Talk:Nonlinear element

Changes Nov 2017

Hi SS, I merged text last edited by you (from nonlinear element) into text last reviewed by you (electrical element). I also included a course video from commons. You reverted wholesale, without restoring the original nonlinear element article. What for?

Your passing comment: "inaccurate, off-topic and an ad for a poor quality course" -- to my knowledge, none of this true. (though it is from a course, and of course quality is in the eye of the beholder!) Further elaboration welcome. Regards, – SJ + 22:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The fact that I was last to edit the page is irrelevant. It does not mean that I agree the page is any good. In any case that edit was merely to remove copyrightedd material. That I once supported a merge does not mean that I support merging incorrect material from a poor article to a better one. What's wrong with it? You might start by looking at the opening of your addition and asking what current does that formula predict going through a diode with zero voltage across it. Basically, the whole thing is uncited and untrustworthy despite the fact that I have tinkered with it in the past. So in short, I was happy with you redirecting it and ditching the crap, but not so happy with it reappearing at Electrical element.

Your addition of the video is basically an insertion of an external link. We do not usually add external links into the body of an article. They go in the external links section. We do not normally add external links at all unless they contain encyclopaedic information that cannot be added directly to the article. There is nothing in that video that falls into that category as far as I can see. See WP:EL for the guidelines on this. SpinningSpark 14:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I take your point re: the diode equation. The rest of the changes mainly fixed the terrible explanation and phrasing of the current section. I didn't like the description of the constitutive relations as an "arbitrary function of two variables", added a table that may satisfy us both. For video, a well-placed lecture / experiment / how-to vid can be useful in context, not just as an external / 'see Commons' link. On reflection this one wasn't particularly useful here, but clips from a video like this, showing nonlinearity in various dimensions with oscilloscope output, would be. – SJ + 17:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I haven't yet carefully looked at all your recent changes, but I don't much care for your change of "one-port elements" to "standard elements". One-ports is exactly what is being described. Transformers, for instance, are a standard element in analysis. I am also not happy with your removal of "arbitrary function of two variables". That is precisely the definition of a constitutive relation in general, and in my opinion helps enormously in understanding why the memristor came about.

This article is about the abstract idea of element in analysis. The video you suggest seems to be about non-linear distortion. Yes, this is one of the effects of non-linearity, but it is not central to what the article is about. There are many many practical applications of elements, nonlinear as well as linear. I'm not at all sure this is the place to start covering them. SpinningSpark 22:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello again. I changed "one-port" because the section inclues two-port elements, and there are other one-port elements. Maybe a better split of those two sections would help? Constitutive functions don't have to be arbitrary; and by definition f(a,b) is a function of two variables, so I didn't see the point of that sentence (but feel free to reinstate if you feel strongly). I think the "non-linear" section deserves an explicit example of what it looks like when an element moves from a linear to a non-linear regime; textual or otherwise. – SJ + 22:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)