![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 19 June 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
J. D. Redding 22:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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. Spinning Spark 10:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
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. Spinning Spark 13:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
{{
outdent|6}}
so I can read and possibly comment on my smartphone without having to cope with lines just three words long.)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:
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 19 June 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
J. D. Redding 22:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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. Spinning Spark 10:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
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. Spinning Spark 13:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
{{
outdent|6}}
so I can read and possibly comment on my smartphone without having to cope with lines just three words long.)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: