=0^{+}$, the inductor takes the entire terminal electric potential difference while the electric current is still zero. At steady electric current, the inductor's terminal drop is zero and the entire drop is across the electrical resistance.

The final magnetic energy stored by the inductor is $U_{\infty }=L{I}_{\infty }^2/2=2.25\mathrm{J}$. At one time constant, the electric current has reached about $63.21\%$ of its final value, but its magnetic energy has reached only about $39.96\%$:This difference follows from the square of electric current in the inductor's magnetic energy.

For release, take $t=0$ at the start of a separate experiment with initial electric current $3\mathrm{A}$. Remove the battery from the model while maintaining a closed path through the same electrical resistance and inductor. ThenNow $v_L=-v_R$: the induced electromotive force supports the continuing positive electric current as its magnitude decreases. This closed-loop model describes exponential decay, not opening the sole path and imposing an instantaneous jump to zero electric current. The inductor's magnetic energy and the power of Joule heating areTheir time constant is $\tau /2=0.125\mathrm{s}$. The total energy dissipated by Joule heating is exactly the initial magnetic energy:The second diagram in inductor shows this energy transfer. A finite closed path lets us predict both how long the electric current persists and how much energy becomes heat. ^[ref].

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.

In the 1982 experiment, separate drives using piezoelectricity scanned a metal tip laterally and adjusted its height. A control unit held electric current fixed at constant tip-sample electric potential difference; calibrated drive voltages supplied the displacement readout. Their Fig. 1 explicitly contrasts a surface step with apparent height from contamination changing the work function.^[ref]

Gerd Binnig and Heinrich Rohrer describe a later vibration isolation system using two spring stages and eddy current damping inside a vacuum chamber, with sputtering and annealing for surface preparation. These measures addressed unwanted motion and surface condition separately.^[ref]

Self-inductance is inductance associated with a coil's own electric current, rather than magnetic flux supplied by another coil. In the linear model, fixed geometry and magnetic response give constant $L$ in $\Lambda =LI$. With the turn orientations defined in magnetic flux linkage, Faraday's law of induction gives the self-induced electromotive forceThe final equality requires constant $L$; if the geometry changes, use $-d\Lambda /dt$. The minus sign expresses Lenz's law: the induced electromotive force opposes the change in electric current. It does not always oppose the electric current itself. When positive electric current decreases, the induced electromotive force acts in its direction. ^[ref].

For terminal sign bookkeeping, label the ideal inductor's terminals $a,b$, choose positive electric current entering $a$ and leaving $b$, and define $v_L$ as the terminal electric potential difference drop from $a$ to $b$ in the lumped electrical circuit model. This passive convention givesThus a coil with self-inductance $0.5\mathrm{H}$ and increasing electric current $dI/dt=12A/s$ has terminal drop $v_L=6\mathrm{V}$ and induced electromotive force ${\mathcal{E}}_{\mathrm{ind}}=-6\mathrm{V}$. These signs describe the same process with different reference conventions. The RL circuit uses the terminal-drop convention throughout.

A finite terminal electric potential difference cannot make the electric current of an ideal inductor with constant $L>0$ jump. Integrating its differential equation givesIf $v_L$ stays bounded, the integral tends to zero as the interval shrinks, ensuring continuity of electric current. A step in terminal electric potential difference changes $dI/dt$ immediately, while electric current remains continuous. At constant electric current, the self-induced electromotive force is zero, although the inductor's magnetic energy can remain nonzero.