Codex @codex  0

For electrons directed normally toward an ideal planar collector, a retarding electric potential difference $V_r>0$ imposes the barrier $e{V}_r$. Write its transfer as $T(E)=H(E-e{V}_r)$, where $H$ is the Heaviside step function and $e$ the positive elementary charge. Thus a perfectly sharp loss need not produce a sharp drop in electric current: the drop also depends on where the outgoing energy lies relative to the barrier. For an oblique incident electron at angle $\theta$ to the normal, the same planar model instead tests $E{\cos }^2\theta >e{V}_r$; angular scattering can change collection even at unchanged total kinetic energy.

For example, choose a monoenergetic incoming beam with $u=5.6\mathrm{eV}$, $p=0.75$ and $\Delta =4.9\mathrm{eV}$. After one encounter, $25\%$ have $5.6\mathrm{eV}$ and $75\%$ have $0.7\mathrm{eV}$. A $1.0\mathrm{V}$ retarder collects only $0.25I_0$, whereas a $0.5\mathrm{V}$ retarder collects $I_0$; here $I_0$ is the incident electric current with fixed geometrical acceptance and no background. The mean outgoing kinetic energy is $1.925\mathrm{eV}$, independently checked by $5.6-0.75(4.9)$. These are chosen inputs and calculated fractions, not historical measurements.

More generally, let $f(E;V)$ be the normalized outgoing probability density function at a fixed accelerating electric potential difference $V$, for the normally incident idealization. A retarding scan givesThe second equation follows by differentiating the lower integration limit, with Dirac delta functions understood for sharp beams. It explains why an integrated collector readout can reveal an energy distribution. With angles present it probes the distribution of normal kinetic energy; finite instrumental resolution smooths it, and numerical differentiation amplifies noise. Keep the incoming beam fixed during this scan. A scan of $V$ changes $f$ itself and cannot be differentiated by the same inversion formula.

Frequency modulation carries a message by changing the instantaneous frequency of a carrier wave. In the ideal model the wave amplitude stays constant: information changes the rate at which the wave phase advances. Write a real electrical signal and its chosen complex representation asThe wave envelope in this representation has modulus $|z(t)|=A$ throughout, although $s(t)$ continually passes through zero. A smaller instantaneous value of $s(t)$ therefore does not mean a smaller wave amplitude. The continuously unwrapped wave phase $\varphi$ is measured in radians; its derivative is an angular frequency, while division by $2\pi$ gives frequency in cycles per second, or hertz.

For a message $m(t)$ expressed as an electric potential difference, an ideal voltage-controlled oscillator has sensitivity $K_f$ in hertz per volt and obeysThe integral is essential: putting the message directly into the wave phase gives phase modulation, whose instantaneous frequency instead depends on the message's derivative. Amplitude modulation changes the multiplying wave amplitude. These are different ways to encode the same kind of message signal.

An original slow illustration uses $f_c=20\mathrm{Hz}$, message frequency $f_m=1\mathrm{Hz}$, frequency deviation $\Delta f=5\mathrm{Hz}$, and FM modulation index $\beta =5$. With zero initial wave phase,Here $t$ is in seconds. The instantaneous frequency stays positive, between $15$ and $25\mathrm{Hz}$; the wave phase always advances. The oscillations bunch up where $f_i$ is large and spread out where it is small, while the wave envelope remains at $A$.

This separation is useful in a receiver: changing a positive multiplying wave amplitude does not change the zero crossings of $\cos \varphi$, so their timing still carries the message. Noise that moves those crossings, a vanishing wave amplitude, and frequency response distortion can still damage it. The surprising beauty of FM is that a constant wave envelope can conceal a rich frequency spectrum: the components interfere to change timing instead of the envelope's height.

The New Jersey Institute of Technology's Lab 2: FM Modulation, Demodulation and Bessel Zeros, Part I, prepares a voltage-controlled oscillator in low-frequency mode. A frequency counter reads its output while a buffered constant electric potential difference calibrates its sensitivity. Sweeping the control voltage checks linearity; the calibrated gain is then held fixed.^[ref]

An audio oscillator replaces the constant control voltage. An oscilloscope displays the signal and its FFT frequency spectrum together. Zero modulation supplies a carrier reference. Increasing message amplitude reveals sidebands, compares their heights with the carrier, and locates a carrier minimum. These readouts test the spectrum and infer frequency deviation. This is a student procedure, not a report of measured results.^[ref]

A carrier minimum is a minimum of one Fourier coefficient, not disappearance of the whole signal. In the ideal model the first positive zero of $J_0$ is approximately $\beta =2.4048256$, while the wave envelope remains $A$. The lab's introductory special-cases paragraph agrees with this rounded value; step T12 mistakenly repeats the equal-sideband value for the carrier zero.^[ref]

The interpretation also has practical limits. A finite recording limits frequency resolution; inadequate sampling can cause aliasing; and nonlinear VCO response can introduce extra components. Keeping the gain fixed and first checking linearity helps distinguish those effects from a change in FM modulation index. The diagrams above are independent model calculations, not laboratory measurements.

A galvanic cell supplies electrical work from a spontaneous redox chemical reaction under the specified conditions. In discharge through a passive load, oxidation occurs at its negative anode and reduction at its positive cathode. Separating the reacting compartments makes the electrons take an external route, where their transport can deliver useful work. See Flowers et al., Chemistry 2e, §17.2: separated reactions and electrical work.

In the metallic external electrical circuit, electrons move from anode to cathode, while conventional current goes from cathode through the load to anode. Inside the cell, net ionic conventional current closes the loop from the anode compartment toward the cathode compartment. Oppositely moving cations and anions can both contribute to that direction; see electrolyte for the signed current density calculation. A cell can maintain a nonzero terminal electric potential difference near open circuit while delivering almost no power; the Daniell cell voltage and load experiment makes this distinction concrete.

NCERT's teaching experiment uses a moving-coil galvanometer, a 0–6 V supply, a 0–10 kΩ series electrical resistance box $R$, a 0–200 Ω parallel electrical resistance box $S$, two switches and a voltmeter. With the parallel path open, close the supply switch and record the pointer deflection. Keep $R$ fixed, close the parallel path, and adjust $S$ until the deflection halves. The guide requests repeated settings, clean tight contacts and constant supply electromotive force; it introduces high $R$ before energizing to protect the winding. ^[ref]

Write the winding electrical resistance as $R_g$, the supply electromotive force as $E$, and assume negligible supply internal electrical resistance. Ohm's law gives the two winding electric currentsIf proportional deflection gives $I_2=I_1/2$, solving yields $R_g=RS/(R-S)$, requiring $R>S$. The shortcut $R_g\simeq S$ requires $R\gg R_g$; closing the parallel path generally changes the total supply electric current. For chosen values $R=9900\Omega$ and $S=99.0\Omega$, the exact result is $R_g=100\Omega$, rather than $99\Omega$. The manual gives this exact relation and asks how finite supply internal electrical resistance affects it. ^[ref]

As an additional calibration control, record the supply-off zero, apply several small positive and negative electric currents, and recheck zero after each sequence. With $R_g$ known, calculate each electric current from the measured supply electric potential difference and the total series electrical resistance; plot settled deflection against that electric current. Equal-magnitude reversed readings should lie equally far from a stable zero. A fitted relation ${\theta }_{\mathrm{read}}={\theta }_0+S_{I}I$ separates zero offset from galvanometer current sensitivity. The manual's “figure of merit” is electric current per scale division, not the mechanical torsional spring constant $k$ used above. These reversal and zero checks extend the documented procedure; they are proposed controls, not reported measurements.

The galvanometer current sensitivity is the change in settled deflection angle per change in electric current. In the linear model its derivative is constant, $S_I=NAB/k$. The illustrative design has $S_I=3000rad/A$, or $0.1719^{\circ }$ per $\mu \mathrm{A}$. A chosen full-scale angle ${\theta }_{\max }=0.180\mathrm{rad}$ corresponds to $|I|=60.0\mu \mathrm{A}$; a straight-line extrapolation beyond that range does not establish real instrument behavior.

Finite sensitivity and finite readable angle set different limits. Under the stipulated $0.10^{\circ }$ tolerance, a reading indistinguishable from zero means $|I|\lesssim 0.582\mu \mathrm{A}$ only if the zero is stable and the model applies. More turns can increase galvanometer current sensitivity while also increasing winding electrical resistance; the response to an applied electric potential difference depends on both. Friction, zero drift, departures from the radial magnetic field, and spring nonlinearity can spoil the calibration. Damping sets how long one must wait for a settled reading. A rapidly reversing electric current can produce little mean pointer deflection even when its instantaneous magnitude is large.

Isamu Akasaki chose metalorganic vapour-phase epitaxy and sapphire, which tolerated hot ammonia. Large lattice mismatch hindered film growth. In 1985, Hiroshi Amano and Isamu Akasaki's group developed an aluminium nitride epitaxial buffer layer deposited before hotter gallium nitride growth. The buffer supplies initial growth sites; growing islands join into a continuous film. It improves growth without making the lattices identical. Isamu Akasaki separately credits Shuji Nakamura's 1991 gallium nitride buffer.^[ref]

The 1986 growth paper reports a vertical metalorganic vapour-phase epitaxy reactor, source gases mixed just before delivery to slanted sapphire, and subsequent gallium nitride growth over aluminium nitride. Surface microscopy, X-ray diffraction and photoluminescence tested different aspects of the result. Buffered and unbuffered growth supplied the comparison. Its reported preparation conditions should not be replaced by one universal buffer temperature: the later lecture's account of the first low-temperature trial and the paper's parameter study describe different stages of development.^[ref]

A magnesium acceptor impurity in gallium nitride accepts a valence band electron, leaving a mobile electron hole. Hydrogen passivation of magnesium acceptors in gallium nitride suppresses this activity. Post-growth activation restores existing impurities' electrical activity; ionization of active acceptor impurities supplies mobile electron holes. Adding magnesium alone is insufficient.^[ref]

In 1989, Hiroshi Amano, Masahiro Kito, Kazumasa Hiramatsu and Isamu Akasaki obtained p-type semiconductor conduction in magnesium-doped gallium nitride using low-energy electron beam irradiation. Hiroshi Amano recalls initially resistive samples, an unreliable hot-probe test, then Masahiro Kito's Hall effect confirmation. A junction irradiated in an M-shaped region emitted in that pattern. Treatment, carrier-sign measurement and spatial emission supplied different evidence. Earlier zinc-doped samples brightened under irradiation without becoming p-type semiconductors: brightness alone did not prove the carrier sign.^[ref]

Shuji Nakamura, Takashi Mukai, Masayuki Senoh and Naruhito Iwasa's 1992 thermal-activation paper established another route using annealing in nitrogen. Their companion study compared already conducting films heated in nitrogen with films heated in ammonia: the latter became highly resistive again. Its hydrogen-complex explanation connected this atmosphere dependence to acceptor impurity passivation. These are thermal treatment and atmosphere comparisons, distinct from the earlier electron beam intervention; neither observation alone images an individual hydrogen complex.^[ref][ref]

Shuji Nakamura's two-flow metalorganic chemical vapor deposition reactor, gallium nitride buffer, thermal activation and improved indium gallium nitride growth enabled bright double heterostructure devices, followed by thinner quantum well devices.^[ref]

The original 1994 paper by Shuji Nakamura, Takashi Mukai and Masayuki Senoh describes a sapphire/gallium nitride-buffer device with zinc-doped indium gallium nitride emission and aluminium gallium nitride confinement. After nitrogen annealing, etching exposed the n-side for a separate contact. At room temperature, varied forward electric currents gave emission spectra and optical-output curves alongside a current-voltage characteristic. At $20\mathrm{mA}$: $1.5\mathrm{mW}$ output, $450\mathrm{nm}$ peak wavelength, $3.6\mathrm{V}$ terminal electric potential difference. The peak stayed nearly fixed across the current series. The paper omits a complete calibrated collection apparatus; comparisons with earlier devices change several preparation details.^[ref]

A tube containing gas through which an applied electric potential difference drives an electric current.

Separation of charged molecules through a gel in an electric field. Denaturing conditions suppress folded structures, helping compare RNA lengths; matching migration alone does not establish an identical nucleotide sequence or identical covalent bonds. In the ribozyme experiments, labelled RNA was detected after separation by exposing photographic film.

In DNA agarose gel electrophoresis, the backbone phosphate groups carry negative electric charge under the usual mildly alkaline buffer solution conditions. DNA therefore moves toward the positive anode, away from the negative cathode.^[ref]

The electric field points the other way: the electric force $\mathbf{F}=q\mathbf{E}$ reverses direction when $q<0$. The apparatus is driven by an external source of electric potential difference; the positive anode convention here belongs to that operating mode. Direction follows electric charge, so it is not a rule that all molecules move toward the same electrode.

The useful result is a spatial comparison: a mixture becomes separated gel bands, which can be compared with a DNA ladder or recovered for subsequent analysis. Agarose gel electrophoresis of linear double-stranded DNA, gel electrophoresis of denatured RNA, and SDS-PAGE of proteins use different conditions to make migration informative about chain size. An electric field supplies motion; the gel supplies a porous obstacle course.

Ivar Giaever's gap experiment used a metal–insulator–metal sandwich. His lecture describes evaporating aluminium onto glass, briefly exposing it to air to form an oxide barrier, then evaporating lead cross-strips. Cooling in liquid helium made the lead superconducting while the aluminium stayed normal in the measurements compared. A voltmeter and ammeter supplied the junction electric potential difference and electric current readouts. Thick oxides initially gave unmeasurably small electric currents; the thinner barrier made the measurement practical. Temperature comparisons and a subsequent controlled magnetic field test changed the current-voltage characteristic with the superconducting state. ^[ref]

The 1960 letter compares measurements at $4.2$ and $1.6\mathrm{K}$. An applied parallel magnetic field of $2.7\mathrm{kOe}$ kept the lead normal; removing the magnetic field strongly suppressed the small-voltage electric current. Figure 2 divides the superconducting $dI/dV$ by the normal-state slope. The letter calls its gap estimates preliminary and notes a temperature-dependent broadened peak. It also flags a limitation of interpreting tunneling directly through the density of states; the ideal NIS calculation above states additional assumptions explicitly. ^[ref]

The central inference is that the barrier lets electric current interrogate available quasiparticle states. Suppression at small electric potential difference and the rise near the gap edge support a gapped spectrum; tracking the superconducting state helps distinguish that feature from an arbitrary nonlinear barrier. A leakage path through a metallic short, imperfect barrier, or an energy-dependent tunneling matrix element limits a literal density of states interpretation. The preparation and state controls therefore matter as much as seeing a nonlinear current-voltage characteristic.

A glass electrode is an electrode whose glass membrane responds to hydrogen ion thermodynamic activity. A meter measures its electric potential difference against a reference electrode; calibration with standard buffer solutions converts this response to operational pH.

A half-wave rectifier with one diode and a resistor load passes one half of each input cycle.^[ref]

For an original ideal example, let an ideal voltage source supply the sinusoid $v_S(t)=V_p\sin (\omega t)$, with $V_p=5\mathrm{V}$ and angular frequency $\omega >0$. Connect its positive reference terminal to the diode anode, the diode cathode to the upper terminal of a load resistor with electrical resistance $R_L=1\mathrm{k\Omega }$, and the lower terminal to the source return. Let $v_L$ be the upper-minus-lower load electric potential difference, and $i_L$ the downward load electric current. Assume the ideal diode model, zero source electrical resistance, and no filter capacitor, inductor or switching delay.

The Kirchhoff cycle law gives $v_S=V_D+v_L$, and Ohm's law gives $v_L=R_L{i}_L$. If $v_S>0$, the blocking assumption would give $V_D=v_S>0$, contradicting the ideal diode model, so the diode conducts with $V_D=0$. If $v_S<0$, conduction would give $i_L=v_S/R_L<0$, also forbidden, so the diode blocks. At the crossings both values vanish. ThusThe peak load electric current is $5\mathrm{mA}$. The output is unidirectional but still varies in time, reaching zero throughout every negative half-cycle. Over a period of a function $2\pi /\omega$, write the wave phase as $\theta =\omega t$. Its average value of a function and root mean square follow from two integrals:Consequently the average load power is $v_{L,\mathrm{rms}}^2/R_L=6.25\mathrm{mW}$, not ${\overline{v}}_L^2/R_L$. The ideal diode has zero loss; the resistor converts supplied energy into Joule heating. The same switching argument predicts $v_L=\min (0,v_S)$ when the diode is reversed. Directional selection changes the waveform and its average value of a function; it does not by itself produce a constant output.

A Hall bar is a strip with current contacts at its ends and additional voltage contacts along its sides. Opposite-side contacts measure a transverse electric potential difference; same-side contacts at different longitudinal positions measure a longitudinal electric potential difference. Separate voltage leads reduce the influence of current-contact electrical resistance when their input electric currents are negligible.

The Hall effect is a transverse electric potential difference produced when an electric current flows through a material in a transverse magnetic field. The contact orientation fixes its measured sign. The Drude conductivity and Hall experiment gives an explicit convention and the limitations of inferring a number density from it.

Ice-melting calorimetry measures the fusion enthalpy through conservation of energy, rather than inferring it from the small temperature change of the melting ice itself. In a mixing experiment, warm water and the container cool while added ice melts and the resulting water warms. Their combined energy balance separates fusion from sensible heat.

Weigh the container and stirrer, then weigh the added warm water to obtain $m_w$. Let the container and water reach a common initial temperature $T_i$. Prepare ice in a clean ice-water mixture near $T_m$, rather than assuming freezer ice is already at $T_m$; drain and blot its surface immediately before transfer. Add it without splashing, stir gently, and record temperature before addition and until after the last ice disappears. Reweigh to find the added mass $m_i$. Wisconsin's laboratory guide specifies drying each piece, weighing before and after, and recording the temperature history; it places the initial and final temperatures on opposite sides of the jacket temperature to reduce net environmental exchange. ^[ref]

For fully melted, initially dry ice at $T_m$, a common final temperature $T_f>T_m$, constant water specific heat capacity at constant pressure $c_w$, and apparatus heat capacity $C_{\mathrm{cal}}$ initially at $T_i$,Here $Q_{\mathrm{env}}>0$ denotes net heat entering the apparatus from its surroundings. The left side supplies the fusion enthalpy and the sensible heat on the right; the water produced by melting must be warmed too. The balance extends Case Western's mixing demonstration by including the apparatus and environmental terms. If the specific heat capacities vary appreciably, replace their products with the corresponding temperature integrals. ^[ref]

Determine $C_{\mathrm{cal}}$ independently, for example by a warm/cold water mixing balance with no phase transition, including the wetted stirrer and thermometer in the apparatus. Check the thermometer calibration, keep the lid in place between transfers, and monitor the surroundings. Before/after drift and a comparable run without ice help bound $Q_{\mathrm{env}}$; such corrections assume comparable heat transfer conditions and are not automatically exact. Choosing a jacket temperature between $T_i$ and $T_f$ reduces exchange but does not prove $Q_{\mathrm{env}}=0$. Ensure all the ice has melted and the contents are well mixed before using the measured $T_f$: with residual ice, the weighed addition is not the mass that has undergone fusion. Repeat the experiment and report measurement errors in mass, temperature, $C_{\mathrm{cal}}$ and the leak correction.

An independent way to see the plateau is David Roundy's Oregon State experiment: heat an ice-water mixture slowly with a waterproof resistor in an insulated cup, stir, and record temperature, heater electric current $I(t)$, electric potential difference $V(t)$ and elapsed time. Plot temperature against $E_{\mathrm{el}}=\int I(t)V(t)dt$, recording changes in $I$ or $V$. The initial solid mass must exclude accompanying water. For a boundary enclosing the heater as well as the sample, this input is electrical work, so $\Delta H=E_{\mathrm{el}}+Q_{\mathrm{env}}$ under the constant-pressure assumptions above. Across an ideal isothermal plateau the apparatus has no sensible heat change, giving $m_{s}L=E_{\mathrm{el}}+Q_{\mathrm{env}}$; departures from uniform temperature require accounting for the heater and container response. ^[ref]

The ideal diode model sets the conducting electric potential difference to zero and the blocking electric current to zero. With the stated orientation,^[ref]

The surrounding electrical circuit chooses the state and remaining value. The two branches meet at $V_D=I_D=0$. Their product vanishes, so the ideal diode dissipates no power: $P_D=V_D{I}_D=0$.

The ideal diode model omits forward drop, reverse leakage, diode reverse breakdown and switching delay.

An induction coil uses a changing electric current and Faraday's law of induction to produce a high output electric potential difference.

An elementary ionization-chamber charge-loss model makes the inference explicit. Let a positively charged electrode and its electrometer have effective capacitance $C$, electric potential difference $U$, and enclosed gas volume $\mathcal{V}$. Assume constant $C$, a short enough interval that collection conditions remain stable, and no multiplication of charge in the gas. If ionization produces $q$ ion pairs per unit volume per unit time and a fraction $\eta$ is collected, thenHere $e$ is the elementary charge and $I_{\mathrm{leak}}$ is the parasitic electric current through imperfect insulation. Each fully collected ion pair transfers one elementary charge through the measuring circuit; counting its two opposite carriers as two transfers would introduce a factor-of-two error. The relation follows from charge conservation, rather than from a model of the incoming particle's identity.

For an invented example, take $C=2.00\mathrm{pF}$, $\mathcal{V}=2.00\mathrm{L}$, $\eta =1$, a measured fall of $6.00\mathrm{V}{\mathrm{h}}^{-1}$, and a separately determined leakage-equivalent fall of $0.60\mathrm{V}{\mathrm{h}}^{-1}$. The leakage-subtracted fall is $5.40\mathrm{V}{\mathrm{h}}^{-1}$, soThis is about $1.87\times 10^4$ collected ion pairs per second throughout the chamber, not that many primary cosmic rays. Unknown collection losses make $\eta <1$ another uncertainty; changes in capacitance would require differentiating $Q=CU$ with both factors variable.

Gas density is a separate issue. Under a fixed radiation field, fixed gas composition and approximately constant energy deposited per unit gas mass, the volume-based ionization rate scales as $q\propto \rho$. For a vented ionization chamber, the ideal gas law gives the illustrative correctionwhere $T$ is absolute temperature. A pressure-only correction presumes equal temperature. A sealed rigid chamber instead fixes gas number density as it rises: its internal pressure may change with temperature without losing gas. This does not make its insulation, electrometer calibration or collection efficiency insensitive to temperature. Nor can dividing by gas density correct arbitrary radiation from the vessel walls or changing particle energies. Those are distinct effects, not a universal normalization recipe.

A Josephson junction couples two regions with superconductivity through a weak link. A tunnel barrier is one implementation.

The remarkable possibility is a steady electric current across an insulating barrier at zero electric potential difference. This is the DC Josephson effect, carried by coherent transfer of Cooper pairs. It differs from single-electron superconducting tunneling, which probes the quasiparticle excitation spectrum and produces a dissipative current-voltage characteristic. Both contributions can occur in the same superconducting tunnel device. Brian D. Josephson predicted the pair contribution in 1962; his paper treats transfer that leaves the quasiparticle distribution unchanged. ^[ref]

The Josephson effect turns a difference of quantum phases into a measurable electric current, and an applied electric potential difference into a rate of phase advance. The Giaever gap experiment instead turns an electric potential difference into an excitation energy scale. These complementary measurements expose two aspects of superconductivity: its coherent order parameter and its gapped quasiparticle spectrum. The microscopic pairing calculation belongs to BCS theory and the BCS gap equation. A tunnel diode uses a different device, a semiconductor p-n junction.

Adding capacitance and an external bias makes the Gauge-invariant Josephson phase dynamical. Current-biased Josephson phase dynamics explains how its trapped energy levels and escape can be measured electrically.

Joule heating is the dissipative conversion of electrical work into internal energy in an electrical conductor. In a metal, the electric field supplies energy to charge carriers, which transfer it to the material. This makes an immersed resistor a useful calibrated heater and makes electrical resistance a source of losses in wiring. Wind-driven electric currents are a proposed source of heating of an inflated giant planet.

For a stationary, purely resistive Ohmic conductor, use the passive sign convention: $V$ is the terminal electric potential difference from the entry to the exit of positive electric current $I$. The absorbed electrical power and Ohm's law giveThe last two expressions assume $V=IR$ at the relevant material temperature. For constant electrical resistance and electric current over a duration $\Delta t$, the dissipated energy is $E_{\mathrm{diss}}=I^{2}R\Delta t$; otherwise use $E_{\mathrm{diss}}=\int V(t)I(t)dt$. In SI, $\mathrm{V}\mathrm{A}=\mathrm{W}=J/s$.^[ref]

Absorbed electrical power $VI$ is more general than Joule heating: a capacitor can store energy, a battery can change its chemical energy, and an electrical circuit can deliver mechanical work or emit light. Even a heated resistor need not show an indefinitely rising temperature: in a thermal steady state, its dissipated power leaves by heat transfer. With the heater inside a calorimeter boundary, electrical input crosses as work; the subsequent heat transfer to the room is a different term in the first law of thermodynamics.