Resistance bridge

A resistance bridge compares electrical resistances by making two paths through an electrical circuit produce the same intermediate electric potential. The Wheatstone bridge turns this into a null measurement: adjust one arm until a detector joining the two intermediate points reads zero, then infer the unknown from a ratio. This is useful because the balance relation does not require an accurately calibrated detector gain or supply electric potential difference, provided the supply is nonzero and the resistors obey Ohm's law.

Consider a bridge driven across opposite nodes, with upper-path arms $Z_V=r_V\parallel i\omega L_V$ and $i\omega L_1$, lower-path arms $R_1$ and $R+i\omega L$, and a null detector between the path midpoints. Equality of midpoint voltages gives $Z_V(R+i\omega L)=i\omega L_1{R}_1$. At nonzero frequency, substitution and comparison of real and imaginary parts yield the displayed resistance and inductance. The formulas depend on the variable arm being parallel; treating it as a series arm gives a different circuit.

An unloaded four-arm resistance bridge with $Z_1=R_1+i\omega L_1$ and $Z_4=R_4/(1+i\omega R_4{C}_4)$ balances when $Z_1{Z}_4=R_2{R}_3$. Multiplying through the RC denominator and comparing real and imaginary coefficients gives the displayed conditions. In this ideal model they hold at all frequencies, including the DC steady limit. Replacing the parallel RC arm by a series arm changes the balance law.

With other arms fixed and a high-input-resistance detector, the DC midpoint difference has derivative $-V_s{R}_2/(R_1+R_2{)}^2$ with respect to $R_1$. Dividing a small detectable voltage change by its magnitude gives the local resistance resolution. Calibration, source stability, thermal drift and detector loading contribute separately to total measurement uncertainty. Detector sensitivity alone is not a complete accuracy claim.

The Wheatstone bridge has four resistor arms and two diagonals. Here the supply holds node $A$ at constant electric potential difference $V_s>0$ relative to node $D$, our electrical reference potential. The left path is $A\to R_1\to B\to R_2\to D$; the right path is $A\to R_3\to C\to R_x\to D$. The unknown is $R_x$, and $R_3$ is adjustable. A voltmeter or galvanometer connects $B$ to $C$. We define its positive reading as $V_B-V_C$; exchanging its leads reverses the sign. All four electrical resistances are positive, the supply is ideal, and the calculation describes steady electric currents at fixed temperature.

Charles Wheatstone described the instrument in his 1843 Bakerian lecture while explicitly crediting Samuel Hunter Christie. The account from King's College London's collection identifies that attribution; the familiar name should not be read as an assertion that Wheatstone alone originated the bridge.^[ref]

First disconnect the detector. Each side is a voltage divider. Ohm's law and Kirchhoff's voltage law give the open-circuit intermediate electric potentials and their difference:Setting this difference to zero and cross-multiplying givesThe balance compares ratios, not necessarily equal arm values or equal branch electric currents. At balance the detector carries no electric current, so Kirchhoff's current law again makes the electric current constant along each two-arm path.^[ref]

For a worked null measurement, suppose $R_1=1.000\mathrm{k\Omega }$ and $R_2=2.000\mathrm{k\Omega }$, and the detector null occurs at adjustable $R_3=1.500\mathrm{k\Omega }$. ThenFor $V_s=3.000\mathrm{V}$, both intermediate electric potentials are $2.000\mathrm{V}$. The left branch carries $1.000\mathrm{mA}$ and the right branch $0.6667\mathrm{mA}$: the zero detector reading does not mean that the unknown carries no electric current. These are stipulated ideal values illustrating the calculation, not experimental observations.

A real voltmeter has finite input electrical resistance $R_d$; a galvanometer also has a finite winding electrical resistance. Away from balance, its electric current changes both intermediate electric potentials. This is voltmeter loading when the detector is a voltmeter. Model the detector as a passive resistor, with no offset or injected electric current. Thévenin's theorem supplies the full response without pretending the connected bridge remains two independent voltage dividers.

With the detector removed, the equivalent source is $V_{\mathrm{oc}}$. Replace the ideal supply by a wire to calculate the source electrical resistance seen between $B,C$: nodes $A,D$ merge, making $R_1,R_2$ parallel and $R_3,R_x$ parallel. ConsequentlySince the attenuation factor is strictly positive for $R_d>0$, the null remains $R_2{R}_3=R_1{R}_x$. A smaller detector electrical resistance reduces the measured electric potential difference off balance but does not shift the ideal null. Its electric current sensitivity instead depends on $1/(R_{\mathrm{th}}+R_d)$; detector gain and resolution also matter in deciding how closely a null can be located.

In the plotted example, $R_x=1.100\mathrm{k\Omega }$ gives $V_{\mathrm{oc}}=-119.048\mathrm{mV}$ and $R_{\mathrm{th}}=1.02381\mathrm{k\Omega }$. A detector with $R_d=1.000\mathrm{k\Omega }$ instead reads $V_d=-58.824\mathrm{mV}$. Using that loaded reading in the unloaded voltage divider formula would underestimate the deviation of $R_x$ from $1\mathrm{k\Omega }$. Balancing the bridge avoids this particular systematic measurement error.

The local derivative makes the sensitivity explicit. For $R_1=R_2=R_3=R$ and $R_x=R+\delta R$, the first-order Taylor expansion isAt the plotted null, the open-circuit slope is $-1.25mV/\Omega$, compared with $-0.625mV/\Omega$ for $R_d=1\mathrm{k\Omega }$. Increasing the supply improves this ideal sensitivity but also increases Joule heating. A finite source electrical resistance requires recomputing $R_{\mathrm{th}}$; the displayed parallel-pair expression assumes an ideal supply.

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

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

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

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

Physicist whose 1843 exposition gave the Wheatstone bridge its familiar name while crediting Samuel Hunter Christie.^[ref]

The originator credited by Charles Wheatstone in his 1843 exposition of the Wheatstone bridge.^[ref]