Take the 2-minute tour ×
Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for electronics and electrical engineering professionals, students, and enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I've read that there are four types of passive elements: resistances, capacitors, inductors and memristors.

The memristor was predicted 30 years before it was produced. But why couldn't you invent other type of passive element? Is there a proof?

The definition I'm using of passive elements is something with no gain, no control and linear.

share|improve this question
6  
There's this spiffy graphic, which you might have seen. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… Unfortunately I just find myself staring at it and thinking about memristors, rather than feeling like the question has been answered. –  Phil Frost Jan 29 at 20:52
    
@PhilFrost Clearly I'm not the only one who likes that graphic! –  Stephen Collings Jan 29 at 20:56
4  
I think it's important to keep in mind that every wire displays resistance, capacitance and inductance. These are ideal circuit elements but in real life they are characteristics of pretty much every circuit element. The memristor doesn't fit that mold. You can't talk about the "memristance" of a wire. In my mind, the memristor does not belong in the same set as resistance, capacitance, and inductance. –  Joe Hass Jan 29 at 21:28
    
I'm using of passive elements is something with no gain, no control and linear. Then the memristor is not a passive element since it is non-linear (except for the trivial case where it is just a resistor). According to Wiki, for the memristor we have: \$v = M(q)i \$ where q is understood to be the time integral of \$i\$. If \$M(q)\$ is constant, \$v \propto i\$ and, thus, we have a resistor. Otherwise, \$v\$ is not a linear function of \$i\$. For example, if \$M(q) = mq\$ then \$\frac{dv}{dt} = m(i^2 + q\frac{di}{dt})\$ –  Alfred Centauri Jan 30 at 17:24
1  
@jinawee, if a passive element must be linear, the memristor is not a passive element. From the Wiki article "Memristor": In his 1971 paper, Chua extrapolated a conceptual symmetry between the nonlinear resistor (voltage vs. current), nonlinear capacitor (voltage vs. charge) and nonlinear inductor (magnetic flux linkage vs. current). He then inferred the possibility of a memristor as another fundamental nonlinear circuit element linking magnetic flux linkage and charge. –  Alfred Centauri Jan 30 at 18:18

3 Answers 3

up vote 52 down vote accepted

There are four physical quantities of interest for electronics: voltage, flux, charge, and current. If you have four things and want to pick two, order not mattering, there are 4C2 = 6 ways to do that. Two of the physical quantities are defined in terms of the other two. (Current is change in charge over time. Voltage is change in flux over time.) That leaves four possible relationships: resistance, inductance, capacitance, and memristance. enter image description here

If you want another fundamental component, you need another physical quantity to relate to these four. And while there are many physical quantities one might measure, none seem so tightly coupled as these. I'd suppose this is because electricity and magnetism are two aspects of the same force. I'd further suppose that since electromagnetism is now understood to be part of the electroweak force, one might be able to posit some relationships between the weak nuclear interaction and our four elements of voltage, current, charge, and flux.

I haven't the first clue how this would be physically manifested, especially given the relative weakness of the weak nuclear force at anything short of intranuclear distances. Perhaps in the presence of strong magnetic or electrical fields affecting the rates of radioactive decay? Or in precipitating or preventing nuclear fusion? I'd yet further suppose (I'm on a roll) that the field strengths required would be phenomenal, which is why they're not practical for everyday engineering.

But that's a lot of supposition. I am a mere engineer, and unqualified to speculate on such things.

share|improve this answer
6  
I think it's more like "someone decided there are four physical quantities of interest for electronics". And really maybe there are only two, since charge is the integral of current, and flux the integral of voltage. Temperature is pretty important. So is power, or its derivative, energy. Or maybe I want to integrate flux to get a new thing, and define a component about that. –  Phil Frost Jan 29 at 21:24
2  
I think maybe the proof lies in the requirement (set in the question) that these passive components are linear, and that means that they have some linear relationship between current and voltage, thus there can't be other physical quantities of interest, by definition. But I'm just guessing. –  Phil Frost Jan 29 at 21:26
4  
Resistance is not defined as \$R = \frac{dv}{di}\$ but, rather, as the constant of proportionality of voltage and current, \$R = \dfrac{v}{i}\$ so, at best, this graphic is misleading. For example, an ideal voltage source in series with an ideal resistance \$R\$ satisfies \$R = \frac{dv}{di}\$ but such a combination is not a fundamental passive circuit element. –  Alfred Centauri Jan 30 at 4:05
    
@AlfredCentauri There's a bit of explanation in the Wikipedia article for memristor that explains why everything was written as differential equations. I can't say I follow it (I don't speak math very well), but I understood it as "because it makes it easier to argue for memristors." –  Phil Frost Jan 30 at 12:51
3  
Personally I would have chosen to define M the other way round, so dq=MdΦ, then you could compare with dq=Cdv and justifiably call them flux-capacitors –  Pete Kirkham Jan 30 at 13:49

But why couldn't you invent other type of passive element? Is there a proof?

Well, there is a proof, but it's circular. If you take "the four fundamental electronic variables", there are only six ways to combine them linearly. Four of the ways are components, and the other two are definitions. Stephen's answer explains this well. There are only four passive components because whoever made that claim only allowed four variables.

I can "invent" more "missing components" by introducing more variables. Current is the derivative of charge with respect to time:

$$ i = \frac{\mathrm dq}{\mathrm dt} $$

I'm going to define a new term: surgingness. It's the derivative of current with respect to time:

$$ s = \frac{\mathrm di}{\mathrm dt} $$

Mind blown? Put it back together. We do this all the time in physics. These sequences are analogous:

  • position, velocity, acceleration
  • charge, current, surgingness

We can differentiate variables as many times as we want and give the results names, if we want. Physics even has a name for the derivative of acceleration: jerk.

Now we can stick surgingness in that graphic from Stephen's answer. It goes below and to the left of current.

Now we can ask, what's the component that connects surgingness with voltage? It would be a component that obeys:

$$ \mathrm dv = P \mathrm ds $$

I'm going to call \$P\$ Philistance. The component is called a Philator.

What's the utility of this component? I haven't a clue, but I predict it exists. In a few decades, when it's invented, I'll say "I told you so" and be famous.

share|improve this answer
9  
I think you're just a Philistine. –  hobbs Jan 30 at 1:55
3  
If \$s = \frac{di}{dt}\$ and \$dv = P ds\$ then \$v = P\frac{di}{dt} + V\$, i.e., the Philator is just an inductor in series with a constant voltage source. –  Alfred Centauri Jan 30 at 4:53
2  
@AlfredCentauri Which means that if you make a passive Philator, you will indeed be very famous. –  Buhb Jan 30 at 6:51
1  
@Buhb, a passive Philator would be like a married bachelor. –  Alfred Centauri Jan 30 at 12:41
    
@AlfredCentauri If you say so. I never was very good at math :) I was wondering, what if I integrate charge and integrate flux, then imagine there is some passive component there. Perhaps a "Forgistor"? Or is that also some combination of things we already have? –  Phil Frost Jan 30 at 12:45

jinawee,

I think there are a large number of "passive" components yet to be both discovered and invented. "Passive" is a somewhat deceptive and ambiguous term we use in electronics. In electronics we have a lot of loose terminology that throws beginners a curve ball. You would think that for an exact science we would use more exact language. Not so.

As other posters have indicated the big three passives are resistors, capacitors and inductors. I don't know about this memristor gizmo. In my 50+ years of electronics experience I never held one in my hand or had one come up in a circuit design I've worked on.

Nevertheless, I think if you could come up with a device which could convert frequency to a proportional DC voltage, like a thermocouple converts temperature to voltage, you might join the likes of Michael Faraday in EE Heaven.

Likewise, if you could invent a device which converts electron flow directly to sound without the use of a magnet and coil, you might be onto something big as well.

Or for that matter an elastic material that directly converts current to motive force - the elusive artificial muscle tissue. That would forever change the world of pornography as much as Michael Faraday's vibrating coil did.

It's been quite a while since the EE world has enjoyed a new passive component. Keep us posted on your progress.

share|improve this answer
1  
convert frequency to a proportional DC voltage - you mean like a low pass filter commonly used to convert a PWN output to a voltage for a cheap,DAC? –  Michael Jan 30 at 4:53
    
a device which converts electron flow directly to sound without the use of a magnet and coil - or what about a device that bends light without the use of a material lens? –  Michael Jan 30 at 4:56
    
an elastic material that directly converts current to motive force - or a holo-diode? –  Michael Jan 30 at 4:57
1  
@Michael "what about a device that bends light without the use of a material lens?" Look up in the sky on a clear day and you'll see one shining bright. –  JAB Jan 30 at 13:45
1  
@JAB I'd be more worried about what would happen if the planet fell on the device. –  AJMansfield Jan 30 at 23:22

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.