Source: https://guthlabs.ai/docs/instruments/diode-bridge-rectifier-loss-estimator/mechanism/

instrument mechanism / verified-clean

# Diode Bridge Rectifier Loss Estimator mechanism

The inspectable method record for Diode Bridge Rectifier Loss Estimator, kept separate from implementation and qualification.

Status: **VERIFIED_CLEAN**Lifecycle: **verified-clean**

## Model scope

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.

- 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.

## Units and conventions

- 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.

## Inspectable vector

One of 4 source-bound review vectors:

````
{
  "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."
}
````

## Failure boundary

**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.

## Other records

[01**Overview**](<https://guthlabs.ai/docs/instruments/diode-bridge-rectifier-loss-estimator/>)[03**Implementation**](<https://guthlabs.ai/docs/instruments/diode-bridge-rectifier-loss-estimator/implementation/>)[04**Qualification**](<https://guthlabs.ai/docs/instruments/diode-bridge-rectifier-loss-estimator/qualification/>)

## Sources and evidence

These pointers bind the page to evidence. They do not grant authority or collapse verification into deployment.

- `VERIFIED_LEDGER.json`

- `evidence-tranche5/tranche5-results.json`

- `BOUNDARY_HAZARD_CATALOG.json`