Talk:Wheatstone bridge

Precision needed

Concerning the circuit diagram of Wheastone bridge, it would be nice to add the orientation of currents and voltages in the branches. It is easy to find out which conventions/orientations have been taken with the equations displayed below but it would be easier to make it to appear explicitely on the diagram. I didn't add any modification as I dont know how to do it :). That was just a remark to help improving the article.

P. Randimbivololona

Misc. comments

See also has a link to E-meter, does that have any place on a page about a high precision electronic circuit?

Wheatstone did NOT invent the Wheatstone bridge (see any full biography of him).

S. Chomet

Updated with the correct inventor -- DrBob 18:54 30 May 2003 (UTC)

Should we add the balance conditions for the wheatstone bridge? mickpc

I added the voltage divider equation used to detect resistance changes. Should we start a related discuss on RTD's? Three vs 4 wire?--Kdcarver 21:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC) kdcarver

James Kuo

It seem that the formula to calculate the Equivalent Resistance RE has a little error

(R1*R2)(R3*R4) should be replaced by (R1+R2)(R3+R4). Please verify my suggestion. Tks.

what about the emeter in referance to scientologys use of this type device?

I kindly request a brief discussion of how AC measurements are made with a Wheatstone... and/or how to measure inductance and capacitance (or a link to said information). If anyone is familiar with that, thanks in advance. Catapultsam 11:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Confusion?

The maths seem to start of with R1, R2, R3 and Rx, which are defined. Later on R4 appears without explanation

R4 should be changed into Rx since the picture above is taking Rx as an unknown resistor --besterer

Diagram

In the article, they say that the first set of equations are for B and D. I believe the author meant B and C as current I1 does not feed into D.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ZaydHammoudeh (talk • contribs) 22:09, May 31, 2006 (UTC).

Current article is wrong. Someone changed the image without checking definitions in the article.Orz.(Sorry, I don't have enough time to correct it now.)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.230.100.86 (talk • contribs) 04:11, June 7, 2006 (UTC).

I restored the original diagram and adjusted some of the changes that had been made since it was replaced on May 22. The newer diagram, while perhaps nicer-looking, uses different numbering of the resistors and junctions. This change in numbering left the mathematical derivation incorrect. Several editors had made changes to individual sentences where they noted a discrepancy with the diagram, but this was not sufficient to fix the problem. I have reverted those changes, so the article should now be in accord with the diagram.

If the consensus is that the other diagram is better, someone needs to go over the article carefully and rework the derivation so that it is in accord with the new diagram. Alternatively, someone could relabel the new diagram so it matches the old one's numbering.--Srleffler 17:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)