Codex @codex  0

A contact potential difference is an electrostatic electric potential difference associated with different conducting surfaces brought into electrical equilibrium. Surface condition and different work functions can create a vacuum gap field even when an external voltmeter reads zero. Connecting the metals establishes equilibrium of their electronic chemical potentials including electrostatic energy; it need not equalize the electrostatic electric potential in the gap.

MIT's demonstration places two 120-turn coils face to face, each with a capacitor. A swept sinusoid drives one circuit; an oscilloscope observes the other circuit's capacitor electric potential difference. The sheet specifies $L=5\mathrm{mH}$ and $C=3300$ or $2500\mathrm{pF}$, giving nominal resonant frequencies near $39$ and $45\mathrm{kHz}$. It presents a procedure, not a measured dataset.^[ref]

A reproducible extension can test the same selection principle with the identical components of the coupled resonant circuit model. Prepare two separate series loops, measure their actual inductances, capacitances and coil electrical resistances, and include generator Thévenin resistance in the driven loop's total $R_1$. Choose added resistors to make $R_1=R_2=100\Omega$ if the measured losses permit it. Include a known $R_s=50\Omega$ sense resistor within $R_2$. Drive the first loop with a small function generator sinusoid; read the second loop's electric current as $|I_2|=|U|/R_s$ using an oscilloscope across the sense resistor. Here $U$ denotes the sense reading, distinct from the source electric potential difference $V$ in the model.

Sweep $35$–$68\mathrm{kHz}$ slowly enough for transients to settle; record source frequency, source amplitude at the circuit terminals, and sense amplitude. Repeat at fixed coil spacing after changing one capacitor, then at fixed components after changing spacing. Turn the drive off to establish the background; rotate the receiving coil toward a right angle to test inductive coupling; restore its orientation and repeat to check drift. These are proposed controls, not observations reported by MIT. Keep probe loading small and account for it if not negligible. A grounded oscilloscope can electrically join the loops if attached to both: use an appropriately isolated differential input for any simultaneous primary measurement, or measure the primary separately.

Recovering deliberately chosen long and short generator bursts on the receiver trace demonstrates symbol timing. The essential inference is narrower than a long-distance radio test: nearby coils primarily exchange energy through mutual inductance in the near and far field regime dominated by the near field. Coil spacing, detuning and background controls distinguish this coupling from a direct wire connection or incidental pickup. They do not by themselves demonstrate reception of propagating radio waves in the radiation zone.

Let two series loops have inductances $L_1,L_2>0$, capacitances $C_1,C_2>0$, total electrical resistances $R_1,R_2>0$, and reciprocal mutual inductance $M=k\sqrt{L_1{L}_2}$ with $0\le k<1$. For a steady sinusoid of angular frequency $\omega >0$, choose complex peak amplitudes with time convention $e^{\mathrm{i}\omega t}$. An ideal source of peak electric potential difference $V$ drives loop 1; loop 2 has no independent source. ThenEliminating $I_1$ proves the response formula. Reversing one coil changes the sign of $M$ and the relative wave phase, but leaves this amplitude response unchanged. The measured sense ratio is $|R_s{I}_2/V|$, with $R_s$ included in $R_2$, not added a second time.

For identical loops at their uncoupled resonant frequency ${\omega }_0=1/\sqrt{LC}$,Writing $x={\omega }_{0}M/R$ makes this $x/[R(1+x^2)]$. Its derivative has the sign of $1-x^2$, so response at this fixed frequency is largest when $x=1$, equivalently $k=1/Q$. Too little coupling transfers little excitation; excessive coupling reduces the response at the original centre frequency. This is a fixed-frequency optimum, not a universal optimum over every possible receiver and drive frequency.

For the chosen values, $k=1/Q=0.063246$ gives $M=0.31623\mathrm{mH}$. At source peak $V=0.100\mathrm{V}$, the secondary peak electric current is $0.500\mathrm{mA}$ and the sense peak electric potential difference is $25.0\mathrm{mV}$. The primary peak electric current is also $0.500\mathrm{mA}$, so source mean power is $25.0\mu \mathrm{W}$: each loop dissipates $12.5\mu \mathrm{W}$, checking conservation of energy. Here $V$ is the equivalent ideal source behind $R_1$; a generator's terminal reading must be converted using its measured Thévenin resistance.

In the lossless identical-loop limit, the normal modes have equal or opposite electric currents, making their effective inductances $L+M$ or $L-M$. ThusAt $k=0.20$ these are $45.944$ and $56.270\mathrm{kHz}$. Finite electrical resistance broadens and shifts the driven peaks, so the exact response formula, rather than these lossless values, generates the plot. Changing a capacitor moves the uncoupled tuning through $f_0\propto C^{-1/2}$: increasing it by $21\%$ lowers $f_0$ by the factor $1/1.1$. The model explains why tuning and coupling must be adjusted together; it supplies no transatlantic propagation or detector-threshold prediction.

Take two electrical circuits containing coupled inductors. Let their constant self-inductances be $L_1,L_2>0$, mutual inductance $M$, and positive electrical resistances $R_1,R_2$. Choose current directions so that the off-diagonal entries of the inductance matrix are $+M$. Assume a linear, quasistatic model, with no capacitive effects or core hysteresis. The magnetic flux linkages are ${\lambda }_1=L_1{i}_1+M{i}_2$ and ${\lambda }_2=M{i}_1+L_2{i}_2$. Combining their time derivatives with resistive electric potential differences givesThe secondary is a closed, undriven electrical circuit. Require $M^2<L_1{L}_2$, making $\mathbf{L}$ a positive-definite matrix. The chosen current convention fixes the signs; reversing the secondary's reference direction changes the sign assigned to $M$ and $i_2$ without changing the physical circuit.

There is an essential switching assumption: the primary loop remains closed when $V$ becomes zero. An ideal voltage source then imposes zero electric potential difference, allowing the current to decay. Literally opening an inductive circuit requires additional physics to determine the interruption, including possible capacitance and an electric arc. This closed-return model explains transient induction while keeping that distinction from Faraday's historical making and breaking of contact explicit.

A Josephson junction can make a collective quantum phase behave as a measurable dynamical coordinate. In current-biased Josephson phase dynamics, the Gauge-invariant Josephson phase $\varphi$ moves in a tilted Josephson washboard potential; the junction's capacitance supplies its effective inertia. A trapped phase gives zero mean electric potential difference, while sustained phase advance produces a nonzero mean electric potential difference. Quantized phase levels in a Josephson junction and quantum escape of a current-biased Josephson junction test quantum mechanics for this collective coordinate.

Begin with a stipulated parallel electrical circuit: an ideal sinusoidal Josephson junction, capacitance $C>0$, and effective electrical resistance $R>0$. The Kirchhoff node law and Josephson effect giveHere $I_b$ is the constant bias electric current, $I_{\mu }$ is a deliberately applied microwave electric current, and $I_N$ represents unwanted fluctuating electric current. Multiplication by $\hslash /(2e)$ puts the undriven equation into the mechanical formThe effective inertia is a coefficient for a dimensionless quantum phase, not a literal material mass moving through the insulating layer. The capacitor's energy, $C{V}^2/2=M_{\varphi }{\dot{\varphi }}^2/2$, provides a direct check of that identification. The effective $R$ includes loading by the external electrical circuit; a constant parallel $R$ is an approximation over the relevant frequency range.

The useful design freedom is that $I_b$ changes the confinement while $C$ changes its inertia. The same manufactured device can therefore connect a classical oscillation, discrete energy levels, and escape to an electrical readout. The Martinis-Devoret-Clarke circuit experiments separate these questions experimentally. John Clarke, Michel H. Devoret and John M. Martinis shared the 2025 Nobel Prize in Physics for circuit experiments establishing macroscopic quantum tunnelling and discrete energy levels.^[ref]

Tunneling through a controllable vacuum gap by Gerd Binnig and others made barrier width experimentally adjustable. Their apparatus used a pointed electrical conductor opposite a conducting plate, with fine positioning by piezoelectricity. Rubber-tube support and magnetic levitation above a cooled bowl exhibiting superconductivity suppressed vibrations; the junction itself remained near room temperature.^[ref]

The readout was electrical resistance versus displacement at a fixed electric potential difference of 60 mV of either polarity. They observed an exponential function dependence spanning four orders of magnitude. Cleaning and better vacuum increased the inferred barrier from approximately 0.6-0.7 eV to 3.2 eV. Reproducible curves and the cleaning response argued against deforming contamination layers; an appropriate slope also helped exclude an ordinary conducting contact. The paper reports residual contamination, electronics-limited range and a jump attributed to release of thermal stress; its curve origins generally do not determine absolute gap widths.^[ref]

The ideal tunnel junction model explains the slope. At fixed small electric potential difference, fixed tip geometry and approximately unchanged density of states, take an effective barrier energy $\Phi$ above the relevant electron states and approximate the current magnitude byThe coefficient $C$ includes the applied electric potential difference, available occupied and empty quantum states, and tip geometry. A single transmission probability is not an electric current: a junction combines contributions from many electron states in both directions, with the electric potential difference producing a net imbalance. Its tilted, material-dependent barrier is only approximated by the equal-exterior rectangular potential barrier; the exact single-particle formula above is not a complete junction model.

For the chosen model value $\Phi =4$ electronvolts, $\kappa \simeq 10.25{\mathrm{nm}}^{-1}$. Increasing separation by $0.1\mathrm{nm}$ multiplies $I$ by about $0.129$, a reduction by about $7.8$. The following diagram chooses $I(0.4\mathrm{nm})=1\mathrm{nA}$ solely for illustration; it contains no measured data and is not a fit to the 1982 curves.

Distance calibration is essential. In Scanning Tunneling Microscopy: From Birth to Adolescence by Gerd Binnig and others, the authors describe an initial inferred barrier near 1 eV. Recalibration found only half the quoted piezo displacement sensitivity and raised the inferred barrier above 4 eV. Thus an exponential trace alone was insufficient evidence for tunnelling through vacuum. The model makes the sensitivity explicit: the inferred $\Phi ={\hslash }^2(d\ln I/ds{)}^2/(8m_e)$ depends quadratically on the distance scale.^[ref]

For scanning tunnelling microscopy, feedback control adjusts the vertical position to hold electric current fixed during a lateral scan; the recorded height follows separation only when the surface is electronically homogeneous. Changes in the local density of states can also change apparent height. This limitation is already explicit in the authors' account of constant-current imaging.^[ref]

An ideal current source prescribes an electric current; its electric potential difference is determined by the connected electrical circuit. A dependent electrical source can prescribe a current controlled by another circuit variable instead.

A current-voltage characteristic describes the relation between terminal electric potential difference and electric current for specified physical conditions. A resistor obeying Ohm's law gives a straight line; a diode has an asymmetric relation.

A hollow D-shaped electrode that shields a circulating ion from the accelerating electric field during one half-turn. Two opposed cyclotron dees provide two shielded regions separated by a gap; their electric potential difference alternates. The vacuum reduces collisions with residual gas. An ion source supplies particles near the center, and an extraction system directs an outer orbit toward a particle detector or target. Useful electric current depends on retaining particles near the median plane and delivering them to the outlet, as well as on increasing their kinetic energy.

Define $\Delta V={\Phi }_{\mathrm{entry}}-{\Phi }_{\mathrm{exit}}$ as the electric potential drop along the particle's passage. If the electric field changes negligibly during that short crossing, the work givesThe sign matters: a positive ion gains kinetic energy while going to lower electric potential; a negative ion needs the opposite drop. A fixed-sign field would accelerate on one crossing and decelerate on the next. The alternating field must reverse before the particle comes back.

For a fixed electric charge sign and circulation direction, absorb this alternating crossing direction into the definition of the arrival phase ${\varphi }_n$. If $V_0$ is the peak electric potential difference across the whole gap, rather than the amplitude of either electrode relative to ground, a thin-gap model isArrival at ${\varphi }_n=0$ gives the largest accelerating kick; $|{\varphi }_n|<\pi /2$ gives a positive kick. Arrival at ${\varphi }_n=\pi$ gives deceleration. For an ideal classical particle initially on crest, the cyclotron resonance condition keeps successive arrival phases equal. It does not automatically bring an initially mistimed particle onto crest.

The motivating observation is that a chemical reaction can produce a signed electrical reading even when its reacting materials occupy separate vessels. UC San Diego's teaching demonstration places a copper strip in $0.1\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}$ $\mathrm{CuS}{\mathrm{O}}_4$ and a zinc strip in $0.1\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}$ $\mathrm{ZnS}{\mathrm{O}}_4$, using two $400\mathrm{mL}$ beakers with about $300\mathrm{mL}$ of chemical solution in each. The strips connect to a voltage meter. Initially there is no ionic connection; the demonstration specifies a zero reading. A filter-paper salt bridge containing aqueous $\mathrm{N}{\mathrm{a}}_2\mathrm{S}{\mathrm{O}}_4$ then connects the chemical solutions. With the meter's positive lead on copper and negative lead on zinc, its reported readings are about $+1.1\mathrm{V}$; exchanging the leads reverses the reading. These are observations reported by the university, not data generated for this article. See UC San Diego, demonstration 9B: apparatus, bridge control and meter polarity.

The controls answer different questions. Exchanging only the meter leads checks the sign convention; it does not reverse the chemical reaction or swap the anode and cathode. Interrupting only the salt bridge tests the need for an ionic return path. Its absence prevents sustained cell electric current, but a very high-input-resistance meter may still show a transient or unstable reading while interfaces store electric charge. The zero reading specified for the university's apparatus is therefore not a universal theorem for every meter. Reconnecting the same salt bridge distinguishes a reversible interruption from a disconnected wire or exhausted chemical solution. This interpretation follows from electric charge conservation in a model allowing interfacial electric charge storage; see IUPAC Gold Book: integral capacitance of an electrode for the capacitance associated with electrode charge.

To distinguish terminal electric potential difference from delivered power, compare the nearly open-circuit reading with readings across a known resistor load. In the nearly open-circuit condition, a meter with input electrical resistance much larger than the cell's effective internal electrical resistance draws little electric current. With a load, measure its terminal electric potential difference $V$ and infer $I=V/R$ using Ohm's law; track the readings over time and repeat the nearly open-circuit reading afterwards. Keep the temperature, chemical solution compositions, immersed electrode areas, bridge geometry and electrical contacts comparable. This is a model-based extension of the documented demonstration, not a claim that UC San Diego published a load sweep. A finite-current drop can reflect ionic electrical resistance, changes of interfacial reaction rates, or depletion near an electrode; a single voltage reading cannot identify which dominates. The interfacial and composition contributions are distinguished in IUPAC Gold Book: overpotential and ^[ref].

For a deliberately simplified calculation, model the cell by a constant electromotive force $\mathcal{E}$ in series with a constant internal electrical resistance $r$, and a passive load $R>0$. Take $I$ positive from the cathode through the load to the anode. ThenThe nearly open-circuit limit $R\to \infty$ gives $V\to \mathcal{E}$ but $I\to 0$ and $P_{\mathrm{load}}\to 0$. A straight $V$-versus-$I$ line is a prediction of constant $r$, not a general law for electrochemistry. See Ling, Sanny and Moebs, University Physics II, §10.1: internal resistance, terminal voltage and load.

For the chosen values, $I=5.50\mathrm{mA}$ and $V=0.550\mathrm{V}$. Holding these toy parameters fixed for $600\mathrm{s}$ gives transported electric charge $Q=It=3.30\mathrm{C}$ and an extent of reaction $\xi =Q/(2F)\simeq 17.1\mu \mathrm{mol}$, assuming all the electric current serves the two specified half-reactions. The same $\xi$ counts zinc consumed and copper deposited, rather than equal masses. The energy budget isThe load's electrical work also becomes Joule heating when the load is a resistor. Here $\mathcal{E}Q$ accounts for the reaction's available reversible electrical work; a full cell thermal budget would also require its thermodynamic entropy contribution. Real measurements need uncertainty estimates, a specified meter input electrical resistance and calibration, and allowance for changing composition and unwanted chemical reactions. The toy value $r=100\Omega$ is not a measured property of the university's cell.

The Davisson–Germer experiment turned elastic scattering from nickel into evidence for a matter wave. The search became a deliberate wave test in 1926, with diffraction beams found early in 1927. The earlier crystal investigation had begun in 1925; the de Broglie wavelength proposal was already present in the 1924 thesis.^[ref]

A heated tungsten ribbon supplied electrons; gun apertures selected a narrow beam. Two $1\mathrm{mm}$ apertures were $8\mathrm{mm}$ apart; the gun ended $7\mathrm{mm}$ from a nickel crystal cut parallel to its $\{111\}$ planes. An adjustable electric potential difference set the speed. The beam struck normally inside an evacuated, field-free enclosure with target and outer electrodes at one potential. A double-box collector, $11\mathrm{mm}$ from the target with a $1\mathrm{mm}$ entrance, selected directions. A retarding electric potential difference rejected slower electrons; the inner collector fed a sensitive galvanometer. Moving the collector scanned colatitude; rotating the crystal scanned azimuth.^[ref]

The readout was collected electric current, not a photograph of electron paths. Voltage scans held the gun-plate current constant because incident-beam current could not be held constant; the overall current trend therefore needed caution. A strong feature developed at $54\mathrm{V}$ near $50^{\circ }$ colatitude. Surface heating distinguished crystal beams from adsorbed-gas beams; finite apertures and background shifted or broadened apparent peaks.^[ref]

At the bright beam's colatitude, an azimuth scan revealed three companion directions, matching crystal symmetry. The test compared wavelengths inferred from diffraction angles and known crystal spacings with wavelengths inferred from accelerating voltage and momentum; the 1937 lecture displayed this comparison against $U^{-1/2}$. Agreement across beam directions supplied more evidence than one angular peak.^[ref]

The inference is about coherent quantum phases in scattering probabilities. It does not establish a wavy particle trajectory, and a collector-current experiment does not resolve individual detection events. Predicting the full intensity additionally requires the material's scattering amplitude, its surface condition, and instrumental angular acceptance; the de Broglie wavelength alone predicts none of those strengths. The following finite-row electron diffraction model isolates phase addition without attempting to reproduce the nickel measurements.

At zero electric potential difference, $\dot{\varphi }=0$ permits a nonzero constant quantum phase and hence a steady pair electric current. Under an imposed electric current $I_b$ with $|I_b|<I_c$, a static solution satisfies $\sin \varphi =I_b/I_c$. The low-energy branch has $\cos \varphi >0$. For example, a stipulated $I_b=I_c/2$ gives $\varphi =\pi /6$ modulo $2\pi$; it does not require a voltage drop. In the ideal current-biased energy $-E_J\cos \varphi -(\hslash I_b/2e)\varphi$, the positive second derivative on that branch explains its local stability.

The superconducting critical current $I_c$ is a maximum available static pair electric current, not the inevitable electric current under a voltage bias. At $V=0$ the initial state and circuit select a phase and a current. Above $I_c$ this sinusoidal model has no static phase solution, but its two relations alone do not predict the complete resistive current-voltage characteristic, switching dynamics or hysteresis. Those require the circuit and dissipative channels.

An ideal source whose electric potential difference or electric current is controlled by a specified voltage or electric current in the electrical circuit. Thévenin source suppression retains its linear control relation.

The region around a p-n junction with reduced mobile charge carrier density.

An illustrative abrupt-junction depletion approximation assumes uniform, fully ionized donor impurities and acceptor impurities, negligible mobile space charge in the depleted layer, and permittivity ${\epsilon }_s$. For area $A$, doping number densities $N_A,N_D$ and built-in electric potential difference $V_{\mathrm{bi}}$, it givesHere $q>0$ is the elementary charge and $V$ is positive for forward bias. Increasing both doping densities reduces $W$ in this estimate. That explains the preparation strategy for a tunnel diode; it does not make this sharp-depletion approximation a precise microscopic model of a degenerate semiconductor.

A dielectric is a material in which an electric field produces electric polarization while transport of electric charge is sufficiently small for the intended use. An insulating solid in a capacitor is an example; real dielectrics can still have dielectric loss and nonzero electrical conductivity.

The important distinction is between rearranging bound electric charge and transporting mobile charge carriers through the specimen. Bound electric charges can move a little within a chemical atom or molecule, or an existing electric dipole can turn. Their averaged electric dipole moments produce electric polarization even if there is negligible steady electric current between the electrodes. A changing electric polarization does give a bound current; the absence of steady conduction does not mean that the material is electrically unresponsive.^[ref]

For uniform electric polarization $\mathbf{P}=P\hat{\mathbf{x}}$ in a rectangular slab, polarization density gives zero bound volume charge density in the interior and opposite bound surface charge densities $-P,+P$ on the left and right faces. The electric charge has been redistributed, not created. More generally, the divergence theorem makes the cancellation explicit:Here $\mathbf{n}$ is the outward normal vector on the material boundary. This accounts for both bound volume charge density and bound surface charge density; omitting either can falsely suggest that an initially neutral dielectric acquired net electric charge.

An electrical insulator between capacitor plates supports a useful combination: appreciable electric polarization, little leakage electric current, and tolerance of the intended electric field. This lets a small parallel-plate capacitor store separated electric charge and recoverable capacitor energy. The comparison in dielectric capacitor response explains why specifying fixed electric charge or fixed electric potential difference changes the answer. High relative permittivity alone does not establish good insulation or a large usable energy density; dielectric loss and dielectric breakdown matter as well.

The motivating observation is that inserting an insulating material between fixed capacitor plates increases its capacitance. ^[ref]. To investigate this response, use two flat parallel metal electrodes with measured overlapping area $A$ and separation $d$, a uniform specimen filling the gap, and an instrument that measures electrical impedance. Record the capacitance with and without the specimen at the same small applied electric potential difference, frequency and temperature, after capacitance measurement calibration. An increase in corrected capacitance indicates a larger permittivity, provided the geometry is unchanged. A guard electrode reduces the contribution of the fringing field of a capacitor. ^[ref].

For negligible dielectric loss in the parallel-plate capacitor approximation,An air reference approximates $C_0$; it is not an exact vacuum reference. For the following synthetic example, stipulate $A=0.010{\mathrm{m}}^2$, $d=1.00\mathrm{mm}$ and the rounded vacuum permittivity ${ϵ}_0\approx 8.854\times 10^{-12}F/m$. Then $C_0=88.54\mathrm{pF}$ in this model, and relative permittivity four gives $C=354.16\mathrm{pF}$. A residual parallel capacitance of $20\mathrm{pF}$ would make an uncorrected sample/reference ratio $374.16/108.54\approx 3.447$, rather than four. This additive error does not cancel in a ratio.

At nonzero frequency $f$, measure both magnitude and phase of the electric current relative to the applied electric potential difference. Define $Y=I/V=1/Z$, where $Z$ is electrical impedance. For the stated complex permittivity convention, the ideal uniform specimen givesThus a parallel capacitor and electrical conductance describe the readout at that frequency; a single scalar capacitance cannot describe both components. The diagram's assumed dielectric relaxation gives $C_p=265.62\mathrm{pF}$ and $C_0{ϵ}_r^{\prime \prime }=88.54\mathrm{pF}$ at $1\mathrm{kHz}$. These are model predictions, not observations.

Repeat the reference measurement after removing the specimen and vary the small applied electric potential difference to test drift and linearity. Record specimen thickness, electrode area, contact conditions, frequency and temperature. Air gaps act as additional layers in series and can lower inferred relative permittivity; roughness, uncertain thickness and the fringing field of a capacitor limit the geometric formula. At sufficiently high frequency, the fixture itself changes the electromagnetic field, so low-frequency guarding and a lumped capacitor model require reassessment. ^[ref].

Compare two initially identical parallel-plate capacitors with plate area $A$, fixed gap $d$, vacuum capacitance $C_0={ϵ}_{0}A/d$, and initial electric potential difference $V_0$. Completely fill both gaps with the same uniform linear dielectric of static relative permittivity ${ϵ}_r>1$, neglecting the fringing field of a capacitor. Keep one connected to an ideal voltage source and isolate the other. The geometric capacitance becomes $C={ϵ}_r{C}_0$ in both cases; the electrical constraint determines what else changes.^[ref]

Write $Q_0=C_0{V}_0$, $E_0=V_0/d$ and $U_0=C_0{V}_0^2/2$. Applying $Q=CV$, $E=V/d$ and the capacitor energy formula gives the complete comparison:Thus the statement that a dielectric reduces the electric field needs the fixed-free-charge condition. With fixed electric potential difference, the voltage source supplies additional free plate electric charge, maintaining $E=V_0/d$ despite the new bound electric charges.

For the stipulated ${ϵ}_r=3$ example, the voltage source supplies $\Delta Q=2Q_0$. At constant $V_0$, its delivered electrical work is $V_0\Delta Q=4U_0$, whereas the increase in capacitor energy is $2U_0$. In an ideal reversible quasistatic insertion, the remaining $2U_0$ is mechanical work delivered by the assembly, as accounted for in fixed-voltage capacitor energy balance. For the isolated assembly, capacitor energy falls from $U_0$ to $U_0/3$, allowing $2U_0/3$ of mechanical work in the same ideal limit. Actual losses reduce recoverable work; energy increases in the connected case do not arise from the dielectric supplying free energy.

At fixed electric potential difference $V$, a change of capacitance has electrical work input $VdQ=V^{2}dC$ and field-energy increase $dU=V^{2}dC/2$. The remaining half is mechanical work done by the field, so the force in the direction of increasing overlap is $F_x=V^2{C}^{\prime }(x)/2$. Equivalently the effective mechanical potential is $-C{V}^2/2$. For a partially filled coaxial capacitor, this gives $F_x=\pi {ϵ}_0({ϵ}_r-1)V^2/\ln (b/a)$, directed inward when ${ϵ}_r>1$. The fringing field of a capacitor supplies the local field gradient and transmits this force even when its small correction to total capacitance is neglected.

A diode is a two-terminal component with an asymmetric current-voltage characteristic: reversing its terminal electric potential difference need not reverse its electric current with the same magnitude. Name the terminals diode anode $A$ and diode cathode $K$. Define $V_D={\varphi }_A-{\varphi }_K$ using their electric potentials, and take positive electric current $I_D$ from $A$ to $K$. The bar in the diode symbol marks $K$. Positive $V_D$ is the forward direction; negative $V_D$ is the reverse direction.^[ref]

The asymmetry makes a rectifier possible: a sinusoid can drive electric current through a resistor on one half of each cycle. An ordinary resistor obeying Ohm's law instead reverses its electric current when the applied electric potential difference reverses. The useful idea is directional selection; the ideal diode model captures it, while the Shockley diode equation describes a smooth exponential function rather than an abrupt switch.