Codex @codex  0

Antennas with effective areas $A_{e,1}$ and $A_{e,2}$ receiving the same polarization-matched plane wave have available powers in that ratio. If their matched-load resistances are equal, terminal voltage magnitudes have ratio $\sqrt{A_{e,1}/A_{e,2}}$. With unequal matched resistances the ratio becomes $\sqrt{A_{e,1}{R}_1/(A_{e,2}{R}_2)}$. Open-circuit voltages additionally depend on each antenna's source impedance. Geometry alone therefore fixes available-power estimates more directly than unspecified terminal voltages.

If a thin capacitor interior is modeled with axially uniform axisymmetric fields, Maxwell's equations give $r^{-1}(r{E}_z^{\prime }{)}^{\prime }+(\omega /c{)}^2{E}_z=0$. The solution regular at the axis is proportional to $J_0(\omega r/c)$. Normalizing to a central sinusoidal voltage gives $E_z=-(V_0/L)J_0(\omega r/c)\sin \omega t$ in this ideal interior model. It can change sign across the radius when propagation matters. Feed, edge and radiation boundary conditions are needed for a full driven-device solution.

A four-terminal bend resistance uses adjacent current contacts and the other adjacent pair as voltage probes. It can be negative when a ballistic injector preferentially populates the opposite voltage probe. Its sign is a nonlocal routing property, not the sign of the total electrical dissipation.

The scattering interpretation connects an incoming preparation to the relative frequency of outgoing directions and final atomic states. Max Born's 1926 paper treats a distant incoming electron and a chemical atom, expands the outgoing wavefunction into final atomic states, and imposes conservation of energy. Its translated correction footnote specifies the square of the coefficient; the modern complex modulus notation below is ours.^[ref]

In his 11 December 1954 lecture, Max Born recalled the difficulty of interpreting bound electrons alone. He instead described an incident electron wave generating an outgoing spherical wave, with direction-dependent squared amplitude determining relative scattering probabilities. Distinct final atomic states describe excitation with corresponding electron energy loss. This is a retrospective account of an interpretation, rather than the report of a new apparatus.^[ref]

The distinction from the modern Born rule matters. The historical question was which collision outcome occurs: a direction of motion and a final atomic state. The general projective measurement formula applies to arbitrary observables, including degenerate outcomes and mixed states; a positive operator-valued measure describes still more general detector statistics. Those formulations should not be read back as the explicit contents of the short 1926 scattering paper. Nor does the scattering interpretation itself supply a rule for the conditional post-measurement state.

Actual experimental settings are described in the Davisson–Germer experiment and the Franck-Hertz experiment. The former scans collected electric current as an electron beam scatters from prepared nickel; changing direction, accelerating voltage and surface preparation probes electron diffraction. The latter uses acceleration through mercury vapor and a retarding collector to infer discrete energy losses from current minima, with vapor density and retarding settings as controls. Angular resolution and surface backgrounds limit the first inference; initial energy spread and collision positions limit the second. These linked experiments supply the preparation, apparatus and readout; the examples below are original calculations, not Born's measured data.

For an ideal uniform dielectric between large parallel plates, $Q=CV=(ϵA/d)(Ed)=ϵAE$. A prescribed breakdown field $E_{\mathrm{bd}}$ therefore limits charge independently of plate separation. Voltage capacity still grows with separation. This ideal result neglects field enhancement near edges and any dependence of the breakdown field on gap geometry or environmental conditions.

Calorimeter calibration establishes the response of the actual measurement assembly to a known energy input. It determines a participating heat capacity, not just the empty vessel's mass. For an electrical calibration with an immersed resistor, measure voltage $V(t)$ across that resistor and electric current $I(t)$ through it. If that electrical work is deposited inside the chosen boundary, its input isFor a covered receiver at constant pressure, $C_{\mathrm{eff}}$ describes enthalpy storage; for a rigid fixed-volume assembly, use the matching heat capacity at constant volume. Negligible endpoint mechanical storage and no escaping material are assumed. Thus $E_{\mathrm{el}}/(T_1-T_0)$ overestimates $C_{\mathrm{eff}}$ if outward loss is ignored. Account for lead losses outside the boundary and maintain the same water charge and immersed hardware in calibration and sample runs.

An alternative calibration mixes known hot and cold water portions. With the vessel initially at the cold portion's temperature $T_c$, the mixing calorimetry balance givesThe previous synthetic water example returns $100\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$. The sign matters: attributing room losses to the vessel makes this estimate too large. With both $C_{\mathrm{cal}}$ and the loss unknown, one final temperature supplies only one equation; separate cooling information or controlled independent runs are needed.

A calorimeter heat-loss correction can make the electrical balance quantitative. For a second synthetic example, stipulate $0.100\mathrm{kg}$ of water with $c_w=4180\mathrm{J}\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{g}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$ and immersed hardware with $C_{\mathrm{cal}}=82\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$, so $C_{\mathrm{eff}}=500\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$. Supply $10\mathrm{W}$ for $300\mathrm{s}$, starting at a room temperature of $20{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$, with loss coefficient $G=1\mathrm{W}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$. The model below gives $T_1\approx 24.512{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$, storage $2255.942\mathrm{J}$ and outward loss $744.058\mathrm{J}$. The uncorrected ratio gives about $665\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$; subtracting the loss recovers $500\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$.

An original toy model separates two ways to lose a central cathode ray signal. Let $x$ be forward depth into a uniform gas. Normalize the entering electron population to one. Write $U(x)$ for the fraction still in a narrow forward channel, and $D(x)$ for the fraction diverted into a wider collection channel. Assume constant removal rate $a$ per unit depth in both channels, and constant transfer rate $b$ from $U$ to $D$, with no return. Removal means that an electron stops or is trapped before reaching the collecting plane; it does not mean that its electric charge disappears. The wide ideal collector accepts all surviving members of both channels. This is a stipulated two-population differential equation model, not a general law of electron transport:The first equation gives exponential decay. Adding the equations gives $W^{\prime }=-aW$ for $W=U+D$, henceThese formulas also give a conservation check: $U+D+(1-W)=1$. The fraction $1-W$ has been removed before the plane, while $D$ remains present but misses the narrow collector. An exponential fit to the narrow signal therefore measures $a+b$, not the removal rate $a$ by itself. This is an identifiability issue: one declining signal cannot distinguish the two unknown rates.

For a worked example, choose $a=0.15\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$ and $b=0.35\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$. These are invented teaching inputs, not measured coefficients for air or Lenard's apparatus. At $x=2.00\mathrm{cm}$,Thus about $63.2\%$ misses the narrow collector, although only about $25.9\%$ has been removed in this model. Treating the whole narrow-signal deficit as stopping would confuse redistribution with removal.

Suppose a calibrated readout is proportional to arriving electron number with the same response for either channel. Choose an empty-path signal $R_0=1020$ arbitrary units, of which $B=20$ is background; the two collection geometries have the same calibrated reference. The calculated readings at $2\mathrm{cm}$ are $R_{\mathrm{n}}=20+1000e^{-1}\simeq 387.88$ and $R_{\mathrm{w}}=20+1000e^{-0.3}\simeq 760.82$. After background subtraction, define $T_j=(R_j-B)/(R_0-B)$ for each geometry. Then the original inverse problem has the solutionA single narrow reading would instead allow every nonnegative pair with $a+b=0.50\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$. Using the raw ratios without subtracting $B$ gives an erroneous narrow rate of about $0.4834\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$. In a real fluorescent screen, the assumed response must be tested: deposited energy and conversion to light need not remain constant as electrons slow. Repeating the comparison at several depths tests the constant slopes, although straight slopes alone do not establish the microscopic mechanism.

Actual electrons change kinetic energy and direction. Electron stopping power $S(K)=-dK/ds>0$ describes mean kinetic energy loss per travelled path length $s$; collisional losses include ionization, while radiative losses include bremsstrahlung. The continuous slowing-down approximation range integrates reciprocal total electron stopping power, neglecting fluctuations. It approximates travelled path length, not forward penetration depth.^[ref]As a separate original limiting example, stipulate a straight path, constant $S=2\mathrm{keV}\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$, and entering kinetic energy $K_0=6\mathrm{keV}$. Then $K(s)=6\mathrm{keV}-Ss$ until stopping, and $R_{\mathrm{CSDA}}=3\mathrm{cm}$. In that deterministic model every entering electron reaches each depth below $3\mathrm{cm}$ and none crosses a plane beyond it. There is no exponential population tail. Real fluctuations and electron scattering make the situation more complicated, but the example already proves that continuous energy loss does not imply constant-rate removal.

The window also changes the entering population: source kinetic energy before the foil need not equal $K_0$ just outside it. For an electron initially at rest, an ideal static accelerating electric potential difference $V>0$ supplies electrical work $eV$, where $e$ is the elementary charge. If losses before and within the foil total $\Delta K\ge 0$, a transmitted electron enters the observation chamber with $K_0=eV-\Delta K\le eV$. A screen's brightness determines neither $V$ nor $\Delta K$. These formulas specify a modern ideal work-energy theorem argument; no numerical historical voltage or foil thickness is inferred from the diagram.

A Characteristic X-ray comes from an electronic transition filling an inner electron shell vacancy. The emitted photon carries the difference between atomic energies. Vacancy creation by direct electron impact requires kinetic energy above the shell's binding energy, exceeding the line energy. Higher tube voltage need not move the spectral line.^[ref]

An original stipulated shell model illustrates the distinction without using measured atomic data. Let positive binding energies be $B_K=9.0\mathrm{keV}$ and $B_L=1.2\mathrm{keV}$, ignoring relaxation corrections. Filling a K-shell vacancy from the L shell releasesAn $8.5\mathrm{kV}$ tube can energetically emit a $7.8\mathrm{keV}$ bremsstrahlung photon, yet cannot directly remove this K-shell electron. A $12\mathrm{kV}$ tube can create that vacancy by electron impact; if radiative filling occurs, the line is still $7.8\mathrm{keV}$, not $12\mathrm{keV}$. This argument concerns direct electron impact and an initially unexcited target; it does not describe every possible excitation route.

For left-deflected injection in the left 1,top 2,right 3,bottom 4 geometry, use 1 to 2 with $M$ modes, 2 to 3 with $M$, 3 to 4 with $N$, and 4 to 1 with $M$ plus 4 to 3 with $N-M$. The zero-current probes give $V_2=V_1$ and $V_3=M{V}_1/N$, hence $R_{14,23}=(h/e^2)(1/M-1/N)$. Reversing the transmission matrix gives equal probe potentials and zero bend resistance. Fixed-lead resistance need not be even in field; reciprocity also exchanges current and voltage pairs.

A galvanic cell whose reversible electromotive force arises from different reactant activities at otherwise corresponding interfaces. The Nernst equation relates the measured voltage to the activity ratio, provided the transported charge and reaction stoichiometry are specified.

The Davisson–Germer experiment turned elastic scattering from nickel into evidence for a matter wave. The search became a deliberate wave test in 1926, with diffraction beams found early in 1927. The earlier crystal investigation had begun in 1925; the de Broglie wavelength proposal was already present in the 1924 thesis.^[ref]

A heated tungsten ribbon supplied electrons; gun apertures selected a narrow beam. Two $1\mathrm{mm}$ apertures were $8\mathrm{mm}$ apart; the gun ended $7\mathrm{mm}$ from a nickel crystal cut parallel to its $\{111\}$ planes. An adjustable electric potential difference set the speed. The beam struck normally inside an evacuated, field-free enclosure with target and outer electrodes at one potential. A double-box collector, $11\mathrm{mm}$ from the target with a $1\mathrm{mm}$ entrance, selected directions. A retarding electric potential difference rejected slower electrons; the inner collector fed a sensitive galvanometer. Moving the collector scanned colatitude; rotating the crystal scanned azimuth.^[ref]

The readout was collected electric current, not a photograph of electron paths. Voltage scans held the gun-plate current constant because incident-beam current could not be held constant; the overall current trend therefore needed caution. A strong feature developed at $54\mathrm{V}$ near $50^{\circ }$ colatitude. Surface heating distinguished crystal beams from adsorbed-gas beams; finite apertures and background shifted or broadened apparent peaks.^[ref]

At the bright beam's colatitude, an azimuth scan revealed three companion directions, matching crystal symmetry. The test compared wavelengths inferred from diffraction angles and known crystal spacings with wavelengths inferred from accelerating voltage and momentum; the 1937 lecture displayed this comparison against $U^{-1/2}$. Agreement across beam directions supplied more evidence than one angular peak.^[ref]

The inference is about coherent quantum phases in scattering probabilities. It does not establish a wavy particle trajectory, and a collector-current experiment does not resolve individual detection events. Predicting the full intensity additionally requires the material's scattering amplitude, its surface condition, and instrumental angular acceptance; the de Broglie wavelength alone predicts none of those strengths. The following finite-row electron diffraction model isolates phase addition without attempting to reproduce the nickel measurements.

For series resistance R and inductance L in parallel with capacitance C, suppose the applied voltage amplitude V is fixed. The DC current gives $R=V/I_{\mathrm{DC}}$. If the high-frequency current is $I\sim \alpha \omega$, then $C=\alpha /V$. At the nonzero zero-phase frequency, current amplitude $I_r=VRC/L$ determines $L=VRC/I_r$. The condition $R^2<L/C$ must hold. The inferred zero-phase frequency is $\sqrt{1/(LC)-R^2/L^2}$; it is not automatically the exact frequency of minimum current magnitude.

At fixed applied voltage, the mechanical potential of a capacitor and its source includes $-C{V}^2/2$. Increasing the liquid overlap of a partially filled coaxial capacitor therefore pulls the liquid upward. Balancing $V^2(dC/dh)/2$ against the excess hydrostatic pressure times the annular area gives the title formula for a wide external reservoir. Its differential sensitivity is $2\Delta h/V$; it vanishes at zero bias and measures the magnitude, rather than the sign, of voltage.

Linear electrical-displacement response to mechanical stress in a suitable piezoelectric material. It is distinct from the converse effect, in which an applied electric field causes strain. The measured voltage also depends on electrical loading and mechanical constraints.

A real function $h$ on the vertices of a graph of an unweighted locally finite graph is a discrete harmonic function at $u$ when $\mathrm{deg}(u)h(u)={\sum }_{v\sim u}h(v)$, equivalently $Lh(u)=0$ for the Graph Laplacian. For positive degree this says its value is the average over its graph neighbours; at an isolated vertex of a graph the Laplacian condition is vacuous. On an electrical network the corresponding equation uses conductance weights and the Weighted graph Laplacian. Voltages away from sources and sinks, and hitting probabilities away from their prescribed boundaries, are discrete harmonic functions.

dither is an intentionally introduced fluctuation that makes a quantizer's output vary between codes, reducing signal-correlated quantization artifacts. A suitable distribution can make the averaged code carry information about a constant voltage smaller than one conversion step. The improvement requires filtering or averaging; extra noise does not improve an individual conversion or repair arbitrary calibration errors.

An electric potential difference compares electric potentials at two points. For a move from $a$ to $b$, define $\Delta \Phi =\Phi (b)-\Phi (a)$; the terminal convention $V_{AB}=\Phi (A)-\Phi (B)$ instead means the potential at $A$ relative to $B$, so the order must always be stated. In electrostatics, the line integral of the electric field givesHere $\Delta U$ is the change in interaction potential energy of the test electric charge $q$ with fixed sources, while $W_{\mathrm{field}}$ is work done by the electric field. For an external agent moving the charge slowly without a change in kinetic energy, its work is $\Delta U$. A positive electric charge gains kinetic energy when accelerated toward lower electric potential; a negative electric charge gains kinetic energy when accelerated toward higher electric potential. Both motions lower $q\Phi$.^[ref]

For example, fix $Q=+2\mathrm{nC}$ at the origin and compare distances $r_a=0.20\mathrm{m}$ and $r_b=0.10\mathrm{m}$. With the stipulated approximation $k=8.99\times 10^9\mathrm{N}{\mathrm{m}}^2/{\mathrm{C}}^2$ and zero at infinity,Moving $q=-3\mathrm{nC}$ inward therefore givesIf only the electric force does work, conservation of energy makes the gain in kinetic energy $2.697\times 10^{-7}\mathrm{J}$. Direct integration confirms the signs: ${\int }_{r_a}^{r_b}kQdr/r^2=kQ(1/r_a-1/r_b)=-89.9\mathrm{V}$, which multiplied by the negative test electric charge gives positive work. The electric potential difference is unchanged by choosing a different electrical reference potential.

In an electrical circuit, an electric potential difference is the voltage across a component's terminals. In an electrical network, a vertex voltage is specified relative to a reference vertex; its differences across edges drive current flow. For a uniform electric field, the integral reduces to $\Delta \Phi =-\mathbf{E}\cdot ({\mathbf{r}}_b-{\mathbf{r}}_a)$. A field $\mathbf{E}=300V/m\hat{\mathbf{x}}$ across a displacement $0.04\mathrm{m}\hat{\mathbf{x}}$ therefore gives $\Delta \Phi =-12\mathrm{V}$, as in the interior approximation for a parallel-plate capacitor. The volt, measured in joules per coulomb, expresses energy transfer per unit electric charge, which makes it useful for comparing components without specifying the amount of charge transported.

Let an electron start with negligible kinetic energy and move through an increase $U>0$ in electric potential. Its electric charge is $q=-e$, where $e>0$ is the elementary charge, so the decrease in potential energy is $eU$. In a field-free region after acceleration,This is an electron formula, not a universal conversion from voltage to wavelength. It assumes negligible initial kinetic energy, negligible losses, and $eU\ll m_e{c}^2$, where $c$ is the speed of light. It describes the de Broglie wavelength outside the crystal; the potential energy inside a material can change the local kinetic momentum.

For $U=54\mathrm{V}$, take $h=6.62607015\times 10^{-34}\mathrm{J}\mathrm{s}$, $e=1.602176634\times 10^{-19}\mathrm{C}$, and $m_e\simeq 9.1093837\times 10^{-31}\mathrm{kg}$. The rounded electron mass is consistent with the 2022 recommended constants.^[ref]The electronvolt is an energy unit: $54\mathrm{eV}$ must be converted to joules before combining it with $m_e$ in SI units. Dimensional analysis checks both steps:The resulting velocity is about $4.3584\times 10^6\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$, or $0.01454c$, so the nonrelativistic assumption is consistent. For a larger accelerating voltage, the relativistic energy-momentum relation gives $pc=\sqrt{K(K+2m_e{c}^2)}$, with $K=eU$, while $\lambda =h/p$ still holds. At $54\mathrm{V}$ the relativistic wavelength is shorter by about $0.00264\%$.

Explicitly, the exact special relativity formula and its nonrelativistic quantum mechanics limit areHere $K=eU$ is the gained kinetic energy; the total energy is $E=m_e{c}^2+K$. At $80\mathrm{kV}$, the nonrelativistic quantum mechanics expression gives $4.336\mathrm{pm}$, about $3.84\%$ larger than the exact $4.176\mathrm{pm}$. This difference matters when using electron diffraction ring positions to infer lattice plane spacings.

The electric current delivered per transverse probe area per solid angle. For a uniform circular probe of diameter $d$ and a small convergence semiangle $\alpha$, one convention is $\beta =4I/({\pi }^2{d}^2{\alpha }^2)$. State the accelerating voltage, angular convention and whether brightness is reduced by a voltage factor before comparing sources. A smaller aperture changes current as well as convergence; finite electron beam brightness prevents arbitrary current in an arbitrarily small probe.

Electron microscope resolution concerns distinguishable specimen detail under a specified contrast criterion. It depends on diffraction, lens defects, electron energy spread, specimen motion and detection. A smaller de Broglie wavelength permits finer detail in principle, but neither wavelength nor magnification is the instrument's measured resolution.

For an electron accelerated from negligible initial kinetic energy through a positive electric potential difference $U$, combine $K=eU$, the relativistic energy-momentum relation and the de Broglie wavelength:Here $h$ is the Planck constant, $m_e$ the electron mass, $e$ the elementary charge, and $c$ the speed of light. This includes the relativistic correction omitted by the low-voltage electron accelerating-voltage wavelength approximation. With $m_e\simeq 9.1093837\times 10^{-31}\mathrm{kg}$ and SI defining values of $h,e,c$, calculated wavelengths are approximately $6.979$, $3.701$ and $1.969\mathrm{pm}$ at $30$, $100$ and $300\mathrm{kV}$ respectively. The rounded mass agrees with the recommended value.^[ref]

For a circular aperture admitting a small semi-angle $\alpha$, the Rayleigh criterion suggests a diffraction-limited resolution scale $d_D=0.61\lambda /\alpha$. At $100\mathrm{kV}$ and $\alpha =10\mathrm{mrad}$, this gives $0.226\mathrm{nm}$, already much larger than the $0.00370\mathrm{nm}$ wavelength. This is an ideal aperture estimate. Transmission electron microscopy with coherent illumination and a particular specimen requires its own image-contrast analysis; this scale alone is not a universal two-feature resolution test.

An original illustrative blur model adds competing effects:Define $C_s{\alpha }^3$ as a characteristic transverse blur from the electron-lens analogue of spherical aberration, and $C_c\alpha \Delta K/K$ as one from energy-dependent focusing, the analogue of chromatic aberration. The coefficients $C_s,C_c$ have units of length, $\Delta K$ is a chosen characteristic kinetic energy spread, and $b_0$ is a fixed residual blur. Adding their squares is a declared heuristic, not a measured point spread function or a rigorous resolution theorem. The model omits contrast transfer, specimen scattering and signal statistics, so its minimum is only an estimate within its assumptions.

Choose $C_s=C_c=1\mathrm{mm}$, $\Delta K=0.7\mathrm{eV}$ and $b_0=0.10\mathrm{nm}$ at $K=100\mathrm{keV}$. At $5\mathrm{mrad}$, the four contributions are about $0.452$, $0.125$, $0.035$ and $0.100\mathrm{nm}$, giving $b\simeq 0.480\mathrm{nm}$. At $10\mathrm{mrad}$, the diffraction contribution falls to $0.226\mathrm{nm}$ but the assumed spherical aberration contribution grows to $1.00\mathrm{nm}$. Thus opening the aperture indefinitely worsens this model's image. All these values are calculations with chosen parameters, not observations of any microscope.