Talk:Negative resistance/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Note that this is a record of the article talk page while the article was forked (original article at "negative impedance", this article at "negative resistance")

Restoring the page

I have restored a distinct page for negative resistance and have started a rewrite on the subject. Previously this was extremely overdone, confusing and in some respects, technically wrong.Zen-in (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't you have corrected them? 88.157.78.58 (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

How would you have accomplished that?Zen-in (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Trying to break away from the past

I am trying to re-write this one subject page. The previous work was very confusing and unscientific. examples of this previous description can, unfortunately still be seen on several Wikipedia pages. I welcome others who understand electronics to help me in rewriting this page. Zen-in (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to restore some of the math I had create loooong ago. Comments are welcome. Madhu (talk) 02:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Disclaimer

The following is an example of what previously was on this page. It is the result of one individual's imaginative "thinking about circuits". Physicists and Engineers, on the other hand, use the Scientific_method or at least consult reputable sources. I consider the confusing and technically incorrect text that follows to be graffiti. The policy on Wikipedia is to not remove anything that is put on a talk page. In furtherance of that policy I welcome anyone who wishes to write similar material on this talk page to please do so below this disclaimer notice. If, due to some mental disability you cannot accomplish that, I will gladly move such material to its proper place. Zen-in (talk) 06:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do not post in the middle of the page. Post at the bottom of the thread you are commenting on, or start a new thread at the bottom of the page. SpinningSpark 19:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Redirecting the page

I have redirected this page to Negative impedance as true negative resistance is a special case of negative impedance. The article reveals comprehensively the nature of the phenomenon in a human friendly manner. Of course, everyone is welcome to edit, improve and refine the page.

Negative differential resistance is a quite different phenomenon (a true negative "resistor" is actually a dynamic source while a differential negative resistor is really a dynamic resistor). That is why this topic is covered by a separate article. There is no need to restore the old page about negative resistance and to mix the two fundamental ideas (true and differential negative resistance) as it is confusing. Most of the scanty text in this rewrite is about negative differential resistance; so, it is reasonable to move it to its article (under construction). I'm ready to start a discussion about negative differential resistance.

Note the Negative resistance Wikipedia page is in the first place of all these 100,000 pages listed by Google when someone write "negative resistance" in the Google window. So, we have not to deprive the visitors of the chance to learn what a negative resistance actually is. Circuit-fantasist (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The definition is confusing and even wrong...

Large amount of text moved to User:Circuit-fantasist/Negative_impedance. This Talk page is for discussions about the article not discussions of the subject of the article. Please do not put it back or add more of the same - it will be deleted. Please see the talk page guidelines if you have any questions regarding what is appropriate here. Secret Squïrrel 15:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Please be civil

I believe the official policy is that discussions should not be removed (archiving should be okay), so please refrain from doing so. Also please try to be civil towards one another. I don't have the time to get too involved in the discussions, but it seems like admin intervention might be a good idea, instead of a full blown edit war. -Roger (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I support Roger on that. Edit warring on talk pages is even less acceptable than on the article as it destroys the record the discussion. Please do not delete or modify other peoples posts. SpinningSpark 19:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Analyzing the situation

I agree that this page should be redirected to Negative impedance (possibly via a disambiguation page). It is currently confused with negative dynamic impedance which has an article at negative differential resistance. The usual reason for wanting an article on "xyz resistance" when one exists on the same subject at "xyz impedance" is that the impedance article contains a lot of maths in Laplace or complex frequency notation that is difficult to understand by an untrained person. This does not seem to be the case here, the negative impedance article largely proceeds by way of resistive examples so another article here would be superfluous. If there are other problems that article should be improved. It is not good to create another article because you do not like the existing one, see WP:POVFORK. SpinningSpark 19:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Circuit-fantasist, please note that you need citable sources for everything you contribute. Self made sources or websites don't count. -Roger (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I second that Roger, but we need to undo this fork. Do you agree? I think Zen-in is going to go along with that if I understand correctly what he has said on my talk page, but he will not take an active part. SpinningSpark 00:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is no reason to have separate articles. I have also tagged a couple of Circuit-fantasist's articles with OR notices, etc. According to [1], we should give him the opportunity to defend/correct his edits, after which we can prune most of the questionable and unsuitable material. -Roger (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Good, since no-one is actually opposing this, I'll put this back to a redirect right now. We should move the discussion to Talk:Negative impedance. SpinningSpark 01:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Zen-in has opposed the change to the redirect on my talk page so to avoid confrontation I have restored the article for now. It would really help if a few other people gave their opinions. I am hoping that agreement can be reached here and avoid the need to go through an AfD procedure, but certainly we cannot go on forever with two articles. Can I suggest as a compromise that the material here is pasted in to negative impedance "as is" without deleting anything. I am not suggesting this as a final solution, far from it, merely as a starting point from which improvements can be made. Once that is done the next task (in my opinion) should be to debate the name of the article. Returning this article to a redirect is not in any way indicative of my opinion on what the final name of the article should be or its content; I am jsut trying to take this one small step at a time, and the first step is to have only one article. SpinningSpark 16:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The Negative differential resistance article is probably unwarranted as well. Along your suggestion, I think we should merge all three articles and add an "under construction" template or something to the resulting article. -Roger (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see your suggestion as being a compromise. I didn't creat the forks. The original article was Negative Resistance. C-F created the forks Negative Impedance and Negative Differential resistance. He has been on notice for several years now to rewrite his articles and nothing has happened. A compromise to me would be to start with removing some of C-F's forks. Here is a partial list: Voltage-to-current_converter Current-to-voltage_converter Virtual_ground Transimpedance_amplifier Negative_differential_resistance.Zen-in (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Zen-in, this is becoming tedious. Please read WP:POVFORK so that you understand what Wikipedia mean by a fork. I do not intend this as a criticism of you. I fully accept that you recreated negative resistance in a good faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia. Nevertheless, it was a mistaken thing to do, if you read the guideline you will understand why. I am not proposing in any way relying on C-F to make improvements, we should all be actively seeking to improve the article ourselves. To both of you, I am in favour of doing this in small managable bites. Being too sweeping and including lots of other articles in one go is going to get us bogged down. We should tackle them sequentially. There is also the question of the name of the article which should be debated first as it could materially affect the content of the article, and hence what can and cannot be merged in. SpinningSpark 19:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I read WP:POVFORK but I don't see why it is so important to you. The problem as I see it is the continuing addition of C-F's OR (an overly polite description) on a daily basis. I haven't seen any evidence that you have tried to deal with that problem ie: discuss it with C-F or remove some of it. You have been directing all your criticism at me so don't be surprised that I have dug in my heels.Zen-in (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It is important because I am trying to base the decisions on the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. If it is just how "A" wants to do it against how "B" wants to do it then nothing ever gets resolved because there is no basis for deciding. Nothing else is happening because the discussion has become bogged down here. I have stated to you several times that I am ready to help on negative impedance once this issue is settled. We can only deal with this sequentially (although if you look in the edit history of that article you might finds some edits from me). In any case, what is or is not happening in some other article and whether or not I have personally done something about it should have no bearing on what we decide to do here. If I cannot convince you, and I do not want to unilaterally redirect the article in the teeth of your opposition, perhaps we should settle this with a deletion debate on this article. SpinningSpark 20:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a completely formed view on the future of all these pages and a willingness to compromise so that to stop this exhausting war of nerves. I need some time as I would like to expose thoroughly my new suggestions so that to carry conviction. Please, discuss my insights about differential negative resistance in the meantime. Circuit-fantasist (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Circuit-fantasist. The problem is not necessarily with your views on these circuits (whether or not they are correct), but that many of your articles are original research and have no acceptable references. Nevertheless, I'd still like to hear more from you, but please try to be concise and on topic. -Roger (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Roger, thank you for your remarks. Beleive me, I will do my best to solve these problems. I am ready to remove all my edits from these articles and to begin rewriting them gradually in co-operation with you and others. But I would like first to reach a consensus about what true and differential negative resistances are, in order to go on to right direction. Circuit-fantasist (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Both "true" and differential (as you call it, I prefer small signal) negative resistance belong in the same article. Small signal resistance simply means dV/dI < 0 for some I, while R < 0 for a "true" negative resistor (the nonlinear case will need a slightly adjusted definition). Many texts don't bother making a distinction since a "true" negative resistance would consume infinite power. -Roger (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>Ok, I'm back. Rog and Spinner, good to see you onboard. I've read thru the stuff here and on the other tine. I have no interest in spending much time or energy going round and round in circles on the Talk pages so I'll be brief in stating my position.

We need to concentrate on fixing this one article first, whatever it ends up being called.

There must only be one article on the subject, but we don't need to make this happen before deciding on the most suitable title. Zen-in clearly feels that making "his" article a redirect is somehow a victory for the Forces of Cloudiness. I happen to think he is mistaken in this one thing (sorry Zen-in - I agree with everything else) but we can avoid this silly spat by agreeing to decide on the correct title first. Then we simply mash the two articles together and make the other a redirect.

Then we edit. The article needs to be clear, concise, and encyclopedic - no classroom blackboard stuff. I can't see why we would need more than half-a-dozen paras but it's ok if I am wrong about this. One or two decent graphs (IRC BillC said he would help with these). We need to add proper refs. I prefer online ones but decent uni-level textbooks are obviously fine.

I am prepared to bow to group consensus on this last point but I really think C-f should restrain himself from editing while this process is occurring. Quite apart from the OR and excessive discourse, florid language such as "the amazing feature" or "this famous circuit" has no place on Wikipedia.

I'll get the ball rolling - since impedance is a subcategory of resistance and technically should only relate to AC circuits, I think the article should be titled Negative resistance. Secret Squïrrel 08:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Err.. when I was a student, impedance was the vector sum of resistance and reactance. Therefore the all-embracing title should be "Negative impedance". Resistance and reactance are special cases of impedance where the AC and DC component respectively are zero. -- Timberframe (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Negative resistance is the appropriate term. Negating a reactance is simple enough (e.g. switching L's to C's, changing frequency, etc.), but negative resistance in the interesting case. -Roger (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, point taken in the context of "negatating" resistance. Agreed that in a resonant circuit when energy is transfered from, say, L to C the L element demonstrates instantatneous negative reactance wrt the polarity of the applied voltage. So let's stick to the DC / resistive case. I see nothing in C-F's essays that demonstrates negative resistamnce (as opposed to opposing voltage). His thesis appears to revolve around including a stored energy source to oppose current flow with an op-amp to regulate the flow of net current. This is a spurious use of the term "negative resistance" because the term implies a permanent characteristic of a network element whereas when the internal energy store becomes depleted the element's ability to oppose current flow will cease. In order to overcome this limitation the internal energy source must be replaced with external source, at which point the element ceases to be a 2-node element and becomes an active network in its own right whose IV characteristics are substantially different to those presented in this idealised version. While the circuits proposed by C-F are ingenious they are hardly notable, nor do they truly demonstrate negative resistance without turning a blind eye to external energy requirements. To call this "negative resistance" is on a par with saying that an elevator exhibits negative gravity by ignoring the energy input needed to operate it; it is a trivial case of special pleading and does not merit inclusion in this encyclopedia. Now if we can get back to the tunnel diode... -- Timberframe (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

All good, but before we get bogged down in what the article should be about, can we decide on the most appropriate title? I've already "voted"; am I being presumptious by thinking that you both (Roger and Timberframe) are in agreement regarding Negative resistance? Secret Squïrrel 15:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say "negative resistance" is the most appropriate article title. -Roger (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The question is a bit chicken-and-egg: the answer depends on the proposed content for the article. But in principle, yes, I'm comfortable with the title "negative resistance" for an article relating to the region of a genuinely self-contained element's IV curve which has a negative slope, including non-linear incremental changes as well as (theoretically impossible) linear DC characteristics. Sorry to be pedanditic, but I don't want some weasel-wordsmith to take this as consent to create the like of C-F's articles again; once bitten... -- Timberframe (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No, pedantry is good right now :-) I have only a moderate knowledge of electronics (I came here over a year ago to find out what neg res is and all that I've learned about it has come from the Talk page!) but I feel that the only worthy article would be about devices/circuits that exhibit a negative slope for some range of values when plotting I . V. It's 1:15 my time so I'm gonna bail, but I'll check back to see where we're at. Won't be able to help much with article content but I'm alright at copyediting for the lay reader. Secret Squïrrel 16:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

OR moved out of the way, not deleted

Again it is apparent that you are directing all the criticism towards me. Even if I agreed to have my edits deleted, I don't see how anything constructive can result while C-F is still merrily plastering his kooky theories everywhere. They do not belong anywhere on Wikipedia; unless you want to create a sub-category of pseudo or mystic science. Until C-F accepts this and abides by it, the problem will remain. I am listening to your arguments for maintaining Wikipedia guidelines but what about basic scientific standards for an article? I am sorry that I have to be so direct and I really don't like hurting C-F's feelings, but most of what he has written has nothing to do with electronics. I know nothing about extra-terrestrial civilizations and you will find no articles of mine about that subject here. So also should C-F consider the subject of electronics.Zen-in (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree that unverifiable dubious material has to be removed. Not sure where you got the idea that I am tolerant of such things; I'm pretty sure its not from my edit history. My criticism of you has solely been the creation of a rival article. I am certainly not asking you to delete any of your edits. I am asking everyone to make their edits to the same article, not each person have their own version. SpinningSpark 00:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

As there is general agreement that C-F's work, however interesting, is WP:OR and has no place in this article or its talk page I've moved it to his user pages. -- Timberframe (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

And again. C-F, I have explained to you that your use of this page to publish your ideas without reference to peer approval violates several of Wikipedia's most fundamental policies. If you reinstate them here again without addressing the policy issues I will continue to remove them as vandalism and report your behaviour to WP:AN/V which will likely result in your being blocked from editing and/or this page being protected. -- Timberframe (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

References

Please note that references to your own self authored material are not suitable here. -Roger (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Roger, I have been thinking about negative resistance phenomena since 1990's. As a result, I have managed finally to reveal the truth about them. I have created a lot of materials dedicated to this topic where I have shown the simple truth about these circuits. I have placed references to them here, on the talk page, in order to second my assertions. They contain a lot of illustrations that are useful for understanding these mystic phenomena. IMO, it is more than obvious that it is permissible to reference self authored materials and whatever else that helps creating the articles on the talk pages. I will refrain from placing them on the main articles in the future. Circuit-fantasist (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean that it is more than obvious that self-authored materials are permissable. Maybe you mean it is obvious to you they should be permissable. Unfortunately for you just the opposite is true on Wikipedia, self-authored material is not permissable except under very exceptional circumstances. See WP:SELFPUB which is a policy that all editors are expected to comply with. SpinningSpark 00:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Circuit-fantasist, the problem I see with your method of explaining electronics is that it is not based on any physical or mathematical analysis. This subject is about negative resistance, a theoretical component. Negative resistance can be observed in a limited Regime in some materials and certain kinds of diodes. Tunnel diodes can be biased to operate in the astable, monostable, and bistable modes. A theoretical negative resistor, by definition has only a constant negative slope. Of course that would be a free energy device and they do not exist. A Tunnel diode has this characteristic when it is biased in the negative resistance region, or bistable mode. It can transfer power from the DC supply to the AC signal, producing gain. When you start mixing these models up and then proclaim they contradict each other and are therefore wrong it is you who is mistaken. Nothing in electronics is linear. To analyze an electronic circuit you have to constrain the analysis to a regime and make reasonable approximations. The validity of these methods is based on very accurate models that have been developed from observation. This is not dogma, as you call it, but the result of scientific research. Your graphs of "current driven" and "voltage driven" negative resistors (actually tunnel diodes) are interesting but don't provide any useful information. Tunnel diodes are not operated with current sources or voltage sources, they are biased with resistors. The term differential resistance is incorrect terminology. What you mean to say when you use that term is incremental resistance. Differential resistance would mean having two separate resistors and taking the difference of them, like a potentiometer. Instead of being a "thinker about circuits" you should try experimenting with electronics more.Zen-in (talk) 05:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

From a subject-based point of view I agree with Zen-in. However, within the context of Wikipedia the constraints are more straight forward: policies such as WP:V, WP:OR and WP:N determine what can be included and what must be removed. Circuit-fantasist, I'm not going to dismiss your theories or your manner of presentation, if you want to publish your work here you need to get it peer-group reviewed first and then publish it with reference to those reviews. Until and unless those reviews take place and are published Wikipedia is not an appropriate arena. Sorry, but those are the house rules. -- Timberframe (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Timberframe, as I can see you are a serious person and your motives are serious as well. I agree your assertion but I remember this is a talk page - a place where to exchange freely ideas. The situation here is extremely difficult since everybody expresses general ideas but nobody joins the discussion with concrete suggestions. Please, scrutinize all the discussions about negative resistance to see why I develop so thoroughly the subject. I have started this discussion here but later I will move it to negative differential resistance where its place is and also to Circuit idea wikibook. Now we have to make a few important decisions about the future of the pages concerning negative resistance phenomena. Only, we have first to clarify what true negative resistance, differential negative resistances and negative impedance are; that is why I have started this discussion. Please, if you can help, join the discussion with concrete explanations and suggestions and refrain removing texts. Circuit-fantasist (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

C-f, Timberframe is right. This talk page isn't the right place for your essays. I understand that you intend for it explain your point of view, but it's too long and difficult to read for some. It would be better if you moved it to your user page and answered questions consisely as they're posed. If you have to, then you can just refer people to your user page essay. -Roger (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) C-F, you aren't discussing, you're writing an original essay and not listening to the outcry from other editors. In the context of Wikipedia "why I develop so thoroughly the subject" is not relevant - this is not an appropriate medium for such development of ideas. Interesting as your ideas are, the article and talk pages aren't the right place to publish them. In accordance with Wikipedia's policies, unsourced material will be removed. Sorry to have to put it as bluntly as that. -- Timberframe (talk) 12:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

C-F, even though this is a talk page, it still does not mean that you are permitted to post your theories here. it is not an alternative venue to the article. Specifically, you are in breach of the talk page guidelines where it says Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject. . . Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. SpinningSpark 14:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

C-f, just so it's really clear that nobody else currently involved in these discussions shares you views regarding this article and its Talk page, I re-iterate what Roger, Spinningspark, and Timberframe say. Wikipedia Talk pages are not places for the "free exchange of ideas" but simply for discussion about the article (not discussion of the subject of the article). You are welcome to make suggestions regarding improving this article but not to treat this as a de facto article space by dumping large tracts of your "explanations" here. I agree with you that things may seem difficult but disagree as to the reasons. People have made concrete suggestions, mostly regarding removing your bloated OR. The main difficulty appears to be that you don't understand what is wrong with your writings, and refuse to heed the advice of other editors. I see that even though it's been made clear that article Talk pages are no place for your personal observations, you have twice recently moved large amounts of text back from your User page and made about 20 further edits to it! For what purpose? Nobody is reading it. You ask for concrete suggestions and I have already made mine. You ask that we refrain from removing texts. While I have been restrained myself from removing (or changing) any of your article texts until a general consensus is reached, and have so far let you fill this Talk page up with your rubbish, it is now time for some normality to return. While conversations should never be removed from Talk pages (unless archived), self-published ramblings should be immediately deleted in the same manner as graffiti. I am being extra nice by moving it to your user page instead. Please do not redeposit it here. Secret Squïrrel 15:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I second what Secret Squïrrel says. Most of the material here appears to be Original Research. Wikipedia does NOT publish original research. It is not a free online publishing service. Since you (C-F) have obviously put a lot of time and effort into this subject, I can somewhat understand why you are putting forth your explanations here. However, I'd like to point out that Wikipedia is NOT the place to do this, neither in the body of the article itself, nor in the talk pages. The proper way to publish your ideas is to make your own website or publish your own book. Original research in Wikipedia WILL be deleted, and you should not be surprised when this happens.—Tetracube (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

He already has his own website, that's where a lot of his "references" go to. SpinningSpark 16:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Negative resistors or impedances are theoretical components. A Tunnel diode's negative resistance characteristics are a result of tunneling. It is very good to see a critical mass has developed to work on this subject, so let's get started. I agree that this page should be redirected to Negative impedance and the work can begin there, just to remove the fork. However I think the subject matter should eventually be called negative resistance.Zen-in (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Propose Housekeeping deletion of this article

Thank you Zen-in, now that we have you on board, that actually makes getting the article back at "negative resistance" a little easier. The original article history is currently at "negative impedance" and should rightly be preserved for GFDL reasons. To do that the article must be moved back here (no cut and paste) and before that can happen the existing article must be deleted. Since there is no longer anyone opposing the deletion we can do it as a non-controversial housekeeping speedy delete. I just want to emphasise that this is not any kind of judgement on the quality of the material, it is merely a procedural thing. In fact someone should paste the material in to "negative impedance" before the deletion happens to preserve it. SpinningSpark 16:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

OK I have copied my edits over to negative impedance.Zen-in (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have archived this page to protect it from the speedy delete. Please use the talk page at Talk:Negative impedance until the article can be moved. SpinningSpark 17:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)