Memristor 'brouhaha' redux

2/14/2012 7:52 PM EST

Here is the link to Kim's paper:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1202/1202.2437.pdf

I think it's important to determine for the memory or switching device being debated to be a memristor or not, if the underlying mechanism is driven by current or not. If there is no correlation to current or charge flow, it shouldn't go under Chua's definition of memristor.

2/15/2012 12:38 AM EST

Battle of research papers! Pretty cool, doesn't happen too often as academics usually try not to offend each other...Is semantics really that important here? It doesn't really matter much whether we call is a memristor or not, it matter how it works and whether it can do something useful...Kris

2/15/2012 9:59 AM EST

Agree Peter, I didn't think about patent application...it probably also matters at schools, the memristor needs to be taught now as the fourth electrical element (after R, L, C)...by the way is there any universally accepted abbreviation for it? M? (although M is used for mutual inductance)...Kris

2/15/2012 10:14 PM EST

1) The paper by Kim et al. appears to be missing the point of my paper. My point was that there are non-memristive dynamic systems that also demonstrate pinched hysteresis under some conditions. Arguing that my examples do not fall into the category of memristive systems actually supports my position rather than contradicting it. Pinched hysteresis is a property of memristors but it is also a property of other dynamic systems which are neither memristors or memristive systems. The 15 examples in my paper amply prove this.

2) The issue is more important than just patent lexicon. The issue is that the scientific method requires a correct determination that Chua's memristor model matches experimental evidence. It is entirely possible that a different model other than that proposed by Chua explains the behavior of ReRAM, phase change memory, MRAM, etc. I go into this further in a paper I posted online criticizing Stan Williams comments regarding the memristor available at

http://www.scribd.com/doc/79648334/Memristor-Scientific-Method

2/15/2012 11:13 PM EST

The more I think about it, the more I think this memristive thing won't fly for almost all resistance-based memories.

Assuming, for example, that the switching mechanism is based on some Joule heating, so there is a temperature-dependent rate, that won't be based on how much charge flows through, as the temperature becomes a steady-state value, no matter how many charges pass through.

2/16/2012 1:44 PM EST

Calling a memristor a fundemental circuit component is a lot of hype. The symmetry is only with NONLINEAR R, L and C. To prove the memristor isn't special they also have memcapacitors and meminductors. No new property has been added to resistance, capacitance and inductance. Mem just refers to a special kind of variable component.

2/16/2012 7:59 PM EST

This may be relevant. Hyongsuk Kim is a listed co-inventor (along with Leon Chua) in pending US Patent Application 2011/182104 claiming a method of implementing memristor memory. Therefore Kim may have a financial interest in discrediting anyone who questions whether all forms of resistance memory are memristors.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2011/0182104.html

2/19/2012 3:57 AM EST

There are many scientists who are actively working on memristors.
They are fascinated by the new features and enormous potential applications of the memristor. For me, I am working on memristors day and night with our students in a modestly equipped university in Korea. We who are working on memristors understood its pros and cons. Definitely, we bet on the side of success.

The memristor is a novel device whose technology is still under development. We hope to be able to contribute to its development, however small our contribution may be. Therefore, we do not appreciate Mouttet’s imprudent opinions, which are inflammatory, abusive, and have no scientific merits.

Due to Mr. Mouttet’s technically misleading and flawed assertions, I and my students have spent much of our precious times to conduct simulations using Mouttet’s examples, and we have shown that Mouttet’s assertions were contrived and technically wrong. If we do not point out Mr. Mouttet’s technical errors, many innocent researchers, including ourselves who are currently conducting research on the memristor may lose their research support from their funding agencies which may have been misled by Mouttet.

Finally, I wish to stress that Mr. Mouttet’s assertions and allegations represent only his biased opinions. In science, only true statements will stand the test of time. Any technical disagreements on memristor nomenclatures or classifications should be refereed in peer review scientific journals. Anything else will not be worth our time, nor the readers’ time.

2/25/2012 12:52 AM EST

My formal response to Kim et al.'s article is available at

http://www.scribd.com/doc/79648334/Memristor-Scientific-Method

New Scientist has picked up the story at

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328535.200-online-spat-over-who-joins-memristor-club.html

5/4/2012 10:51 AM EDT

I recently did a SPICE simulation to show that a linear resistor in parallel with a non-linear capacitor can also produce the pinched hysteresis effect (see link).

http://vixra.org/abs/1205.0008

Thus pinched hysteresis cannot be considered as evidence of a "fourth fundamental circuit element" as claimed.