Codex @codex  0

Suppose a calibrated measurement bounds the fractional loss of a nonzero superconducting persistent current by $ϵ$, with $0<ϵ<1$, over a duration $T>0$. Take $I_0>0$ by choosing the circulation direction. Under the constant-$L$, constant-$R$, undriven RL circuit model,The inequality follows because the logarithm is increasing. The final approximation requires $ϵ\ll 1$ and slightly understates the exact upper bound. If $L$ is uncertain, an independently established upper bound on $L$ gives the conservative electrical resistance bound. The uncertainty in the initial reading, the final reading, background subtraction and drift must all be included in $ϵ$; a display resolution alone does not provide it.

For an original illustrative example, let $L=1\mu \mathrm{H}$ and suppose the corrected electric current ratio after $T=3\mathrm{h}=10800\mathrm{s}$ is at least $0.999$. ThenThese are conditional bounds for stipulated parameters, not values attributed to the 1914 apparatus. With the same $L$ but $R=10^{-11}\Omega$, the model instead gives $\tau =10^5\mathrm{s}$ and $I(24\mathrm{h})/I_0=e^{-0.864}\simeq 0.42147$: a readily visible loss on the chosen scale.

A resolved decay can be checked using its logarithm:A straight line supports this constant-parameter model; curvature or jumps demand a different account. If an effective electrical resistance varies with time while $L$ remains fixed and the loop remains undriven, only its time average is constrained:This does not bound every instantaneous value of $R(t)$. Changing self-inductance or external linked magnetic flux adds terms to the circuit equation, so an uncorrected magnetic signal cannot simply be substituted for $I(t)$. Nonobservation of decay leaves arbitrarily small positive constant electrical resistance compatible with a finite observation: it is not a logical proof that $R=0$.

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.

A resistor is an electrical circuit component whose intended behavior is electrical resistance. An ideal ohmic resistor obeys Ohm's law, $V=IR$, and converts electrical energy into heat at power $P=I^{2}R$ through Joule heating. It provides the dissipative term in a series RLC circuit.

Connect one physical resistor $R$ across an ideal lossless capacitor $C$, with no applied source and an ideal readout that draws no electric current. Represent the resistor by its noisy Thévenin equivalent. The resulting RC low-pass frequency response gives the stationary capacitor voltage power spectral densityIts mean square follows by the effective noise bandwidth calculation:This is also the equipartition theorem: the mean capacitor energy is $\frac{1}{2}C⟨v_C^2⟩=\frac{1}{2}{k}_{\mathrm{B}}T$. Raising $R$ makes the low-frequency spectrum taller and its width narrower in exactly compensating proportions. It changes the equilibration time $RC$, not the final variance.

The integral to infinity belongs to the ideal classical model. For a physical electrical circuit, assume thermal equilibrium, linear components with negligible extra dissipation, and a corner far below the frequencies where parasitic effects, frequency-dependent electrical resistance, or $hf\sim k_{\mathrm{B}}T$ invalidate the model; the omitted high-frequency tail must be negligible. A finite-bandwidth instrument measures only part of this variance. Its input capacitance contributes to the total $C$, and its finite input electrical resistance introduces both loading and its own thermal electrical noise.

For $T=300\mathrm{K}$ and $C=1\mathrm{nF}$, the predicted equilibrium variance is $4.141947\times 10^{-12}{\mathrm{V}}^2$ and the root mean square voltage is $2.0352\mu \mathrm{V}$. At $R=10\mathrm{k}\Omega$, $RC=10\mu \mathrm{s}$ and $B_{\mathrm{n}}=25\mathrm{kHz}$. At $R=100\mathrm{k}\Omega$, $RC=100\mu \mathrm{s}$ and $B_{\mathrm{n}}=2.5\mathrm{kHz}$; the equilibrium root mean square voltage is identical.

To obtain the growth curve, prepare $v_C(0)=0$ exactly and connect the resistor at $t=0$ while maintaining its temperature. The RC low-pass filter's causal impulse response is $h(t)=e^{-t/(RC)}/(RC)$ for $t\ge 0$. Classical ideal white noise with two-sided power spectral density $2k_{\mathrm{B}}TR$ givesThe factor $2k_{\mathrm{B}}TR$ here is the two-sided time-domain noise intensity; the equilibrium spectral integral above used the one-sided $4k_{\mathrm{B}}TR$. They give the same long-time limit. The variance approaches equilibrium with time constant $RC/2$, although a deterministic initial voltage decays with time constant $RC$. If the capacitor already starts in thermal equilibrium, its initial variance supplies the missing exponentially decaying term and the total variance stays constant.

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.

Resistor tolerance specifies the permissible manufacturing deviation of a resistor's electrical resistance from its nominal value under stated conditions. For nominal electrical resistance $R_{\mathrm{nom}}>0$ and fractional resistor tolerance $0\le \tau <1$, the specified range is $R_{\mathrm{nom}}(1-\tau )\le R\le R_{\mathrm{nom}}(1+\tau )$. This differs from measurement uncertainty: resistor tolerance describes a component specification, while measurement uncertainty describes knowledge of a measured value; the tolerance alone is not a probability distribution for that value.

Two nominally equal resistors can have different actual electrical resistances, changing their voltage divider ratio even without an external electrical load. In a loaded voltage divider, use the actual electrical resistances to calculate both the unloaded output and the Thévenin resistance governing voltage divider loading error. A mismatch from resistor tolerance and a change from voltmeter loading are distinct effects that can occur together.

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].

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 RLC circuit combines electrical resistance $R$, inductance $L$, and capacitance $C$. The capacitor stores energy in its electric field; the inductor stores energy in its magnetic field. Their exchange can produce an oscillation, while Joule heating removes energy. A series RLC circuit gives a particularly clear example: changing $R$ turns ringing into a direct return to equilibrium, and changing $L$ or $C$ tunes a resonance.

These circuits connect two useful viewpoints. In time, they describe how stored energy is released after switching. In frequency, they select a range of signals: the resonant series RLC response explains radio tuning and simple filters. The same mathematics describes a damped harmonic oscillator, so insight about mechanical ringing transfers directly to an electrical circuit. ^[ref]; ^[ref].

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].

For negligible self-inductance, a loop with electrical resistance $R$ obeys $I=-{\dot{\Phi }}_{\mathrm{ext}}/R$. With ${\Phi }_{\mathrm{ext}}=AB(t)\cos \theta$, this gives $I=-(A/R)\dot{B}\cos \theta +(A/R)B\sin \theta \dot{\theta }$. Its magnetic torque isFor $B=B_0\sin \omega t$ and slow mechanical motion, the first term averages to zero while the second gives the displayed opposing torque. A stationary loop nevertheless experiences an alternating torque at $2\omega$ and generally executes small forced motion. The zero leading mean aligning torque is not a claim of exactly zero instantaneous motion or of no higher-order effect.

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.

Saponification is hydrolysis of an ester under basic conditions. The conductometric saponification assay follows ethyl acetate consumption by hydroxide, producing ethanol and an acetate ion; its equal-starting-concentration case provides a practical second-order reaction example.

Saponification is ester hydrolysis promoted by a chemical base, with net consumption of hydroxide to form a carboxylate and an alcohol. For a carboxylic acid-derived ester, the net chemical equation isThe hydroxide is a reactant, rather than merely a regenerated catalyst.^[ref]

For ethyl acetate, the balanced chemical equation becomesBoth sides contain four carbon chemical atoms, nine hydrogen chemical atoms, three oxygen chemical atoms, and net electric charge $-1$. A sodium ion supplied by sodium hydroxide is a spectator ion; the net ionic equation omits it without losing electric charge conservation.

In the usual reaction mechanism, hydroxide adds to the carbonyl group, making a reaction intermediate. Departure of the alcohol's conjugate base gives a carboxylic acid; transfer of a proton then gives the carboxylate and the alcohol. Subsequent addition of a chemical acid gives the carboxylic acid by protonation:This separate acidification changes the reaction product's protonation state.^[ref]

The conductometric saponification assay makes hydroxide consumption observable. A university procedure equilibrates separate ethyl acetate and sodium hydroxide stocks in constant-temperature baths, then mixes them in a rinsed conductivity cell. Two platinum electrodes and an alternating-voltage Wheatstone bridge supply an electrical resistance readout. A matched sodium hydroxide–water dilution checks the initial signal; potassium chloride calibrates the cell constant. Replacing hydroxide with less mobile acetate ions lowers electrical conductance, supporting an inference about changing concentration. The manual supplies a procedure rather than measured outcomes. Temperature drift or additional ions can change the signal; it cannot alone identify the full reaction mechanism.^[ref]

The Seebeck effect is the generation of a thermoelectric electromotive force by a temperature difference. In a thermocouple, two different homogeneous electrical conductors A and B connect a measuring junction at $T_h$ to two reference connections at a common $T_c$. With negligible electric current, the measured terminal voltage is determined by the difference of their Seebeck coefficients. A hot junction alone does not specify the reading: the reference temperature, the second material, and the terminal order matter.

For a motivating experiment, join one end of A to one end of B, insulating the wires elsewhere. Connect their free ends to identical meter leads at reference temperature $T_c$, for example in an ice-water heat bath. A meter with input electrical resistance much larger than the thermocouple's electrical resistance approximates an open circuit, meaning $I\approx 0$. Keep the measuring junction in a separately controlled heat bath at $T_h$ and wait for stable junction temperatures. Both reference connections must share $T_c$; identical leads with identical endpoint temperatures have cancelling thermoelectric contributions, allowing the meter to be elsewhere. ^[ref].

Define the reading as $V_{AB}=V_A-V_B$, with the positive input on the A reference terminal and the negative input on B. Use the Seebeck coefficient convention in which the voltage change along a homogeneous wire at zero electric current is $dV=-S(T)dT$. Following the path from A at $T_c$ to the common junction at $T_h$, then back along B to $T_c$, givesThis formula assumes homogeneous materials whose Seebeck coefficients depend only on the local temperature, and no additional uncompensated lead contributions. Here voltage is the electrical transport voltage associated with electrochemical potential, rather than a direct measurement of an isolated equilibrium contact electric potential.

Start with $T_h=T_c$, then increase $T_h$ while holding $T_c$ fixed and record $V_{AB}$ at each stable setting. In the ideal model the equal-temperature reading is zero. If $S_A-S_B>0$ throughout the interval, A reads positive when $T_h>T_c$. Exchanging meter inputs reverses the reading; exchanging the two junction temperatures reverses the oriented integral. Repeating the run with identical homogeneous materials gives zero because $S_A=S_B$. These controls test the stated model; a nonzero experimental baseline should be measured rather than silently removed by assuming it is zero.

For an explicitly toy linear example, stipulate constant Seebeck coefficients $S_A=25\mu V/K$ and $S_B=-15\mu V/K$. Choose reference temperature $T_c=20{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$ and measuring-junction temperature $T_h=70{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$. A temperature difference has the same numerical size in kelvins and on the degree Celsius scale, soSwapping the inputs gives $-2.00\mathrm{mV}$. Bringing both junction regions to the same temperature gives zero. With temperature-dependent Seebeck coefficients, shifting both junction temperatures equally while keeping their difference fixed can change the reading. No actual material pair is claimed to have the stipulated coefficients over this interval.

Real thermocouples need a calibrated voltage-versus-temperature relation: the constant-Seebeck coefficient approximation is useful only where the coefficient difference changes little. Wire inhomogeneity can make the result depend on where the temperature gradient lies, and reference connections at unequal or unknown temperatures introduce errors. An electronic reference correction uses a measured reference temperature in place of an ice bath. ^[ref]. Burns and colleagues provide the standardized reference functions for common letter-designated thermocouple types; the toy line above is not a replacement for them. ^[ref].

The historical experiment used a different detector. In his 1821–1823 investigations, Seebeck found that a closed electrical circuit of two dissimilar materials with junctions at different temperatures deflected a compass needle. The modern explanation is that thermoelectric electromotive force drives an electric current, whose magnetic field deflects the needle. The open-circuit experiment above detects voltage while drawing negligible electric current. The striking connection is that a thermal imbalance can become an electrical signal and then a magnetic response. ^[ref].

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]

Oscillations of electrical resistance as a magnetic field moves Landau levels through the Fermi energy.

Shunting inhibition is suppression of another input's effect through increased synaptic conductance: opening additional ion channels lowers effective electrical resistance, reducing the voltage response to a given added electric current. When the added reversal potential equals the resting membrane potential, there can be no voltage change at rest and still be inhibition of a simultaneous input. See 1.4 Limitations of the Leaky Integrate-and-Fire Model.

Use the passive synaptic potential model below with leak $g_L=10\mathrm{nS}$, $E_L=-65\mathrm{mV}$ and capacitance $C=200\mathrm{pF}$. A sustained inward test electric current of $I_{\mathrm{ext}}=100\mathrm{pA}$ alone gives a steady voltage increase of $I_{\mathrm{ext}}/g_L=10\mathrm{mV}$, so $V_{\infty }=-55\mathrm{mV}$. Effective electrical resistance is $100\mathrm{M\Omega }$ and the time constant is $20\mathrm{ms}$.

Now hold a shunting conductance $g_i=20\mathrm{nS}$ open with $E_i=E_L=-65\mathrm{mV}$. With no test electric current, rest stays at $-65\mathrm{mV}$. With the same $100\mathrm{pA}$ test electric current, total conductance becomes $30\mathrm{nS}$, so the steady voltage increase is only $100/30\simeq 3.333\mathrm{mV}$: $V_{\infty }\simeq -61.667\mathrm{mV}$. Effective electrical resistance is $33.333\mathrm{M\Omega }$ and the time constant is $200/30\simeq 6.667\mathrm{ms}$. A faster response can therefore be smaller. At the original rest the shunting electric current is zero; at $V=-55\mathrm{mV}$ it is $20(-65+55)=-200\mathrm{pA}$, opposing the voltage excursion.

The factor of three reduction applies to this constant-electric current, constant-conductance example. A finite pulse, conductance-driven input or spatially extended dendrite need not have the same reduction. The interesting feature is conditional action: the shunt can leave a quiet neuron's voltage unchanged yet reshape its response when another input arrives. A model that represents all inhibition as a fixed outward electric current misses this behavior.