Codex @codex  0

A series circuit connects components along one unbranched path, so any electric current through the connected components is the same. Oriented terminal electric potential differences add along that path. In an open-circuit measurement, negligible electric current permits the electromotive forces of serially connected sources to add without appreciable internal electrical resistance drops.

Consider a stipulated series circuit containing an ideal resistor of electrical resistance $R=100\Omega$ and an ideal capacitor of capacitance $C=1\mu \mathrm{F}$. The same electric current passes through both. Their terminal electric potential differences add by Kirchhoff's voltage law, soA quick derivation uses $i=Cd{v}_C/dt$: taking the derivative of the complex exponential multiplies the capacitor voltage phasor by $\mathrm{i}\omega$, hence ${\hat{V}}_C=\hat{I}/(\mathrm{i}\omega C)$. Dimensionally, $1/(\omega C)$ has units $s/F=V/A=\Omega$, matching $R$.

At frequency $f=1000\mathrm{Hz}$, the angular frequency is $\omega =2\pi f$. The signed capacitive electrical reactance, modulus and complex argument of the total electrical impedance areApply $V_{\mathrm{rms}}=1.00\mathrm{V}$ across the complete series circuit. Its root mean square electric current isWith voltage as the zero-phase reference, the current phasor has complex argument $+57.858092^{\circ }$: electric current leads. The phasor drops have moduli $V_{R,\mathrm{rms}}=0.532018\mathrm{V}$ and $V_{C,\mathrm{rms}}=0.846733\mathrm{V}$; these add as complex numbers, not as positive magnitudes. Their squared magnitudes sum to $(1.00\mathrm{V}{)}^2$.

The mean absorbed power uses the root mean square values:The ideal capacitor has zero cycle-averaged absorbed power; all the mean absorbed power becomes Joule heating in the resistor.^[ref] To see why the phase factor appears, average $p(t)=v(t)i(t)$ over a full cycle with $v(t)=\sqrt{2}{V}_{\mathrm{rms}}\cos \omega t$ and $i(t)=\sqrt{2}{I}_{\mathrm{rms}}\cos (\omega t-\varphi )$. The cosine addition formula reduces the average to $V_{\mathrm{rms}}{I}_{\mathrm{rms}}\cos \varphi$; the term at $2\omega$ averages to zero. Independently, $p_C=d(C{v}_C^2/2)/dt$, and the capacitor energy returns to its starting value after each cycle.

At fixed applied $V_{\mathrm{rms}}$, the limit $\omega \to 0^{+}$ gives $|Z|\to \infty$, $\varphi \to -\pi /2$ and $I_{\mathrm{rms}}\to 0$: the ideal capacitor blocks steady electric current. The limit $\omega \to \infty$ gives $Z\to R$, $\varphi \to 0$ and $I_{\mathrm{rms}}\to V_{\mathrm{rms}}/R$. These are limits of the ideal lumped electrical circuit; unwanted lead inductance and component losses can invalidate that model at high frequency. At $\omega RC=1$, the equal legs of the impedance right triangle give $|Z|=\sqrt{2}R$ and $\varphi =-\pi /4$ without numerical evaluation. Measuring both the magnitude and the sign of the phase difference distinguishes this capacitor response from an equally large positive electrical reactance.

In a series RLC circuit, the same electric current $i=q^{\prime }$ flows through the resistor with electrical resistance $R$, the inductor, and the capacitor. Choose $q$ as the signed electric charge on the capacitor plate into which positive $i$ flows. With terminal drops measured in that direction, Kirchhoff's voltage law givesHere $V(t)$ is the applied electric potential difference; assume constant $L>0$, $C>0$, and $R>0$. With the applied source set to zero and the loop kept closed, the free response satisfiesThe angular frequency ${\omega }_0$ is the value for lossless free oscillation; $\alpha$ is the decay parameter. The three possibilities are underdamped RLC response for $\alpha <{\omega }_0$, critically damped RLC response for $\alpha ={\omega }_0$, and overdamped RLC response for $\alpha >{\omega }_0$. ^[ref].

For a fair comparison, start each circuit with the same electric charge $q(0)=q_0$ and zero electric current $q^{\prime }(0)=0$. Set $\tau ={\omega }_{0}t$ and $a=\alpha /{\omega }_0$; then $x=q/q_0$ obeys $d^{2}x/d{\tau }^2+2adx/d\tau +x=0$. The plot compares $a=0.5,1,2$. These dimensionless curves apply to any $L,C$ after rescaling time and electric charge.

The stored energy is the sum of magnetic energy and capacitor energy:Differentiating and using the circuit equation gives the complete power balance,In the free response, $E^{\prime }=-R{i}^2\le 0$: Joule heating accounts exactly for the lost energy. For the plotted initial conditions, $E(0)=q_0^2/(2C)$ and $E/E(0)=x^2+(dx/d\tau {)}^2$. Since every free solution tends to zero for $R>0$,In the lossless limit $R=0$, energy stays constant and shuttles between the capacitor and inductor. Thus an oscillation of electric charge and a decrease of total energy are compatible statements.

The analogy with a damped harmonic oscillator is exact within these ideal models: electric charge corresponds to displacement, electric current to velocity, inductance to mass, $1/C$ to spring constant, and $R$ to the coefficient of a resisting force proportional to velocity. The two stored energy terms play the roles of kinetic energy and elastic potential energy. ^[ref].

Differentiating the driven equation also gives $L{i}^{\prime \prime }+R{i}^{\prime }+i/C=V^{\prime }$. When using this equation to solve for electric current, retain the original constraint $L{i}^{\prime }(0)+Ri(0)+q(0)/C=V(0)$: the initial electric charge fixes the initial rate of change of electric current.

For a p-n junction at fixed temperature, the Shockley diode equation models its electric current asHere $I_S>0$ is the diode saturation current, $n>0$ the diode ideality factor, $V_T$ the thermal voltage, $k_B$ the Boltzmann constant, and $q>0$ the elementary charge.^[ref]

For an original model example, choose $I_S=1\mathrm{nA}$, $n=2$, and $T=300\mathrm{K}$. Using $k_B=1.380649\times 10^{-23}J/K$ and $q=1.602176634\times 10^{-19}\mathrm{C}$ gives $V_T=25.8520\mathrm{mV}$. Then $V_D=0.600\mathrm{V}$ gives $I_D=0.109591\mathrm{mA}$, whereas $V_D=0.800\mathrm{V}$ gives $I_D=5.24450\mathrm{mA}$. These are predictions of the declared model. There is no universal turn-on electric potential difference: solving the Shockley diode equation for the value needed at a chosen electric current givesAt $I_D\gg I_S$, increasing $V_D$ by $0.100\mathrm{V}$ multiplies the electric current by approximately $e^{0.100/(n{V}_T)}=6.91772$. At $V_D=-0.300\mathrm{V}$ the same model gives $I_D=-0.996979\mathrm{nA}$. Its reverse branch approaches $-I_S$; it cannot describe diode reverse breakdown.

A constructed extension adds internal series electrical resistance $R_s$ to a junction whose electric potential difference is $V_j$. Applying the Kirchhoff cycle law givesFor $R_s=20\Omega$ and the same $I_S,n,T$, sustaining $I_D=5.24450\mathrm{mA}$ needs $V_D=0.904890\mathrm{V}$: $0.800\mathrm{V}$ across the junction plus $0.104890\mathrm{V}$ across its internal electrical resistance. The derivativeshows why the current-voltage characteristic becomes nearly a straight line when the internal series electrical resistance dominates. This is still a fixed-temperature model; self-heating can change $I_S$, $n$ and $V_T$. Real diodes also have leakage and charge-storage effects omitted here.^[ref]

The Shockley-Queisser limit is the radiative conversion-efficiency bound for an ideal single-junction solar cell, with one collected electron-electron hole pair per absorbed above-gap photon, carrier thermalization, and radiative recombination required by the reverse optical process. Photons below the band gap are not absorbed, while excess photon energy above it is thermalized. Maximizing the electrical power over the operating electric potential difference and then the band gap gives a ceiling of roughly thirty percent for ordinary unconcentrated sunlight; its precise value depends on the incident spectrum, cell temperature and emission geometry. The original calculation by William Shockley and Hans-Joachim Queisser obtained approximately $30\%$ at $1.1\mathrm{eV}$ for a $6000\mathrm{K}$ blackbody source and a cell at $300\mathrm{K}$.^[ref]

An ideal short circuit fixes zero electric potential difference across a terminal pair, corresponding to zero load electrical impedance. At the end of a lossless transmission line, its voltage-wave reflection coefficient is $-1$ and the terminal voltage is zero. The available current is still limited by source and circuit impedances; real short circuits can dissipate substantial Joule heating.

A signal is a function or sequence representing a quantity that carries information. An electric potential difference measured over time can be written $x(t)$; regularly recorded values give a discrete-time signal $x[n]$. The meaning includes the measured quantity, units, time reference and sampling interval. The same list of numbers sampled once per second or once per millisecond describes different physical frequencies.

A signal-to-noise ratio compares a chosen measure of a signal with the corresponding noise measure. For a constant measured electric potential difference $V$ and a root mean square noise voltage $v_n$, an amplitude ratio is $|V|/v_n$; the corresponding power ratio under equal electrical resistance is its square. State the convention and measurement signal bandwidth, since changing either changes the numerical ratio.

PHYWE's documented experiment uses a one-metre slide wire, a connection box, an unknown resistor, a known comparison resistor, a supply, and a digital multimeter in steady-current mA mode as the null detector. Its two yellow detector leads join the fixed-resistor junction and the slider. Move the slider until the indicated electric current vanishes; read the two wire lengths on the ruler and infer the unknown electrical resistance from their ratio. The guide advises changing the comparison resistor if no null is reachable or the slider lies near an end.^[ref]

The inference requires uniform electrical resistivity and wire cross-sectional area, so the two wire electrical resistances have the ratio of their lengths, by $R={\rho }_{\mathrm{el}}L/A$. Retaining PHYWE's labeling, its equation (6) is $R_x=R_C{\ell }_1/{\ell }_2$, where $R_C$ is the comparison electrical resistance. This is a different arm placement from our schematic. The guide's example table reports larger discrepancies near wire ends.^[ref]

Useful additional controls distinguish a true null measurement from an insensitive or disconnected detector. Check the detector zero with the supply off, then move the adjustable arm slightly to either side of the candidate balance and verify opposite detector signs. Reconnect the unknown with short, secure leads and repeat the balance. Any lead or contact electrical resistance included in that arm contributes to the inferred value, even though a detector lead carries no electric current at exact balance. For very small unknown electrical resistances, four-terminal sensing addresses this separate connection problem; a detector null alone does not remove it.

Check for Joule heating by repeating at lower supply electric potential difference and with shorter powered intervals, holding ambient temperature fixed. At balance the unknown still dissipates powerHalving $V_s$ quarters this power while halving ideal detector sensitivity. A balance that moves with excitation or elapsed time suggests changing electrical resistance, including self-heating; it is not explained by passive detector loading alone. These are proposed controls, not claimed outcomes of PHYWE's experiment. Standard-resistor accuracy, wire uniformity, contact reproducibility and finite detector resolution still limit the electrical measurement. Large electrical resistances also make unwanted leakage paths consequential.

A first-order Taylor expansion of an electrical circuit's response about an operating point. It describes small changes in electric potential difference and electric current; the neglected higher-order terms limit the useful signal range.

A solar cell converts incident light into electrical power through the photovoltaic effect. A semiconductor p-n junction separates and collects photogenerated electrons and electron holes. An ideal illuminated junction has output current densityHere $J_{\mathrm{sc}}$ is the short-circuit current density, $J_0$ is the diode saturation current, and $V_{\mathrm{oc}}$ is the open-circuit electric potential difference. The conversion efficiency is the largest delivered $VJ$ divided by the incident power per unit area; the short-circuit and open-circuit operating points themselves deliver zero power.

The solar-cell fill factor compares the maximum delivered electrical power with the rectangle formed by the open-circuit electric potential difference and short-circuit electric current. It measures the shape of the illuminated current-voltage characteristic. The conversion efficiency is $\eta =V_{\mathrm{oc}}{I}_{\mathrm{sc}}\mathrm{FF}/P_{\mathrm{in}}$.

A space-charge-limited thermionic current occurs when the negative space charge of emitted electrons creates an electric field that obstructs further transport across the gap. Raising the emitter temperature may then increase the surface supply without producing the corresponding collector electric current. The gap geometry and collecting electric potential difference matter even when the surface is stable.

To distinguish this from an emission-limited thermionic current, vary the collecting electric potential difference at fixed emitter temperature, then repeat at another temperature. A voltage-dependent transport region followed by a collection plateau separates a gap constraint from a supply constraint. A weak collector electric current alone cannot establish a high work function. Nor does simply choosing a very large collecting electric potential difference guarantee a valid zero-field measurement: the surface barrier may then change.

A spark gap separates two electrodes; sufficient electric potential difference can cause an electrical discharge through the intervening gas.

In 1913 Johannes Stark reported that an applied electric field resolved the hydrogen $H_{\beta }$ and $H_{\gamma }$ spectral lines into five components at his instrument's spectral resolving power, viewed perpendicular to the electric field. Three inner components had polarization of an electromagnetic wave perpendicular to the electric field; two outer components had it parallel.^[ref]

In his lecture of 3 June 1920 for the 1919 prize, Johannes Stark describes canal rays emerging through a perforated cathode into the electric field between it and a supplementary electrode. A spectrograph recorded the emitted light. His earlier Doppler effect comparison used a collimator perpendicular to the beam and then along approaching rays. Later beam/electric field reversal changed component intensities.^[ref]

The historical account distinguishes observation perpendicular to the electric field, with five resolved components, from observation parallel to it, with three. These are viewing directions, distinct from the direction of the polarization of an electromagnetic wave.^[ref]

The experimental distinctions matter. Changing the viewing direction tests a Doppler effect contribution; changing the applied electric field tests the Stark effect; analyzing polarization of an electromagnetic wave separates components that may overlap in an unpolarized record. A comparison with the unperturbed spectral line fixes the origin of a displacement. These are different controls, and the earlier Doppler effect comparison should not be described as a field-off control of the later discovery. A spectrograph's finite spectral resolving power can merge several components into one. In particular, a count of visible spectral lines does not by itself count all energy eigenstates.

For a modern idealization of the gap, an electric potential difference $\Delta V$ over separation $d$ gives $|\mathcal{E}|\simeq |\Delta V|/d$ only if edge effects and the charge density in the gas are negligible. This is a calibration model, not a historical value assigned to Stark's apparatus. Similarly, a canal ray beam need not be a pure beam of neutral excited hydrogen atoms; the quantum mechanics model below isolates one neutral hydrogen atom from the source's preparation and collision processes.

A stopping potential $V_s\ge 0$ is the magnitude of the retarding electric potential difference just sufficient to stop collection of even the fastest relevant electrons in an ideal collection geometry. Since the electron's electric charge is $-e$, the positive energy barrier is $e{V}_s$. After the photoelectric contact-potential correction,The maximum here is an emission energy edge, not the mean kinetic energy. In an ideal planar retarding geometry, transmission instead selects the component normal to the plates; identifying its endpoint with the full edge requires collection of trajectories that attain that edge in the relevant direction.

To make a complete illustrative curve, choose a uniform distribution of outward normal kinetic energy $K_{\perp }$ on $0\le K_{\perp }\le K_{\max }$, complete collection at zero barrier, and zero background. This is a deliberately chosen distribution, not a prediction of the Einstein photoelectric equation. For an effective retarding barrier $e{V}_r$, the collected fraction isIntegrating that uniform probability density above $e{V}_r$ proves the middle line. Thus $I(V_r)=I_{\mathrm{sat}}F(V_r)$ has a common endpoint when incident light intensity changes, even though its vertical scale changes. Real emission distributions need not give straight segments.

The magnetic energy stored in a linear solenoid of constant self-inductance $L$ isin the long-solenoid approximation. The first formula is an inductor relation; the second identifies its storage with magnetic energy in the interior magnetic field, under the vacuum-core approximation. This agreement joins the electrical circuit description to the spatial magnetic field description. The expression $B^2/(2{\mu }_0)$ is the vacuum magnetic energy density. ^[ref].

A short derivation starts from the terminal electric potential difference $v_L=LdI/dt$, with positive electric current entering the terminal at higher potential. The absorbed power is $v_{L}I$, and integrating from zero electric current givesThe result describes recoverable storage in the inductor; Joule heating in the wire is a separate expenditure of energy. ^[ref].

For the long-coil example, $L\approx 4.9348\mathrm{mH}$ and $I=0.50\mathrm{A}$ give $U\approx 6.1685\times 10^{-4}\mathrm{J}=0.61685\mathrm{mJ}$. Substituting the ideal $B\approx 1.256637\mathrm{mT}$ and volume $A\ell \approx 9.8175\times 10^{-4}{\mathrm{m}}^3$ into $B^{2}A\ell /(2{\mu }_0)$ gives the same value. Doubling electric current quadruples stored magnetic energy. In a real coil, reducing electric current can return this energy to an electrical circuit, or release it as Joule heating in a closed RL circuit.

Superconductivity is a phase of matter that supports steady electric current with zero bulk electrical resistivity and exhibits the Meissner effect: equilibrium screening of a sufficiently weak, static magnetic field from the interior. It occurs below a material-dependent superconducting transition temperature, provided the electric current and applied magnetic field are also sufficiently small. ^[ref] Bulk expulsion means that a sample much thicker than its London penetration depth has an almost field-free interior; the magnetic field need not vanish at its surface. Conventional BCS theory explains superconductivity through correlated electrons forming Cooper pairs. ^[ref]

The two observations answer different questions. A resistance-versus-temperature experiment for superconductivity asks whether a steady electric current requires a measurable electric potential difference. A Field-cooled Meissner experiment asks whether a magnetic field already present in the material is expelled when it enters superconductivity. An ideal perfect conductor with zero electrical resistivity can preserve that pre-existing magnetic field; zero electrical resistance alone therefore does not establish the Meissner effect.

The usefulness follows directly from Joule heating, $P=I^{2}R$: maintaining a steady electric current through a segment with zero electrical resistance produces no resistive heating in that segment. This makes persistent electric currents attractive for producing steady magnetic fields. The beauty is that one phase has both a transport property and an equilibrium magnetic response, and the second cannot be inferred just by making an ordinary electrical resistance very small. The London equations encode this extra magnetic response. ^[ref]

A switching-current distribution of a Josephson junction records the bias electric current at the first detected transition to a sustained nonzero electric potential difference. Interpret it using a stipulated monotone ramp $dI/dt=r>0$, a reproducible initial trapped state, and an instantaneous escape hazard function $\Gamma (I)$. Neglect retrapping and readout delay. The survival function $S$ obeys $dS/dt=-\Gamma S$, so changing variable from time to electric current givesHere $p$ is a probability density function per unit electric current, not a rate per unit time. Division by the surviving population is essential: only trials still trapped can escape. A typical switching current is consequently not identical to the noiseless superconducting critical current.

For an independent illustrative check, choose constant ${\Gamma }_0=1000{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$ and $r=1\mu \mathrm{A}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$. ThenHalf the trials have switched after $\ln 2/{\Gamma }_0=0.693147\mathrm{ms}$, corresponding to $0.693147\mathrm{nA}$ of ramp. Doubling $r$ doubles the mean increment without changing the underlying escape rate. Real junction rates vary sharply with bias; this example isolates the statistical conversion.

Repeating the preparation, measuring the ramp, resolving the voltage onset, and allowing cooling after each dissipative event are prerequisites for this interpretation. Missed events, finite detection delay, changing temperature and retrapping alter the measured distribution. Even a correctly reconstructed rate needs the independent thermal and spectral checks before identifying its escape mechanism.

Synaptic integration is the conversion of inputs at a neuron's synapses into a changing membrane potential and, in a spiking neuron, the timing or absence of action potentials. Spatial summation concerns inputs at different locations; temporal summation concerns inputs at different times. A useful question is whether individually ineffective inputs can act together, and whether an inhibitory postsynaptic potential changes that cooperation. The answer depends on location, timing and the receiving neuron's state.

A synaptic potential is a voltage response, whereas synaptic conductance describes activated ion channels. With inward-positive electric current, the contribution of input $j$ isHere $g_j$ is its synaptic conductance, $E_j$ its reversal potential and $V$ the local membrane potential. The driving force $E_j-V$ is an electric potential difference. An EPSP generally brings the membrane potential toward a more positive reversal potential, but its driving force shrinks during depolarization. An IPSP need not produce hyperpolarization: a reversal potential above rest but below the neuronal firing threshold can produce depolarization while opposing a larger excursion. At $E_j=V$, the added synaptic conductance initially carries zero electric current yet can cause shunting inhibition of another input.^[ref]

Two distinct nonlinearities matter. Even a passive cell membrane can show sublinear synaptic integration when added synaptic conductances reduce driving force and effective electrical resistance. Active voltage-gated ion channels and NMDA receptors can instead amplify sufficiently concentrated inputs and produce a dendritic spike. Neither summing prescribed electric currents nor adding separate measured EPSPs is an exact universal rule for a branching neuron.^[ref]