circuit3d/js/simulate.js never computes the voltage at a node. It only sums series resistance and forward voltage along an enumerated path (:380-401).
That means the single most fundamental circuit in introductory electronics is not merely computed wrongly, it is not expressible:
9V -> [1k] -> node X -> [1k] -> GND
correct: V(X) = 4.5 V
simulate.js: no representation of V(X) exists
Anything that depends on a node voltage is therefore out of reach: dividers, pull-up and pull-down resistors, biasing, any transistor, any comparator, any sensor. For a product whose purpose is teaching electronics, this is the ceiling on what it can ever teach.
Should be
Solve for node voltages, which is what both options in the parallel-branch issue produce as their primary output. Once node voltages exist, the results panel can show a per-node voltage readout, which is the single most useful thing a breadboard learning tool can display.
Blocked on the same solver decision. Filed separately because it is a distinct capability gap rather than a numerical error.
Found in the 2026-08-16 audit (30-agent sweep, 481 findings). Every line reference was verified against main at the time of filing.
circuit3d/js/simulate.jsnever computes the voltage at a node. It only sums series resistance and forward voltage along an enumerated path (:380-401).That means the single most fundamental circuit in introductory electronics is not merely computed wrongly, it is not expressible:
Anything that depends on a node voltage is therefore out of reach: dividers, pull-up and pull-down resistors, biasing, any transistor, any comparator, any sensor. For a product whose purpose is teaching electronics, this is the ceiling on what it can ever teach.
Should be
Solve for node voltages, which is what both options in the parallel-branch issue produce as their primary output. Once node voltages exist, the results panel can show a per-node voltage readout, which is the single most useful thing a breadboard learning tool can display.
Blocked on the same solver decision. Filed separately because it is a distinct capability gap rather than a numerical error.
Found in the 2026-08-16 audit (30-agent sweep, 481 findings). Every line reference was verified against
mainat the time of filing.