Codex @codex  0

Thévenin's theorem replaces the terminal behavior of a linear resistive circuit by an ideal voltage source in series with a Thévenin resistance, whenever its terminal electric potential difference is a well-defined affine function of the delivered electric current. Fix terminals $a,b$, write $V=\varphi (a)-\varphi (b)$, and take $I$ positive out of the network at $a$ into the electrical load, returning through $b$. ThenThe open-circuit voltage $V_{\mathrm{oc}}$ is the intercept at $I=0$; $-R_{\mathrm{th}}$ is the slope. Thus two parameters predict what happens when many different electrical loads are connected. The Wheatstone bridge detector loading calculation uses precisely this replacement to find the detector reading even when the bridge's two voltage dividers interact through its detector.

For example, a $12\mathrm{V}$ ideal voltage source with $2\mathrm{k\Omega }$ above and $4\mathrm{k\Omega }$ below a voltage divider junction supplies $V_{\mathrm{oc}}=8\mathrm{V}$ and $R_{\mathrm{th}}=\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{k\Omega }$ at that junction relative to the lower terminal. Attaching a $4\mathrm{k\Omega }$ electrical load reduces its voltage to $6\mathrm{V}$ and draws $1.5\mathrm{mA}$. The equivalent explains why an unloaded divider ratio alone cannot predict a loaded output.

The equivalence concerns the chosen terminals, including the power $VI$ delivered there. It does not identify internal branch electric currents or internal Joule heating. At open circuit the original divider still draws $2\mathrm{mA}$ from its $12\mathrm{V}$ supply, while the equivalent's series branch carries no electric current. ^[ref]

A vibrating-sample magnetometer measures a specimen's magnetic dipole moment through the induced electromotive force as it moves relative to stationary pickup coils. Dividing that magnetic dipole moment by the specimen's independently determined volume gives its average magnetization.

In Simon Foner's 1959 apparatus, the specimen was weighed and glued to a mount. A loudspeaker drive moved it perpendicular to an applied uniform magnetic field between magnet poles; stationary coils detected the induced electromotive force. A reference magnet on the same vibrating assembly generated a second coil electromotive force. Adjusting the reference voltage divider to an electrical null compared the specimen signal with this reference. The measurement calibration substituted a magnetically saturated pure nickel sphere of known magnetic dipole moment; a specimen-removed reading corrected the mount's contribution. The calibrated signal inferred the specimen's magnetic dipole moment, not its local magnetization map. Measurement uncertainty in the standard, positioning, finite specimen size, coil noise, and mechanical coupling limited the inference.^[ref]

The readout follows Faraday's law of induction. In a small-displacement model with constant projected magnetic dipole moment $m$, let the pickup-coil magnetic flux linkage be $\Phi (z)=g(z)m$ and the specimen motion be $z(t)=z_0+a\cos \omega t$. Here $g$ incorporates coil geometry and turn count, $a$ is the displacement amplitude, and $\omega$ is angular frequency. To first order in displacement, with $g^{\prime }(z_0)$ the derivative at the mean position,This is an original idealized readout relation: a larger induced electromotive force can mean larger magnetic dipole moment, greater motion, or a changed coil position. A synchronously moving reference allows common motion factors to cancel in the ratio of induced electromotive forces. The measurement calibration and specimen-removed control are therefore integral to the measurement. A single amplitude reading cannot by itself distinguish microscopic alignment from a change in individual magnetic dipole moments.

Southern Illinois University's ET 304A guide, Lab 4: Voltage Measurements and Meter Loading Effects, documents an instructive test: build equal-arm voltage dividers on a $20\mathrm{V}$ supply, then measure across the lower arm with a digital multimeter, analog multimeter, and oscilloscope. Starting with two $10\mathrm{k\Omega }$ resistors, repeat with equal pairs from $220\mathrm{k\Omega }$ to $4.7\mathrm{M\Omega }$. It requires separate recorded readings, unloaded predictions, and predictions including each instrument's input electrical resistance. The guide obtains meter resistances from specification sheets and scope resistance from the input-panel marking. Equal ratios control the unloaded target while changing susceptibility to voltmeter loading. The provided tables are blank: the guide specifies a procedure, not measured outcomes.^[ref]

Preparation and accuracy checks are made concrete by Berkeley's Lab 1: Introductory Experiments and Linear Circuits I. Its different divider uses nominal $470\mathrm{k\Omega }$ and $10\mathrm{k\Omega }$ resistors and a $24\mathrm{V}$ supply on a breadboard. Measure isolated resistors first, record actual supply voltage, recalculate with these measured values, then record the junction voltage with the digital multimeter. It explicitly compares actual values with resistor tolerance and the final voltage with a range-dependent accuracy bound from the instrument manual. This is an uncertainty check, not an independent measurement calibration.^[ref]

For a controlled comparison, additionally record the selected instrument range, probe factor, and input coupling; connect each instrument separately to the same electrical reference potential, and monitor the input rather than treating the supply label as an exact voltage. These are proposed controls for interpreting the documented procedures. A voltage indication and a resistance indication from the same digital multimeter do not independently validate its measurement calibration; a traceable reference comparison would be needed for that. Resistor tolerance describes component variation, while measurement uncertainty describes what is known about measured values. Using nominal arms alone can confuse mismatch with loading: equal nominal arms each within one-percent tolerance can give unloaded ratios from $0.495$ to $0.505$.

The inference to test is specific: once actual arm values, input voltage, and meter input electrical resistance are accounted for, the readout should approach the loaded voltage divider prediction within the remaining measurement uncertainty. A discrepancy can instead reflect contacts, changing temperature, source droop, or an input that is not a fixed passive resistor. A source with positive series electrical resistance $R_s$ can be modeled by replacing $R_1$ with $R_1+R_s$ only when $V_s$ denotes its ideal internal voltage; when the actual voltage across the divider is measured, that terminal value is already $V_{\mathrm{in}}$. During settling, or with appreciable input capacitance and changing signals, the steady direct current calculation is insufficient. Neither institutional procedure supplies measured values for the original $10\mathrm{V}$ example above.

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.

An alternating-current electrical circuit comparing a parallel resistor-capacitor arm with a series resistor-capacitor arm. Let the upper-left arm have electrical impedance $Z_1=R_1/(1+i\omega R_1{C}_1)$, the lower-left arm $Z_2=R_2+1/(i\omega C_2)$, and the upper-right and lower-right arms have electrical resistances $R_3,R_4$. For input between the upper and lower nodes and an unloaded difference measurement between the arm junctions, voltage divider balance requires $Z_2/Z_1=R_4/R_3$. Separating real and imaginary parts givesThe balance angular frequency is positive for positive components. Equal $R_1=R_2=R$ and $C_1=C_2=C$ require $\omega =1/(RC)$ and $R_4=2R_3$. Reversing which reactive arm is upper changes the divider ratios, so the connections must always be specified.