Here is some Christmas holiday reading. HP's claim that RRAM, PCM, and MRAM are all memristor technologies is bullshit, the memristor is not a fourth fundamental circuit element, HP didn't find it, and its developing memristor product is a not a memristor - really. The flame from Blaise So says ex-USPTO patent examiner and …
the first reg article in a long time that has gone so far over my head I cannot even see the contrails
So ya-boo sucks to you, Blaise!
2 days of drunken gluttony, and I come into a serious boffin-level discussion about memristors.
It all just looks like gobbel-de-gook...
Fail. Because I did.
No. Not fail.
Journo did his job and you complain. If you like teh simple, I recommend <http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/>.
I'm right with AC above, I can't suss it (no EE background) nor have time to try, but props to Chris Mellor for raising the bar.
Errr...perhaps I wasnt clear. The fail was mine - and mine alone - for being such a mental weakling.
Oh dear. Joint fail it seems. Sorry....
Oh come on....
It's just very simple differential equations, though a long evening in a quiet office looks necessary to grok this all
But why exactly the USPTO dude feel the Anger Raising In Him?
All the HP stuff looks legit.
I am worried about losing the two-terminal part of the definition, but I don't know why.
...it seems somewhat obvious
...probably because it is easier that way to get media attention - by piggybacking HP. Now he is no longer some obscure person from organisation known for its, erm, thorough examination of software patent applications, but a scientist fighting for The Truth, basking in media spotlight.
"But why exactly the USPTO dude feel the Anger Raising In Him?"
Really, is it that hard to understand? HP claim to have developed a memristor; Chua's 1971 definition says a memristor is (among other things) linear; HP's device is non-linear.
You can interpret this as a broadening of the definition of memristor to include other memristive devices (HP's stance, which they justify by citing later work such as Kang's paper, so they have some support); or as an excessive claim enabled by unprofessional imprecision, which is Mouttet's position.
Many a flame war has been fought over less.
Personally, I think there's some danger in broadening the definition - like Robert E A Harvey above I'm concerned about losing the two-terminal requirement (hey, if it's a *fundamental* circuit element, it should be required to be fundamental, no?), and I think the passive requirement has to be kept too. I'm not so worried about linearity.
*this* is why I still read the Register - serious and mostly researched articles - as well as Verity Stob.
that contains the hint that stob is not serious or researched....
thin ice miladdo thin ice indeed :-)
HEsounded very much like a failed loser to me.
Blaise Mouttet sounded very much like a failed loser to me.
adjusting your theory in the face of new facts is part of development /advancement in science,
so this loser can't take IT !
The one and only USPTO guy that can read, and he comes up with this ?
Looking at the patens he examined while at the USPTO, they are mostly printhead and ink related. Maybe he's mad at HP for having to stoop to such a low level for such a soaring mind (in his own head). He needs (badly) to get a life..
Well, if we're doing US patents, ...
> i hearby claim patent on D.A.R.T. a breakthrough in audio speaker technology
Too late, son. I claim a patent on DART, a breakthrough in projectile-based pub entertainment.
HTH, HAND, etc.
I don't think I understand the graphs at all. Why does the current through the resistor not follow the voltage linearly?
The graph is for a non-linear resistance. It's also a special case of the memristor graph, so one could argue that memristors are the first circuit element, not the fourth, and you could also argue that the other two are simply positive and negative versions of each other.
They applied a sine wave. Sweeping the voltage linearly would've produced what you are thinking of. Describing the signal applied to a circuit and the relationship in the equation are 2 independent things. It gets confusing because linear is commonly used for both.
V=IR, there is no time dependence. To get the curve shown, R needs to be a function of I, hence a non-linear resistor.
"interaction of a charge with a magnetic flux"
Oooh! So close to it having been called a flux capacitor, then. Perhaps there's still time...
I was with you..
..right up until 'Here is some Christmas holiday reading.'
Kinda lost me after that :D
Is also perhaps the only way to save HP
Just go back in time and kill the board
HP and history
If you are going back to kill the HP board, can you do it at the time they took over Compaq.
While you are about it, can you go back to the time Compaq took over DEC.
Then Compaq's takeover of Tandem (thinking it was DEC...???wtf...???)_
Oh never mind.
HP is a dead duck these days so who really cares?
Disclaimer: I'm an ignorant AC noob...
...but I frankly could not care less about whether the thing HP found is a memristor, or just a broader memristive system, or whatever. What I care about is whether it can do all the neat stuff HP claimed it can, stuff that was previously more or less impossible.
If it does, then by all means call it uzderopieöl or whatnot. The boffins can argue about whether it fulfills the definition well enough later, I want them in my computer NOW.
It either works, or it doesn't...
I'm very seriously concerned about them dropping 'two terminal' from the definition, because without that, then I can give you memristor behavior with a handful of transistors, diodes and resistors. It would, of course require an external DC supply - quite unlike what I would consider to be a real memristor.
It seems to me you don't have to worry about 'two-terminal', because it's still defined as passive. Your concoction of transistors and a separate power supply is not passive.
First word Babgladesh had a world-leading academic center on Computer Science and electronics.
If old snakes squeak...
...apply old snake oil!
With due deference to Stan Ovshinsky, who has been tilling this field before these young pups were born, can someone reveal the mechanical analogue of the memristor? Resistor, inductor, capacitor can be simulated with drag, mass, spring and the memristor is...what? This puffery reminds me of the ancient claims of a new mechanism: the Rolamite!
If anyone deserves credit in this field it would be Stan and Iris.
(BTW, I am a cranky old coot, and have always been one. When one accepts Thévenin's theorem one must wonder who this Norton guy was, and why he gained any street cred for stating the clearly obvious under the concept of duality. )
Memristor is carpet?
If you drag somethkng accross it you pull the pile up and change the drag on the next thing you pull across it? OK, not perfect as it just sprung into my head this second, but I think it's something like that.
Or perhaps a vortex? When an object passes through a fluid, it can create a vortex behind it, so when another object comes in the same direction, it has less drag - like tailgating on a bike.
No analogy? No invention!
Why does a mechanical analogy matter at all? Sounds like it was a bit of a lucky coincidence when first happened upon, and is now apparently being used as a crutch. Neither has much bearing on electronics.
A flywheel is more apt for an inductor
Changes in current/rotational velocity are slow.
Flywheel definitely doesn't work for memrister because memristers don't operate by storing energy, while flywheels/inductors/capacitors do.
I'd go with the carpet analogy myself - a reversible, physical change in the media that affects the resistance.
... that is what I was trying to envisage. To bracket the device it is somewhere between a Turing machine and Russian "Memory Water." As Arthur C. Clarke said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
(Let the peer-reviewed journals decide -- we're here for the tussle.)
Interaction chrage and flus
Leon Chua's original definition was an interaction of charge and flux - more precisely a relationship between dphi/dt and dq/dt. The simplest physical mechanism I can think of is that the charge is a set of spins (i.e. charge) and their associated magnetic flux - a form of spintronics if you will. I don't particularly see it coming out of classical electrodynamics (Maxwell's equations) in the same way as a resistor, capacitor or inductor.
I was impressed with Professor Chue's teaching style in EECS 105, ended with my one and only A+ at Cal (this class was also my introduction to SPICE). He mixed in some real world examples with is discussion of the theory.
I feel the cynicism rising in my craw
I'd like to see a patent (money) trail on all this.
The usual motivation for broadening a definition in the commercial realm is to claim possession of what you don't already own.
what I am curious about is why Mouttet is upset because the person who thought up the theory expanded it don't theories expand and contract with new knowledge all the time?
I agree with Matt West...
That diagram is not a classical resistor straight-line relationship as I was taught decades ago.
And yet it clearly should be as we are discussing the fundamental components, not non-linear resistors or capacitors with dielectric hysteresis or inductors with saturated cores and remanence as some apologists might imply.
Why is it drawn so? Any chance of getting an answer?
I agree that it looks very handy for HP to be able to get a patent on one device that is then stretched by definition changes to cover a whole class of devices.
look at the graph closely
the x axis is time and they are applying a sine wave.
a plot of current Vs voltage would have been a straight line just like we learnt in skool.
Re: look at the graph closely
I went back and looked at the graph closely. The x axis is clearly labelled voltage.
I'm sorry...it started off as a rant of sorts and didn't get any better.
Better luck next time.
I'll say this for him . . .
. . . he may be opinionated, but at least he's an asshole about it.
Why this matters.
As has been mentiond above, this is not about some guy feeling bitter about something. this is a guy worried that a patent held by HO for a very specific electrical device is being broadened to include almost amything that resembles it including, if taken too far, a powered circuit that pretends to be a memristor. This means that HP have a much better chance of claiming patents on technology extremely far removed from the original patent and stopping other people innovating. To me that would be a bad thing.
So why didn't the patent guy say so?
As far as I can tell, that argument is specious anyway.
HP et al should only be granted patents for specific devices they've constructed. If somebody else comes up with a different way to make a "memristor" then all power to them, and if the owner of an alternative patent complains they should be thrown out immediately.
Rather like the NPN transistor, IGBT and MOSFET are rather different devices with quite similar characteristics.
If he's worried about this becoming a patent land grab then it's the USPTO that are at fault.
If it walks like a duck...
Far as I'm concerned, the HP usage of a memristor is an electronics component, not a part of an old skool electrical circuit. But then there's no real reason why there should only be a missing "fourth component" to go alongside capacitor, inductor and resistor. You could add superconductor, diode and some other components into the list if you wanted.
Basically, it's the functionality that matters and not how you get there. What we need is something that works like a memristor as per the description of its voltage vs current graph but which can be easily manufactured in very large amounts in a very small space without any moving parts. It may be easy to build a memristor on a big hunk of circuit board using existing components, but that isn't going to revolutionise computing. If HP are achieving a memristor on an equivalent scale to the transistors found in modern chips then I don't care if they're called a memristors or a duckristors.
A response to Blaise Mouttet
One of Blaise Mouttet's problems with memristor technology is the absense of magnetic flux in the devices found thus far, despite Chua having predicted the flux should be present.
This has not been peer-reviewed yet, but I have a draft paper up on arXiv (http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3170) which identifies where the flux might be. A less turgid version has been written up for a journal and is currently going through the process of publication.
The main idea is that the charge in Chua's equation should be the oxygen vacancies (in the HP memristor) and thus that the magnetic flux should be that of the oxygen vacancies - which is an admittedly odd idea. However, using it makes the memristor announced by Stan Williams fit Chua's definition easily and the scales involved provides an explanation of why the magnetic flux has not been measured.
Secondly, my day job is making memristors and in doing that I have found that the ReRAM/RRAM papers very useful. As I can see it, the two fields are merging; top ReRAM people are editing memristor special issues in journals and memristor and ReRAM people are being invited to the same specialist conferences.
Dr. Ella Gale,
Unconventional Computing Group,
University of the West of England
- Vid Hubble 'scope snaps 200,000-ton chunky crumble conundrum
- Bugger the jetpack, where's my 21st-century Psion?
- Google offers up its own Googlers in cloud channel chumship trawl
- Interview Global Warming IS REAL, argues sceptic mathematician - it just isn't THERMAGEDDON
- Windows 8.1 Update 1 spewed online a MONTH early – by Microsoft