3 ms·
While interesting, I don't see how they make circuit theory more complete. > The ideal memristor was initially and abstractly formulated as the flux–charge rel
by twtw 8y ago
While 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.