Source: https://guthlabs.ai/docs/instruments/diode-bridge-rectifier-loss-estimator/
instrument / verified-clean
# Diode Bridge Rectifier Loss Estimator
The current ledger marks this instrument verified clean within the source-bound verification corpus.
Status: **VERIFIED_CLEAN**Lifecycle: **verified-clean**
## Inspectable records
[01**Overview**Purpose and lifecycle]()[02**Mechanism**Method and assumptions]()[03**Implementation**Binding and validation]()[04**Qualification**Evidence and errata]()
## Ledger state
The current ledger marks this instrument verified clean within the source-bound verification corpus.
**Area**: Electrical & Electronics Engineering — Circuits, Power Systems, Electronics Lab
**Tranche**: tranche-5
**Evidence ID**: t5-159
**Ledger rows**: 1
No ledger note is attached.
## Review findings
NEEDS_REVIEW because the declared full/half bridge input is not matched by a defined formula, and the units and meaning of load current are not explicit. The honest_label field is empty; the instrument should explicitly label the result as an estimated forward-conduction loss, not total rectifier heat dissipation.
### Formula and scope findings
- Ploss=2×Vf×Iload is correct for a conventional full-wave bridge when exactly two diodes conduct and Vf is treated as a constant forward drop.
- The specification accepts bridge type full/half, but provides no formula or unambiguous definition for half. A half-wave rectifier typically uses Ploss=Vf×Iload during conduction; a center-tapped full-wave rectifier also has one conducting diode at a time, so the term half is ambiguous.
- The formula requires Iload to represent the relevant average diode/load current for average conduction loss. If the input is RMS current, peak current, or a time-varying waveform, the formula is insufficient without waveform and diode-model assumptions.
- The output description heat dissipation to plan for could be misleading because the calculated value is only diode forward-conduction loss, not total rectifier thermal design power including switching/reverse-recovery losses, leakage, wiring, or other component losses.
### Unit assumptions
- Vf must be entered in volts (V).
- Iload must be entered in amperes (A).
- For the stated formula, Iload is assumed to be the average load current during normal full-bridge operation, with two diodes carrying that current.
- Vf is assumed constant and identical for both conducting diodes; diode dynamic resistance and temperature dependence are ignored.
- The output Ploss is in watts (W), since V×A=W.
- The test vectors use bridge_type=full because the supplied formula does not define an unambiguous half-bridge calculation.
## Boundary hardening
**BREAK_CLAIMED** · SELF_FLAGGED
The estimator has no stated overflow handling for extreme numeric inputs, and the half-bridge branch is accepted as an input but lacks an explicit formula. Negative-current handling is also undefined and can produce a physically invalid negative loss.
## Errata and corrections
No applied erratum is attached to this unique-name record.
## Inspectable example
4 review vectors are recorded. One source-bound sample is shown below.
````
{
"inputs": {
"diode_Vf": 0.7,
"Vf_unit": "V",
"load_current": 2,
"current_unit": "A",
"bridge_type": "full"
},
"expected_outputs": {
"power_loss_W": 2.8
},
"working": "Two diodes conduct: Ploss=2×Vf×Iload=2×0.7 V×2.0 A=1.4 V×2.0 A=2.8 W."
}
````
## Related workflows
No source-defined multi-instrument workflow membership is recorded.
## Sources and evidence
These pointers bind the page to evidence. They do not grant authority or collapse verification into deployment.
- `VERIFIED_LEDGER.json · VERIFIED_CLEAN`
- `evidence-tranche5/tranche5-results.json`
- `BOUNDARY_HAZARD_CATALOG.json`