memristor?
category: general [glöplog]
Maybe to clarify a little: They reference a lot of experimental work in their abstract where the effect they call "memresistance" has been demonstrated. This effect has been previously known as resistive switching and occurs in many materials systems, although the microscopic physical origin has not always been understood. They offer a physical model, but at this point I am not sure it is generally applicable.
i read the abstract to mean that their working memristor proves that memresistance actually exists, and that the effect explains various observations made (the several papers cited) for which there previously was no satisfying explanation. the point being that they now demonstrated an effect that is clearly memresistance in isolation, versus having various currently unexplained phenomena that might be caused by it but could also have other explanations.
but it's hard to tell from only the abstract.
but it's hard to tell from only the abstract.
That is surely the way they have been spinning their story, yes. I currently don't have access to the paper, so I am not sure whether their model is any better than the others that have been published recently. The only constant is that these guys publish vague information through their press department while others use peer reviewed journals.
Very off topic:
To my knowledge, the first publication highlighting the use of resistive switching in oxides for memories is this:
http://link.aip.org/link/?APPLAB/77/139/1
You may note that one of the guys is a nobel laureate and they did not peddle this to the press endlessly.
Very off topic:
To my knowledge, the first publication highlighting the use of resistive switching in oxides for memories is this:
http://link.aip.org/link/?APPLAB/77/139/1
You may note that one of the guys is a nobel laureate and they did not peddle this to the press endlessly.
now you're just talking BS. first off, nature is peer reviewed, and has among the highest impact factors for any scientific publication. also, they only started talking to the press now, after it was actually published, nearly six months after their initial submission on december 6th, 2007, and one and a half months after it was accepted for publication (the dates are all there). and stan williams isn't exactly an unknown crank scientist either.
Is it better to be peer-reviewed or to be famous ? I say : is it too much to ask for both ? :D
No need to become insulting. I am very aware that Nature is peer reviewed (even more so than you think...) But if the publication is preceded by a vague popular science press release that is peppered with buzzwords then that is the way the word gets out. In this case the press release was garbled up to an extend that even people who are well versed in the field had difficulty figuring out what it is about. It is very difficult to look beyond the press hype, regardless of what is really behind it. I am sure you are aware of similar examples in CS.
This research is not part of HPs core business; they basically get nothing out of it except of IP (very difficult to turn into money) and publicity (as witnessed here).
This research is not part of HPs core business; they basically get nothing out of it except of IP (very difficult to turn into money) and publicity (as witnessed here).
Artikel auf Technology review (german only, sorry.)
