DC Interference Troubleshooting
Use evidence before diagnosis
This diagnostic uses observation → controlled checks → possible interpretation → next action. A potential shift or bond-current magnitude alone is not an automatic diagnosis.
Structure responds when a suspected rectifier is interrupted
Supported interpretation: the controlled source influences the measured electrical condition.
Still required: current/path/gradient and spatial evidence before concluding damaging discharge or its location.
More-negative shift with source ON
Possible interpretation: pickup/cathodic influence is plausible.
Check next: current/path/gradient evidence, IR drop, mixed potentials, and geometry. Do not treat the shift as proof of harmlessness or current direction.
Less-negative or more-positive shift with source ON
Possible interpretation: discharge/anodic influence is plausible.
Check next: confirm mechanism and location with current/path evidence. Potential alone is not proof of damaging discharge.
Bond current changes or reverses
Possible interpretation: source state is changing current transfer or relative driving conditions.
Check next: declared sign convention, synchronized source states, affected/interfering potentials, and current-path evidence. Reversal does not locate every pickup/discharge area.
Longitudinal current changes along the structure
Possible interpretation: net pickup/discharge within a segment is plausible.
Check next: interpret section balance using the declared current-direction convention and correlate with source and spatial evidence.
One area becomes more positive while another becomes more negative
Possible interpretation: a spatial discharge/pickup pair is plausible.
Check next: confirm with source, current, gradient, and geometry evidence.
Mitigation improves one location but worsens another
Supported interpretation: current distribution has been redistributed.
Next action: reassess the network and verify affected, interfering, and other relevant systems rather than accepting one improved reading as system-wide success.
Could this be normal CP attenuation?
If the pattern can be explained by normal CP distribution/attenuation and there is no external-source correlation, use Current Distribution & Attenuation. Unexpected attenuation is not automatically interference.