5 ms·
Memristors are so much more interesting than the transistor replacements they're sometimes touted as. It feels as if they've been willed into existence just to
by kurtisc 8y ago
Memristors are so much more interesting than the transistor replacements they're sometimes touted as. It feels as if they've been willed into existence just to make the mathematics of electronics more complete.
- agumonkey 8y agoHeard that a few times indeed. Symmetry.
- twtw 8y agoWhile interesting, I don't see how they make circuit theory more complete. > The ideal memristor was initially and abstractly formulated as the flux–charge relationship: dΦ = M dq, (2) which, in order to be invertible, must have M defined either in terms of Φ, or q, or it must be a constant. The latter case coincides with the resistor, while if M is defined in terms of Φ ... [emphasis mine] From my reading, this means if M is constant (like R,L,C are for "standard" components) it's just a resistor - not the miraculous "missing fourth." Curious to get other perspectives on this.
- ecarrick 8y agoThe key is the the second 'or' in: "in terms of Φ, or q, or it must be constant". You're correct about a constant M the flux is linear to charge and therefor the device is a resistor. But it doesn't have to be. It's no longer a linear relationship and behaves differently than a resistor, resulting in a device similar but not the same. Thus why "ristor" is used in the name. To answer your question memristors cover the second case where the relationship isn't linear, thus tying the loose end resistors leave in the theory.
- shanxS 8y agoI read eq 1 and then 2, almost felt like somehow, 2 was meant to be - maybe my mind was trying to draw on symmetry but didn't quite understand how.