Memory Resistor (Memristor) discovered

Forums: Electronics, Science
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Basic electronics theory teaches that there are three fundamental elements of a passive circuit -- resistors, capacitors and inductors.

But in the 1970s, Leon Chua of the University of California at Berkeley, theorized there should be a fourth called a memory resistor, or memristor, for short, and he worked out the mathematical equations to prove it.

Now, a team at Hewlett-Packard led by Stanley Williams has proven that 'memristance' exists...

Article

Article

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 3,446 • Replies: 11

No top replies

I grew up on RLC, yipes!

Quote:

The hold-up over the last 37 years, according to professor Chua, has been a misconception that has pervaded electronic circuit theory. That misconception is that the fundamental relationship in passive circuitry is between voltage and charge. What the researchers contend is that the fundamental relationship is actually between changes-in-voltage, or flux, and charge. Such is the insight that enabled HP to invent the memristor, according to Chua and Williams.

"Electronic theorists have been using the wrong pair of variables all these years--voltage and charge. The missing part of electronic theory was that the fundamental pair of variables is flux and charge," said Chua. "The situation is analogous to what is called "Aristotle's Law of Motion, which was wrong, because he said that force must be proportional to velocity. That misled people for 2000 years until Newton came along and pointed out that Aristotle was using the wrong variables. Newton said that force is proportional to acceleration--the change in velocity. This is exactly the situation with electronic circuit theory today. All electronic textbooks have been teaching using the wrong variables--voltage and charge--explaining away inaccuracies as anomalies. What they should have been teaching is the relationship between changes in voltage, or flux, and charge."

0 Replies

Well, fan me with a blowtorch. I thought electron tubes (valves for you British) were doing that, right along. Another misconception shot to hell.

0 Replies

No, as tubes do not "remember" their condition when powered down.

In any case various semiconductors can perform the same essential functions as triodes / pentodes admittedly more often from a current and not voltage function.

0 Replies

But, seriously folks, does this mean anything?

Joe(eh?)Nation

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

I grew up on RLC, yipes!

Quote:
The hold-up over the last 37 years, according to professor Chua, has been a misconception that has pervaded electronic circuit theory. That misconception is that the fundamental relationship in passive circuitry is between voltage and charge. What the researchers contend is that the fundamental relationship is actually between changes-in-voltage, or flux, and charge. Such is the insight that enabled HP to invent the memristor, according to Chua and Williams.

"Electronic theorists have been using the wrong pair of variables all these years--voltage and charge. The missing part of electronic theory was that the fundamental pair of variables is flux and charge," said Chua. "The situation is analogous to what is called "Aristotle's Law of Motion, which was wrong, because he said that force must be proportional to velocity. That misled people for 2000 years until Newton came along and pointed out that Aristotle was using the wrong variables. Newton said that force is proportional to acceleration--the change in velocity. This is exactly the situation with electronic circuit theory today. All electronic textbooks have been teaching using the wrong variables--voltage and charge--explaining away inaccuracies as anomalies. What they should have been teaching is the relationship between changes in voltage, or flux, and charge."

That's exactly the part of the article which I was so surprised by as well. It sounds like this could be big.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

But, seriously folks, does this mean anything?

Joe(eh?)Nation

I've been offered a teaching position for fledgling electricians. I may have to contend with a swack of textbooks (and teaching staff) relying on voltage & charge instead of flux (ie change in voltage) & charge.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Chumly wrote:
I grew up on RLC, yipes!

Quote:
The hold-up over the last 37 years, according to professor Chua, has been a misconception that has pervaded electronic circuit theory. That misconception is that the fundamental relationship in passive circuitry is between voltage and charge. What the researchers contend is that the fundamental relationship is actually between changes-in-voltage, or flux, and charge. Such is the insight that enabled HP to invent the memristor, according to Chua and Williams.

"Electronic theorists have been using the wrong pair of variables all these years--voltage and charge. The missing part of electronic theory was that the fundamental pair of variables is flux and charge," said Chua. "The situation is analogous to what is called "Aristotle's Law of Motion, which was wrong, because he said that force must be proportional to velocity. That misled people for 2000 years until Newton came along and pointed out that Aristotle was using the wrong variables. Newton said that force is proportional to acceleration--the change in velocity. This is exactly the situation with electronic circuit theory today. All electronic textbooks have been teaching using the wrong variables--voltage and charge--explaining away inaccuracies as anomalies. What they should have been teaching is the relationship between changes in voltage, or flux, and charge."
That's exactly the part of the article which I was so surprised by as well. It sounds like this could be big.

I guess the question is whether the new model is more accurately predictive, I don't have the tools to measure these so-called "anomalies", nor to confirm if the new model reflects them.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

I guess the question is whether the new model is more accurately predictive, I don't have the tools to measure these so-called "anomalies", nor to confirm if the new model reflects them.

The new model seems to have led to a memristor which is now a physical reality. That's a pretty effective demonstration of validity.

0 Replies

No argument there, if the results are with reasonable certainty, what the model predicts.

But where is the comparative math in light of the 37 years of misconceptions in textbooks and poor mislead electron-wranglers?

RLC circuits I understand the basics of.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

No argument there, if the results are with reasonable certainty, what the model predicts.

But where is the comparative math in light of the 37 years of misconceptions in textbooks and poor mislead electron-wranglers?

RLC circuits I understand the basics of.

I thought I read somewhere in the article that memristors would be most useful at very small scales. It's possible that the degree of error in the previous theory is so small that it only really becomes an issue in nano-circuitry.

0 Replies

I understand that all sorts of weird and wonderful things can happen with nano-circuits on a quantum level, but the claim is that this is a fourth fundamental element, so it should have math to integrate into an RLC circuit and we should have working circuits that have these four elements, so we can attach conventional measuring devices under standardized well-known conditions.

0 Replies

Memory Resistor (Memristor) discovered

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know