Talk:Möbius resistor

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 June 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete.

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

reference removed[edit]

external link removed via user:JzG edit

R.L. Davis, Noninductive Resistor, collection of articles at rexresearch.com

J. D. Redding 22:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time Magazine reference[edit]

Can we all just pause for a moment and revel over a period in our culture when a circuit element got written up in Time Magazine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.132.109 (talk) 05:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Factual accuracy[edit]

This article gives every impression that the component is, or has been, under manufacture and that it is used in real circuits with real-life applications. I'm retired from the art for a long time now, but as far as I know this is not correct. The idea has never been put inot use. It is telling that one of the articles own references, the EE Times piece, which is a survey of resistor types and the only ref in the "Drawbacks" section, does not mention Moebius resistors at all. If it was really in use that is just where I would expect to see it discussed. The rest of the refs seem to be mostly Davis's original paper or discussions of it.

There seems to be a good dollop of original research, or at least unwarranted assumptions going on here. The discussion on flame-proofing for instance is uncited and appears to be pure OR. User:Ererics41 is to be thanked for taking the trouble of expanding this article, but it does need to stick to the known facts. SpinningSpark 10:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This smells funny to me. There don't appear to be any independent sources. This is something that Richard Davis dreamed up in the 1960s and it never went anywhere because either it doesn't work or there are better ways to build a resistor. ~Kvng (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was intending to revert this after a week if Ererics41 does not respond. I take it that you would support that? This is the only thing the editor has done and it looks like he may not come back online, at least not soon. SpinningSpark 18:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume your proposing reverting to this version. I'm fine with that and would actually go further. "It provides a resistor that has no residual self-inductance, meaning that it can resist the flow of electricity without causing magnetic interference at the same time." needs a supporting citation. The whole thing does not smell right to me not just Ererics41's recent contributions. ~Kvng (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that statement is dubious? It seems self-evident to me that the magnetic field is going to be essentially zero at all points. That's pretty much the claim made in Davis's patent. SpinningSpark 18:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The patent is not an independent source. The patent office does not check technical validity of ideas, just their novelty. I could apply my own EE knowledge to verifying this claim but that gets too close to original research for my comfort. ~Kvng (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the problems with citing patents, but this is hardly a controversial claim. It is unarguable, and easily cited, that equal and opposite currents at a point have no magnetic field. This is just a specific example of that which puts it in routine calculation territory. If you are not challenging the correctness of the statement then I really don't see the point of this discussion. SpinningSpark 13:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not challenging basic physics. I just would prefer to keep this article stubby until independent reference are introduced to give us some assessment of the relevance/applicability of this invention. ~Kvng (talk) 12:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng and Spinningspark: (I've applied {{outdent|6}} so I can read and possibly comment on my smartphone without having to cope with lines just three words long.)

And... Ummm. I see now that I wasn't "reading" the diagram correctly, and the argument I was about to make would have been dead wrong. But it hasn't been a complete waste, because this experience has prompted me to add a sentence of description into the text to make the content of the diagram accessible to visually impaired readers. --Thnidu (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear status[edit]

The lead para, which begins with the statement that:

A Möbius resistor is an electrical component ...

may be misleading. After reading this article, the status of this invention as an actual electrical component remains unclear to me:

Is it a real component that one could buy from an electrical component supplier?
Or is it purely a theoretical construct?
Or does it have a physical existence only in prototypes?

yoyo (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]