Good for you. You know how to search Google. I also used to work for the USPTO during which time I helped organize the US patent classification for nanotechnology. I also have consulted with several industry researchers on ReRAM which is one of the reasons I know what a crap job internet reporters are doing with the "memristor" story.
Maybe you can try to use those keen investigative skills to fact check the "memristor" or ReRAM articles you write rather than issue press releases for corporations and academics which appear to be propaganda for HP rather than news articles. Better yet you should try contacting some of the researchers from Samsung, Sharp, Panasonic, Micron Technology, Unity Semiconductor, or one of the many other companies who are developing ReRAM to try to get a more balanced perspective on the relevance of Chua's "memristor" to ReRAM research.
Blaise "Mouttet is hired by firms seeking to invalidate patents," according to Paul Marks at New Scientist:
I noticed you made the exact same mistake again on your blog stating that Chua "invented" the memristor.
By the way silica-based memory resistors were known since the 1960's and Dow Corning did work on them in the early 1990's (see US Patent 5283545). But hey don't worry about trying to get the facts right I'm sure historians will sort it all out.
It is not opinion it is logic. Chua and HP/Williams both have incentive based on financial motivations and reputation to continue this "fourth element" argument but it has no merit when analyzed objectively. I have no incentive to disagee with Chua and HP if they were right. In fact I was an early supporter of the memristor hype and was invited to speak at the first memristor and memristive systems symposium at UC Berkeley alongside Williams and Chua and at 2 IEEE conferences (ISCAS 2010, ICECS 2010). Even strong supporters of the memristor such as Pershin and DiVentra have rejected the "fourth element" interpretation in favor of generalized memristor, memcapacitor and meminductor models.
In any case I am several decades younger than Williams and Chua and I can guarantee you I will have a hand in writing the history of the memristor long after Williams and Chua are dead. History will not be kind to them.
Chua's idea of a "fourth fundamental circuit element" is incorrect. Dynamic generalizations of memory capacitors and memory inductors are also possible. Memory resistors should be considered as dynamic generalizations of resistors just as diodes are nonlinear generalizations of resistors.
In fact it is easy to show that the "pinched hysteresis curve" that Chua and Williams considers as evidence of memristors can be reproduced by a linear resistor in parallel with a nonlinear capacitor (see link below). Thus the "fourth element" claim lacks merit.
In think your are right. Chua's real contribution was to circuit theory, where he postulated that there "must be" a fourth type of passive electronic component--after resistors, capacitors and inductors. Williams then discovered such a memristive material. Others chip-makers were also experimenting with similar materials, but did not recognize that they had been predicted by Chua. In fact, Williams invited Chua to speak at HP about his memristor prediction first, then only later did Williams tell Chua that HP had a material that fit the bill.
I'm think the idea that Leon Chua invented the memristor is incorrect. He didn't invent anything, he discovered a natural relationship between circuit variables. So his discovery is comparable to a physicist discovering a natural law. You wouldn't say Sir Issac Newton invented gravity. Now Stan Williams and HP labs on the other hand invented the first physical realization of a memristor as we know.
Yes, there are many proposed solutions to sneak-path current, such as back-to-back zeners, which If nothing else it will make it an interesting race, since Hynix with HP, Elpida with Sharp, and Panasonic are all citing 2013 as debut dates, with others destined to jump in soon!
A Book For All Reasons Bernard Cole1 Comment Robert Oshana's recent book "Software Engineering for Embedded Systems (Newnes/Elsevier)," written and edited with Mark Kraeling, is a 'book for all reasons.' At almost 1,200 pages, it ...