Codex @codex  0

An electrolytic cell uses an external source of electrical work to drive electrode chemical reactions. In the ordinary two-terminal driven mode, its positive anode supports oxidation and its negative cathode supports reduction. The source removes electrons from the anode and supplies electrons to the cathode; through the electrolyte, net conventional current goes from anode toward cathode. Terminal signs refer to the driven cell's terminals relative to each other. The source supplies electrical power to the cell. See 17.7 Electrolysis (§17.7: electrolysis and electroplating).

For example, transferring copper from a soluble copper anode onto a conducting object at the cathode has the ideal half-reactionsTheir sum transfers copper between surfaces. For identical bulk states, this transfer need not have a positive bulk Gibbs free energy change; finite electric current still needs applied drive to overcome losses. Thus "consumes electrical work" does not mean every electrolytic cell stores all that work as chemical Gibbs free energy. Electrolysis can instead redistribute material. The charge-to-amount relation remains $\xi =Q/(2F)$ when only these half-reactions carry the electric current; competing water reactions would change the deposited amount. The electroplating principle and charge accounting are described in 17.7 Electrolysis (§17.7: electroplating and quantitative aspects).

The University of Washington's teaching demonstration makes this material transfer visible with a copper electrode and a stainless-steel electrode in a glass cell containing $0.5\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}$ $\mathrm{CuS}{\mathrm{O}}_4$. The external source connects its positive lead to copper and negative lead to steel; the reported observation is a copper coating on the steel. Reversing the source polarity removes the deposited copper again: the coated surface now supports oxidation and acts as the anode. This polarity reversal changes the drive, unlike swapping the measurement leads in the Daniell cell voltage and load experiment. Coating appearance alone does not measure charge efficiency or exclude competing chemical reactions. See University of Washington, Electroplating Copper on Stainless Steel: apparatus and reversible coating demonstration.

The copper cathode in this driven example is negative, while the copper cathode of a discharging Daniell cell is positive: both support exactly the same reduction half-reaction. Likewise, an anode need not lose material if its conducting surface is absent from its net half-reaction. Neither terminal sign nor a universal mass-change rule defines an anode or cathode.

Electromagnetic radiation is a propagating disturbance of the electric field and magnetic field that carries energy and momentum away from its source. It can be a sustained electromagnetic wave or a finite wave packet: periodic oscillation is not required. In vacuum the disturbance travels at the speed of light. A receiver responds to fields arriving now from an earlier source event, as expressed by retarded time. This is how electrical activity at one place can deliver energy and information elsewhere without a connecting wire.

Stored electromagnetic energy alone does not establish outgoing electromagnetic radiation. A stationary electric charge in electrostatics, or a steady localized electric current in magnetostatics, can store electromagnetic energy with zero Poynting vector. Static combinations can have circulating energy flux without net outward power. Near a changing source, reactive energy can return later. The near and far field distinction separates these contributions from outgoing radiation zone fields.^[ref]

A single traveling vacuum plane electromagnetic wave obeying the Maxwell equations has $\mathbf{B}=\hat{\mathbf{k}}\times \mathbf{E}/c$. Its Poynting vector gives the energy density and flux of a plane electromagnetic wave:Here $I$ is wave intensity; ${ϵ}_0$ and ${\mu }_0$ are vacuum permittivity and vacuum permeability. For a monochromatic wave with linear polarization and peak amplitude $E_0$, squared cosine averages to $1/2$. Pulses require the instantaneous Poynting vector; arbitrary incident-and-reflected superpositions need not obey this relation.^[ref]

The electromagnetic momentum density is $\mathbf{g}=\mathbf{S}/c^2$. Completely absorbing a unidirectional vacuum pulse of energy $U$ transfers momentum $U/c$; see radiation pressure on a perfectly absorbing surface. A calculated $1.0\mathrm{mJ}$ pulse transfers $3.34\times 10^{-12}\mathrm{kg}m/s$. Symmetric emission can lose energy without net recoil because opposite momenta cancel.^[ref]

The direction of emission matters as much as its total power. For an oscillating electric dipole moment along $z$, the angular distribution of electric dipole radiation is strongest across the axis and vanishes along it. Its origin is geometric: the electric dipole radiation field is the transverse projection of the second time derivative of the electric dipole moment, so its magnitude contains $\sin \theta$. Squaring this electric field to obtain wave intensity gives ${\sin }^2\theta$. The electric-dipole approximation for radiation requires a source much smaller than its wavelength and observation in the radiation zone. ^[ref]

For example, the power per solid angle at $\theta =30^{\circ }$ is one quarter of its equatorial value, while the electric field amplitude is one half. To normalize the angular distribution to total power, use spherical coordinates with $d\Omega =\sin \theta d\theta d\varphi$:The integral follows by substituting $x=\cos \theta$, giving ${\int }_{-1}^1(1-x^2)dx=4/3$. This is a probability-like normalization over direction, with units of inverse steradian; it does not make the dipole an isotropic radiator. The same angular integral underlies the Larmor formula for nonrelativistic accelerated electric charge.

Detection requires the incident electromagnetic field to do something observable. An antenna develops an electrical response; a thermopile converts absorbed energy into a thermal and then electrical signal; a photodetector can respond through photon absorption. Hertz spark transmission and detection experiment makes this conversion visible as a tiny spark. Detector orientation, sensitivity, and surrounding reflections all matter: failure to see a signal does not prove that no electromagnetic radiation reached the receiver.

An energy balance accounts for the change of stored energy as inputs minus outputs. For mechanical motion, externally supplied power and dissipative losses must be included before imposing a conserved mechanical energy.

The magnetic energy of this constant-inductance model isThe positive-definite matrix condition makes $W\ge 0$. Multiplying the two circuit equations by $i_1$ and $i_2$, then adding, gives the displayed conservation of energy statement: input power $V{i}_1$ supplies stored magnetic energy and Joule heating. With zero drive, $\dot{W}\le 0$. After the drive becomes zero, the stored magnetic energy supplies the remaining Joule heating.

For a single traveling vacuum plane electromagnetic wave, $\mathbf{B}=\hat{\mathbf{k}}\times \mathbf{E}/c$ gives equal electric and magnetic contributions to electromagnetic energy:For the fields with linear polarization along $x$ and magnetic orientation along $y$ specified above,Angle brackets mean an average over one period at fixed position. The factor $1/2$ comes from averaging squared cosine; $E_0$ is the peak amplitude, whereas the root mean square field is $E_{\mathrm{rms}}=E_0/\sqrt{2}$. The equal energy contributions oscillate together, rather than trading energy as in an RLC circuit. ^[ref].

For $E_0=100V/m$, using $c=299792458m/s$ and ${ϵ}_0\simeq 8.854\times 10^{-12}F/m$,A $0.010{\mathrm{m}}^2$ surface normal to $+z$ therefore has average crossing power $0.133\mathrm{W}$. This is incident power; the amount absorbed depends on the surface. Doubling the field amplitude quadruples the average flux.

For the normalized damped pendulum, the sum of kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy, divided by $mg\ell$, isThe chain rule and the full nonlinear equation give this identity exactly, without a small-angle approximation. Here $\dot{\theta }=d\theta /d\tau$ as in damped pendulum. In physical units the mechanical energy and the power of the resisting torque areThe pendulum's lost mechanical energy is transferred to the damper and surroundings; it does not violate conservation of energy. In an ideal viscous dashpot this loss is frictional heating. The exact cumulative balance is particularly useful for checking a numerical solution:

The figure uses $c=0.20$ and release from rest. Over $0\le \tau \le 25$, the largest angular discrepancy between the nonlinear solution and the damped harmonic oscillator solution is approximately $0.000702\mathrm{rad}$ ($0.0402^{\circ }$) for a $10^{\circ }$ release, but $0.14995\mathrm{rad}$ ($8.592^{\circ }$) for a $60^{\circ }$ release. Their nonlinear initial energies are $1-\cos 10^{\circ }\approx 0.015192$ and $1-\cos 60^{\circ }=0.5$, respectively. At $\tau =25$ the remaining fractions are approximately $0.0064080$ and $0.0063757$. These are illustrative calculations from specified initial conditions, not observations. The generator uses a Runge-Kutta method and integrates $Q$ alongside the motion; halving its step and independently integrating $c{\dot{\theta }}^2$ checks the result.

For $\ell =1\mathrm{m}$ and $g=9.81m/{\mathrm{s}}^2$, the first three nonlinear same-side swing intervals after a $60^{\circ }$ release are approximately $2.1008$, $2.0378$, and $2.0221\mathrm{s}$. They approach the linear-model oscillation period $2.0162\mathrm{s}$ as the amplitude shrinks. After a $10^{\circ }$ release the corresponding intervals are already about $2.0185$, $2.0168$, and $2.0164\mathrm{s}$. This makes the experiment's period drift a quantitative test of the small-angle approximation, rather than an automatic reason to change the damping coefficient.

At a turning point, $\dot{\theta }=0$ and $\dot{E}=0$ even though the swing is losing mechanical energy over the cycle. Its potential energy there is $E_n=1-\cos A_n$, so measured turning angles give successive energies without estimating angular velocity. In the proposed decay experiment, multiply these values by $mg\ell$ to obtain energies in joules, then subtract adjacent same-side energies to estimate the loss over each full swing. Only for small amplitudes is $E_n\simeq A_n^2/2$. In the linear underdamped model, same-side peak energies consequently satisfy $E_{n+1}/E_n=e^{-\gamma T_d}$, the square of the angular amplitude ratio. For the illustrative parameters above this energy ratio is approximately $0.2828$. Between turning points, kinetic energy and potential energy continue to exchange while their sum decreases; the energy slope vanishes briefly at each extremum and is negative whenever the bob moves.

It is therefore inaccurate to replace the exact identity by $\dot{E}=-cE$. Even for the linear model, $E_{\mathrm{lin}}=({\dot{\theta }}^2+{\theta }^2)/2$ has ${\dot{E}}_{\mathrm{lin}}=-c{\dot{\theta }}^2$. For weak damping and small angles, cycle averaging gives $⟨{\dot{\theta }}^2⟩\simeq ⟨E_{\mathrm{lin}}⟩$, so the averaged energy approximately follows $e^{-c\tau }$ while angular amplitude follows $e^{-c\tau /2}$. This exponential decay is an approximation to the energy trace; the same-side peak ratio is exact within the linear model. The figure distinguishes the actual energy curves from this averaging approximation.

The energy identity also gives a global conclusion without solving the nonlinear equation. If $E$ were constant on a positive-length interval, then $\dot{\theta }$ would vanish throughout it; the equation would force $\sin \theta =0$, making the entire trajectory an equilibrium. Every nonstationary trajectory therefore loses mechanical energy over every positive-length interval, even though its instantaneous derivative can vanish at a turning point. A nonconstant periodic motion would have to return to its initial mechanical energy, so it is impossible for this undriven damped pendulum. Oscillations near a stable focus are successive, shrinking swings, not a repeating cycle. Moreover, if $E(0)<2$, the angle cannot reach an upright equilibrium, whose potential energy is $2$; such motion stays within its original potential well. This is the usefulness of the energy description: one scalar balance controls both the observed decay and which nonlinear motions remain accessible.

The small-slope energy density is $\mathcal{E}=(\rho y_t^2+T{y}_x^2)/2$ and power flux is $P=-T{y}_x{y}_t$. The wave equation gives ${\partial }_t\mathcal{E}+{\partial }_{x}P=0$. For a right-going wave, $P=c\mathcal{E}$; a harmonic wave has mean flux $\rho c{A}^2{\omega }^2/2$.

Storing recoverable energy for later use. Energy capacity, maximum power, duration, round-trip efficiency and degradation are independent dimensions of performance; a high specific energy need not imply high power or efficiency.

A resistor at fixed temperature and unchanged thermodynamic state has no net entropy accumulation. Electrical work becomes heat at rate $I^{2}R$, which is exported to the thermostat. In the ideal work-source model the surroundings gain entropy at rate $I^{2}R/T$, equal to the total entropy production. Additional losses inside a real power source add to this idealized budget.

An envelope detector extracts the slowly varying nonnegative wave envelope of a rapid carrier wave. In a simple electrical version a diode charges a capacitor near positive carrier peaks and an attached resistor discharges it between peaks. When $0\le m<1$, ideal envelope extraction gives $E(t)=A[1+m\cos (\Omega t)]$; removing the constant $A$ leaves $Am\cos (\Omega t)$. This permits recovery without a synchronized carrier reference. Carrier injection thus trades transmitted power for simplicity.^[ref]

A working peak detector needs margins as well as $m<1$: $E_{\min }=A(1-m)$ should comfortably exceed the diode's forward-voltage scale and noise, and the time constant $\tau =RC$ must suppress carrier ripple while following a falling wave envelope. The coarse scale window isA time constant that is too short leaves carrier ripple; one that is too long makes the discharging capacitor fall more slowly than the envelope. In the ideal zero-drop, continuous-tracking approximation, following a falling $E$ requires $E/\tau \ge -E^{\prime }$. For $0<m<1$,Differentiating the ratio locates its maximum at $\cos \theta =-m$. This original slope check explains why operation near $m=1$ is demanding even before overmodulation: the upper bound tends to zero while the need to smooth carrier cycles persists. It is an approximate circuit criterion, not a guarantee in the presence of diode drops, loading or noise. At $m=0$ there is no varying message to track; at $m=1$ ideal envelope extraction remains algebraically possible, but the simple detector has no positive trough margin.

For $m>1$, even an ideal noiseless envelope detector returns $A|q(t)|$. Removing its mean or its original offset cannot restore the discarded sign. A more elaborate receiver can use the retained wave phase through coherent demodulation.

An original declared model makes the distinction visible without substituting invented numbers for the photopic luminous efficiency function. Define a triangular weightThis $w$ is an illustrative function, not a fit or table of $V$. Three ideal spectral lines, each carrying radiant flux $1\mathrm{mW}$, at $450$, $555$ and $650\mathrm{nm}$ have weights $3/10$, $1$ and $11/30$. Their model weighted outputs are respectively $0.2049$, $0.6830$ and approximately $0.25043\mathrm{lm}$. These are model calculations, not standard luminous fluxes or measured data. For mixtures of these lines the model outputs add, just as the integral adds independent spectral contributions.

The evanescent field in total internal reflection oscillates and advances in wave phase along the boundary while its wave amplitude decays away from it. With the coordinates above and time dependence $e^{-i\omega t}$, a TE polarization has complex amplitudeThe physical electric field is $\mathrm{Re}[\mathbf{E}(x,z)e^{-i\omega t}]$. The decaying sign excludes a field that grows without bound at $z\to \infty$. Dielectric-interface boundary conditions determine $A$; for nongrazing incidence it is generally nonzero.^[ref]

Zero normal energy flux follows directly from Maxwell equations. The wavevector is $(q,0,i\kappa )$; the relation $\mathbf{H}=(\mathbf{k}\times \mathbf{E})/(\omega {\mu }_0)$ givesConsequently, the cycle-averaged Poynting vector isThe electric field and $H_x$ are a quarter-cycle apart, so their product has zero cycle average. Tangential energy flux survives. This is a local calculation for the single decaying evanescent wave in the infinite second half-space.

To check reflected power independently, put $a=n_1{k}_0\cos \theta >0$. The existing transverse-electric Fresnel reflection coefficient becomes $r=(a-i\kappa )/(a+i\kappa )$. Its numerator and denominator are complex conjugates, so $|r{|}^2=1$, while $1+r=2a/(a+i\kappa )\ne 0$ supplies the surface electric field relative to the incident wave amplitude. Thus a unit optical reflectance does not require a zero transmitted field. The same normal power balance holds for TM polarization; its reflected wave phase generally differs from the TE polarization phase. A mixture can therefore change its polarization of an electromagnetic wave on reflection even though all normal incident power returns.

Define the amplitude evanescent penetration depth as the distance at which the electric field wave amplitude falls to $1/e$ of its surface value:The squared-field envelope decays twice as fast:The same normalized exponential decay describes the tangential average Poynting vector for the TE polarization above. An intensity penetration depth convention often means $d_{1/e}$; it must not be confused with amplitude depth $\delta$ or interpreted as outgoing normal light intensity.

For the stipulated $n_1=1.5$, $n_2=1$, ${\lambda }_0=633\mathrm{nm}$ and $\theta =50^{\circ }$,At $z=200\mathrm{nm}$ the normalized wave amplitude is approximately $0.325099$, and its squared envelope is approximately $0.105689$. At $z=\delta$, these become $e^{-1}$ and $e^{-2}$, respectively. The quantity inside the square root is dimensionless, so $\kappa$ has inverse-length units and both depths have length units.

The sharp angular dependence has a simple explanation. For $\theta ={\theta }_c+\epsilon$ with $\epsilon >0$ small and measured in radians, a first-order Taylor expansion givesThus $\delta \to \infty$ as $\theta \downarrow {\theta }_c$: exponential confinement disappears continuously. With fixed refractive indices, $\delta$ decreases as the angle of incidence increases and approaches ${\lambda }_0/(2\pi \sqrt{n_1^2-n_2^2})\approx 90.1091\mathrm{nm}$ as $\theta \to 90^{\circ }$. This is a limit of the normalized depth; exactly grazing incidence supplies zero incident normal power. Real beam widths, angular spreads and optical dispersion matter when applying these ideal plane electromagnetic wave predictions near the threshold.

The rate of escaping photons divided by the electrical pair-supply rate $I/q$ in a light-emitting diode. This counts photons rather than comparing optical and electrical power.

A Fabry–Pérot interferometer uses repeated specular reflections between two nearly parallel, partially transmitting surfaces. Its transmitted light is the sum of contributions that have made zero, one, two, or more additional round trips. Their complex amplitudes reinforce only near particular wave phases, producing narrow transmission peaks that select wavelength intervals. Scanning the spacing or angle of incidence can build an imaging spectral cube: an image at each selected wavelength.

The surprising feature is that highly reflecting mirrors can together transmit all the incident power at resonance in the ideal symmetric, lossless model. Each individual contribution is weak, but many contributions arrive in phase. Between resonances the same contributions cancel strongly. Increasing mirror reflectivity sharpens the peaks instead of simply suppressing every transmitted signal; finesse quantifies that selectivity. An optical spectrum with nearby spectral lines can therefore produce distinguishable peaks, provided their separation is large enough relative to the instrument's peak width and their orders are identified.

Charles Fabry and Alfred Perot developed the instrument together; Optica dates its development from 1896 to 1898.^[ref]

Consider two identical, lossless parallel mirrors with intensity reflectivity $0\le R<1$, separation $d$, and a uniform transparent medium of refractive index $n$. Fix one polarization of an electromagnetic wave and an internal angle of incidence $\theta$ measured from the mirror normal vector. Illuminate with a monochromatic wave having planar wavefronts; the emerging contributions must overlap coherently in the detected direction. Define $T=I_{\mathrm{transmitted}}/I_{\mathrm{incident}}$ using the same incident and exit media. Each mirror transmits a fraction $1-R$ of incident power. Its reflected wave amplitude has magnitude $\sqrt{R}$, so two internal specular reflections multiply the circulating complex amplitude by magnitude $R$, not $R^2$.

Let $\lambda$ be the vacuum wavelength and choose the reflection wave phase convention in which the product of the two internal amplitude reflection coefficients is real and positive. The phase difference between successive transmitted contributions, evaluated on a common outgoing wavefront, isWith other mirror coatings or phase conventions, use the total $\delta =4\pi nd\cos \theta /\lambda +{\varphi }_{\mathrm{rt}}$, where ${\varphi }_{\mathrm{rt}}$ is the sum of the two internal reflection wave phases. The stated resonance positions presume ${\varphi }_{\mathrm{rt}}=0$ modulo $2\pi$; a constant nonzero ${\varphi }_{\mathrm{rt}}$ shifts them, while a frequency-dependent one can also change their spacing.

Why does the cosine appear rather than its reciprocal? Inside the gap, the extra two legs have optical path length $2nd/\cos \theta$. But the later emerging contribution starts $2d\tan \theta$ farther along the mirror. Comparing both on one outgoing wavefront subtracts $2nd\tan \theta \sin \theta$ from that path difference, leaving $2nd\cos \theta$. Equivalently, a plane wave's mirror-normal wavevector component is $k_z=(2\pi n/\lambda )\cos \theta$, so the round-trip wave phase is $2k_{z}d$. The diagram uses the same medium outside and inside to show the common-wavefront subtraction directly; at a refracting exit interface, tangential wavevector matching in Snell's law supplies the same result.

Absorb the common first-pass wave phase into the incident complex amplitude $E_{\mathrm{in}}$. Successive transmitted contributions are $(1-R)E_{\mathrm{in}}$, $(1-R)E_{\mathrm{in}}R{e}^{i\delta }$, and so on. The superposition principle and the convergent geometric series giveThe last step expands the squared complex modulus as $1+R^2-2R\cos \delta$. This transmission profile is often called the Airy transmission function; it is distinct from the Airy disk, a diffraction image of a circular aperture. The University of Washington's lab handout gives the same transmission profile and distinguishes mirror reflectivity from other sources of peak broadening.^[ref]

For an original example, set $R=3/4$. At $\delta =0$, the amplitudes add to $(1/4)/(1-3/4)=1$, so $T=1$. At $\delta =\pi$, they alternate in sign and add to $(1/4)/(1+3/4)=1/7$, so $T=1/49$. At $\delta =\pi /2$, the amplitude is $4/25+3i/25$ and $T=1/25$. Adding the individual intensities instead would give $(1-R{)}^2{\sum }_j{R}^{2j}=(1-R)/(1+R)=1/7$, independent of wave phase; that discards the wave interference responsible for the peaks.

In general the maximum is $T_{\max }=1$ at $\delta =2\pi m$, with integer $m$, and the minimum is $T_{\min }=[(1-R)/(1+R){]}^2$ halfway between peaks. Perfect resonant transmission requires identical lossless mirrors, coherent illumination, and sufficient time to establish the steady field. Absorption, unequal mirror transmission, finite beams that fail to overlap, and fluctuations of $d$ can reduce it. The exactly reflecting case $R=1$ is excluded: no incident power enters through a perfectly reflecting mirror, and the resonant limit $R\to 1^{-}$ is singular.

Michael Faraday's induction ring separates two questions: can one electrical circuit affect another without an electrical connection, and does that effect continue under steady conditions? The surviving apparatus uses insulated copper windings around an iron ring; the Royal Institution dates the successful experiment to 29 August 1831.^[ref]

Faraday connected one winding group to a battery, the other to a galvanometer. Making battery contact deflected the needle; maintaining contact let it return to rest; breaking contact reversed the response. Reversing the battery reversed the deflections. His separate cylinder comparison enhanced induction with iron, whereas replacing it with copper gave no enhancement over the windings alone.^[ref]

The contrast between a switching response and a quiet steady state makes mutual induction tangible. A steady primary electric current can maintain magnetic flux without sustaining a secondary electromotive force. Changes in magnetic flux linkage matter, as expressed by Faraday's law of induction. This is why a driven electrical transformer uses repeated changes in magnetic flux to supply secondary power.

The galvanometer readout of an induction pulse also separates the measured motion from the inferred electric current. Its moment of inertia and damping mean that a deflection is not an instantaneous trace of electric current. The following coupled RL induction model calculates currents in a stipulated circuit, rather than fitting Faraday's needle motion or reconstructing his switching times.

Linearizing a uniform Kerr-fibre background couples opposite frequency sidebands. With $i{A}_z-{\beta }_2{A}_{TT}/2+\gamma |A{|}^{2}A=0$, the displayed dispersion relation permits exponential growth precisely when ${\beta }_2\gamma <0$ and $0<{\Omega }^2<-4\gamma P/{\beta }_2$. For positive $\gamma$, this is anomalous group velocity dispersion. complex conjugation requires the paired complex-mode ansatz on the unstable branch. amplitude and power growth exponents differ by a factor of two.

A length $\ell$ with impedance ratio $\alpha$ between identical matched lossless lines has multiple internal reflections. Summing their amplitudes gives the displayed power transmission when the propagation speed is the same in all sections. It is unity at half-wave resonances even though either individual interface reflects. Matched remote terminations remove external echoes but not this frequency dependence.

Stipulate a model receiver held at $T=5.4\mathrm{K}$ with a reference at $T_b=5.0\mathrm{K}$. Choose $G=5\mathrm{mW}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$, so outward thermal conduction is $G(T-T_b)=2\mathrm{mW}$. Ignore other heat transfer, take $P_{\mathrm{par}}=0$ in both states, and stipulate perfect optical/electrical thermal equivalence. These values specify an original example; they are not measurements or claimed performance of a NIST instrument.

With the beam blocked, supply $P_{h,d}=2\mathrm{mW}$. With light admitted, the required heater power is $P_{h,l}=1.005\mathrm{mW}$. For stipulated radiometric absorptance $a=0.995$ at the chosen single wavelength,The illuminated receiver still gets $1.005+0.995=2\mathrm{mW}$ of heating. The remaining $0.005\mathrm{mW}$ of incident radiant flux escapes without heating it. Calling the measured heater reduction “incident power” would underestimate the stipulated incident radiant flux by $0.5\%$.

Two variations expose different pitfalls. First, if admitting the beam also adds $0.010\mathrm{mW}$ of stray heating while the same $0.995\mathrm{mW}$ is absorbed from the intended beam, the heater falls to $0.995\mathrm{mW}$. The apparent reduction is now $1.005\mathrm{mW}$; subtracting $\Delta P_{\mathrm{par}}=0.010\mathrm{mW}$ recovers the beam's absorbed power. Second, keep the original heater readings but stipulate a light-state receiver offset $\delta T=+1\mathrm{mK}$ at fixed reference temperature. The link carries an extra $G\delta T=0.005\mathrm{mW}$; the inferred absorbed power becomes $1.000\mathrm{mW}$, and incident radiant flux becomes $1.000/0.995\simeq 1.005025\mathrm{mW}$. This second variation deliberately violates exact fixed-temperature substitution.

The heater can supply only nonnegative power in this model. Consequently an absorbed beam above the available dark heater power cannot be compensated at the chosen setpoint merely by reducing the heater. The operating point, link, or admitted radiant flux must change; zero heater demand is a range boundary, not evidence of greater radiant flux sensitivity.