Talk:Negative resistance/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

There is NO negative resistance!

There is NO negative resistance. No such element. No such phenomena.The very concept is a violation of numerous fundemental laws of physics. No engineer has ever designed a circuit with a negative resistance. There is no element or circuit that produces V/i < 0! So the real question is why is this article still here? The length of the discussion above should have given someone a clue! It is a shame this platform has been hijacked in this manner. It is a shame that all the elaborate checks and balances have miserably failed to erase this travesty form such a popular reference of truth and knowledge - supposedly! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.159.236 (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I will reply on the off chance this is a serious comment. If you have a question about the topic of this article, please ask at a forum on some other website, or ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Electrical engineers talk about things like amplifiers as "devices", despite the fact that more comes out than goes in—no doubt another violation of fundamental laws, or possibly due to the power supply. Johnuniq (talk) 00:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You can buy negative (variable) resistance devices at most drugstores...this one in my pocket now will produce a voltage drop of -1.5 volts when a current of 100 mA flows out of it. That's a negative resistance of -15 ohms. But it will only do that until all the zinc dissolves. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I rather believe that if you trotted into your local drug store and asked the assistant for a "negative resistance" he would probably wonder which of his many other products you were taking! If you seriously believe that a battery is an example of a negative resitance then you are demonstrating your usual inability to grasp the fundamentals. What a battery does contain is a constant voltage source which due to the practicalities of its construction also happens to contain a positive resitance in series with it (a Thévanin circuit). As you note, the constant voltage source appears not to be as constant as one would like, and it does stop being a source at all when one of its chemical constituents is consumed, but the more usual reason for the apparent drop in voltage is the increase in the series (positive) resistance. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The battery has what someone below referred to as "absolute" negative resistance, but that's an odd use of terminology, not the topic of this article, which is stated in the lead as "Negative resistance is a property of some electric circuits where an increase in the current entering a port results in a decreased voltage across the same port." Dicklyon (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You are correct in that there is no such thing as negative resistance as such (that is a circuit where current flows out in response to an applied voltage). Having said that: it is possible to construct circuits that emulate the behaviour of the mythical negative resistance. Such a circuit has to contain active elements as well as a source of energy. That is what this article is about. Confusion arises because what many people describe as "negative resitance" is actually something else. A circuit where the current falls in response to a rise in applied voltage is not negative resitance in the true sense, but could be more accurately described as negative dynamic resistance. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This is strong WP:NOTFORUM territory, and should not be pursued. No competent editor is going to suggest deleting this article because (obviously) reliable sources support the topic, so the discussion here is irrelevant (I replied to give the ref desk link in case the OP wanted to discuss the matter, but couldn't resist adding a snarky but accurate answer). Johnuniq (talk) 13:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree that this article should get deleted/merged. The topic does not exist except as a fringe way looking at common phenomena covered elsewhere. It's like making a second article on dogs titled "six legged canines that are missing two legs". — Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 24 July 2012

OK, but now that we have sorted out who has a basic knowledge of electronics and who hasn't, any suggestions about deleting the article must be at WP:AFD as they are off topic here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This article should stand. Although we can all agree that a negative resistance does not exist as such, the phenomenon of negative resistance can be simulated and finds several uses in the real world. The most obvious is its use to cancel the real positive resistance in tuned circuits to create an apparently lossless tuned circuit that oscillates forever (e.g. the dynatron oscillator). It also used to be of importance because it turned up in the characteristics of the tetrode valve (or vacuum tube), this time as an undesireable feature. It is a notable characteristic and deserves an article in its own right.

Having said that, this particular article is not about the strict ohm's law concept of negative resitance (i.e. a device that when a positive voltage is applied, a current flows out of it (negative current)). This does not exist in itsown right (but can be simulated). The article is about a device where a positive delta in the positive applied voltage produces a negative delta in the positive current that is flowing into it. This is not negative ohmic resistance, but as I said above a different characteristic which could be called negative dynamic resitance (I just coined this term but I may have heard it from somewhere). This characteristic does exist and several passive devices exhibit the phenomenon (e.g. tunnel diode). It can also be simulated. The article does not make this distinction clear - or even mention it.DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can't "all agree that a negative resistance does not exist as such"sely related things, for two reasons.

1. There is absolute resistance, V/I, and there is slope resistance or differential resistance, dV/dI. For a simple linear resistor the two are synonymous, and only the V/I definition is normally given in elementary texts and courses. However, both meanings of the word are recognised and used in electronics, and a word means what it is used and understood to mean, nothing more nor less. Negative slope resistance certainly does exist, and is very important in many applications.
2. It is actually possible to have a device which has a negative absolute resistance. That is to say, if you apply a voltage in one direction then it produces a current in the opposite direction. The essential idea was that the input voltage is fed into an amplifier that produces a current in the opposite direction. This was explained in detail in earlier versions of the article, but for some reason it has been removed. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have no problem with the article being titled negative resistance. I think this description from a source describing an arc is interesting:

The voltage required to maintain the arc will be much less than that required to start the arc cold, and, in fact, an arc is not usually started with the electrodes separated. If we study the behavior of such an arc and measure the current corresponding to various d.c. voltages maintained at the terminals of an arc already formed, we will obtain a curve for voltage plotted against current like that shown in Fig. 223. This curve shows that as the applied voltage is increased the current through the arc decreases. The corresponding characteristic curve of an ordinary ohmic resistance would be a straight line sloping upward to the right from the origin. This behavior of the arc, exactly opposite to what occurs when the voltge applied to an ordinary conductor is increased, is described by saying that the arc has a "falling characteristic," or that it is a variable resistance, which increases as the applied voltage increases. It is this "falling characteristic" of the arc that makes possible its use as a generator of undamped oscillations. ...

The statement is sometimes made that an arc is a "negative resistance"; this statement can not be considered correct. The current in an arc passes from the electrode of higher voltage to the electrode of lower voltage, and the resistance of the arc should therefore be considered to be positive, since in this respect it behaves as any ordinary resistance.

Bureau of Standards, The Principles Underlying Radio Communication, second edition, Radio Communication Pamphlet No. 40, 1922, pp 402–403.

So, the term "negative resistance" has been around since before 1922, and the issues about using the term were the same. Glrx (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed; sounds like that author is one that would have been OK calling a battery a negative resistor. Modern books, on the other hand, all focus on the more useful concept that this article is about and that that author was criticizing, as in "A negative-resistance device is a device which exhibits over a limited range of its V-l curve, a negative incremental resistance." Dicklyon (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting one, thanks. Nevertheless, people are renowned for using sloppy language and the two words "negative resistance" sum up the effect, once explained, and that name is a lot simpler than some more accurate description. My first message indirectly pointed out that there is no such as an "amplifier" either—you have to construct something with a power supply and various components designed to make the device do what is wanted, and it only works in a certain range of inputs/frequencies/temperatures. The good news is that we could argue for six months and never even approach the morass at Talk:Centrifugal force. Johnuniq (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

IEEE Standard 100 uses the term "negative resistance" 13 times, so IEEE evidently thinks its meaningful. Std. 100 even defines "negative conductance". There's no entry for "negative resistance" by itself, though. A "negative resistance device" is defined as " A resistance in which an increase in current is accompanied by a descrease in voltage over the working range." (Page 734 of IEEE Std. 100 Seventh Edition, ISBN 0-7381-2601-2 ) If it's good enough for IEEE, it should be good enough for the encyclopedia anyone can edit. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I accept the fact that everyone calls this negative slope characteristic "negative resistance". My point was that it isn't really true negative resistance in the ohmic sense because it is not a case (from Ohm's law) where V/I equals a negative value. This is a case where ΔV/ΔI equals a negative number which is not strictly negative resistance because at any point on the slope V/I is still a positive value (or positive resistance). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: "A resistance in which an increase in current is accompanied by a decrease in voltage over the working range", a similar limitation applies to positive resistors. The current only rises with the voltage over a limited range. Above that, the current drops to zero and you have to open the windows to get the smell of smoke out of the lab. Raise the voltage even higher, and suddenly you get current again (see arc). --Guy Macon (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. Devices—like people—have operating limits, and a "true" resistor is only a true resistance in a minuscule range of all possible voltages/currents/temperatures. Johnuniq (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. And once you let the smoke out, the behavior is unpredictable. The smoke is what makes electronic devices work. Dicklyon (talk) 05:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The positive resistor that I am talking about is about 2 miles of rail running through the station next door. I have not yet encountered (or been able to produce) a voltage at which the current suddenly drops to zero!! DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Really? Zero volts didn't give you zero current? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

DieSwartzPunkt, if you're interested in the case of V/I negative, you're back to the battery (or photovoltaic cell, or other power source); it's still not "Ohmic", though, as that ratio isn't independent of current. So maybe you need to rephrase the objection to say that "there's no such thing as an Ohmic negative resistance device". Actually, though, you can indeed build such a thing with op amps if you work at it (over a limited range, of course), and if you put it in series with a big enough positive resistor it will be DC stable. But maybe you don't want to call that a device; that's OK by me, too. Dicklyon (talk) 05:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

No: I disagree about the battery example. This is not something that will produce a (negative) current output in response to an applied positive voltage. The voltage source is built in. As I already pointed out, a battery is a constant voltage source in series with a positive resistance and will always behave as such. It will produce what appears to be a negative current (output) as long as the applied voltage is less than the magnitude of its own voltage source (or even if zero volts are applied as long as there is a complete circuit). But the reason is because the built in voltage source opposes the applied voltage, thus the combined voltage can be effectively negative. The negative voltage divided by the negative current still yields a positive resistance. I already stated that it was quite possible to build a circuit that emulated the properties of a true ohmic negative resistance (as you note over a limited range of conditions). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Another way of looking at it is this: If a two terminal "device" (which may be an active circuit with an internal battery) has -1KΩ of negative resistance, then when you place it in series with a +2KΩ resistor the combination acts like a +1KΩ resistor. If you place -1KΩ in series with +1KΩ the combination has zero resistance. If you place -1KΩ in parallel with +1KΩ the combination has zero resistance. (In the real world, you have to specify a range of applied voltages where this remains true) No battery acts that way, thus a battery is not a negative resistor. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

DieSwartzPunkt, I'm not trying to claim that a battery is a negative resistor. But it is a device with V/I < 0 in much of its normal operating range. Guy has a better reason that a battery is not a negative resistance device: it doesn't have the property described in the lead of our article. Dicklyon (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we can agree that the phenomenon is sufficiently nebulous, that we may all have different ways of trying to visualise it. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a practical engineering concept. I don't think of it as nebulous. Dicklyon (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The capacitive equivalents -- driven shields and driven guard rings -- are often referred to as "negative capacitance": http://www.google.com/search?q=%22driven+shield%22+%22negative+capacitance%22 --Guy Macon (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Negative capcitance is inductance is it not? Based on the principle that capacitive reactance is positive and inductive reactance, negative. Or perhaps we should knock this line on the head now. 86.150.65.44 (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

No. negative capacitance is not inductance. What value of inductance would you choose to put in parallel with a 10 uF capacitor so as to make the combination act as a 5 uF capacitor over the working frequency range? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If the frequency range is narrow enough, there's an easily calculable answer for that. Dicklyon (talk) 06:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

(Smile) True, true, but in that limited case a properly sized resistor makes a better negative capacitance than any inductor! (Why do I feel that I am in a Monty Python skit?) :) --Guy Macon (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

After an incredible amount of hot air (a voltage or current supply is called a SUPPLY by anyone, excpet one editor here) and a long list of philosophical musings, word plays, sementic arguments, we have all in essence concluded that there is NO negative resistance in nature or in any drug store. In fact, there is no such a thing for sale in even eBay! There is NO passive device (silly that I need to qualify) that has a V/I that is negaitve at ANY time, under ANY condition! But we still have an entry here in Wikipedia, named "Negative Resistance". Good job fellas! Maybe next time, as a public service, stay away from a topic that you have litte knowledge of or have little to offer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.165.246.10 (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

There is NO passive device that amplifies voltage or current at ANY time, under ANY condition! You can't buy one in nature or in any drug store. In fact, there is no such a thing for sale in even eBay! But we still have an entry here in Wikipedia, named "Amplifier". Good job fellas! --Guy Macon (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, a transformer is passive, and can amplify voltage or current (but not both); and you can get one on eBay, I'm sure (but if you try to get one in a drug store, you might get the wrong thing). Still, Mr. IP there should take his own advice and stay away. Dicklyon (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

But I read in Wikipedia (Amplifier) that it isn't! And if you can't trust Wikipedia... uh ... never mind. (smile) --Guy Macon (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Transformer?Amplifier? It seems problem is not just lack of understanding of basic electrical concepts but there is some sort of cognitive blockage involved. Maybe something more serious, but I am not in medical field. There is no amplifer or a transformer that has a NEGATIVE V/I property at any port or terminal. I would like to see just one example, just one. I am especially curious about that passive amplifier! Travesty goes on, the bearded woman and the snake oil salesman next I suppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.159.236 (talk) 04:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

That's twice that you have insulted other editors. I am going to stop responding to you and I advise others to do the same. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Insult is the whole of the article and the contents of this talk page. Amplifers and transformers? I suggest you take making entries in a public reference like this a bit more seriously and appreciate the responsibility. Many have the common sense not to delve into topics they do not understand or have little to contribute, except a small minority who insist on ignoring the clear messege contained in this huge discussion page. It is not even a controversy, there is no negative resistance, period. Not a single example given where V/I is negative. At least the bearded lady knows what is going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.159.236 (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

These flame sessions are pretty interesting for nonelectricalengineers. You start to feel like you're picking up some of the tacit knowledge that people have who actually work with circuit design; some measure of offhand familiarity with concepts/experiences like "What does the word 'source' mean in EE, day to day?" That only happens in a topic like this one, where the topic discussion is anything but cut and dried. So thanks. (and it's amazing that everybody maintains some sense of humor.)Richard8081 (talk) 04:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Many misconceptions in Wikipedia

There are many misunderstandings about what "negative resistance" really is. As a matter of fact, when we talk about "resistance" we mean a material property. There is no doubt that electrical components can be built, which have a decreasing current I while increasing voltage V. But: Current I never becomes negative! This is what a negative resistor is: U = R * -I. And not ΔU = ΔR * -ΔI, this isn't the same! So:

"Negative resistors are theoretical and do not exist as a discrete component." - Correct, but I would rather write "Negative resistors are theoretical and there exists no material with such property."

"However, some types of diodes (e.g., tunnel diodes) can be built that exhibit negative resistance in some part of their operating range." - Simply wrong, you were mixing up U = R * -I with ΔU = ΔR * -ΔI. The same errors I read in the articles Tunnel diode or Cold cathode, a mixing up between R and ΔR, while ΔR is differential resistance but not (absolute) resistance. The Wikipedia editors seem to have a lack in basic maths. But I'm sorry, have not time to correct all the errors.

Still, it is possible to build an instrument or circuit somehow measuring a "negative" current on a positive voltage, but this would rather be a joke (or "trick") than real science. On the other side, the definition of U = R * I is man-made, but very universal and no joke, just believe me.

-- Greetings from Europe, 178.197.233.33 (talk) 08:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest to close this site and open up a new site called negative differential resistance, this would solve many problems and help the non-gifted people also to understand those mathematical nature laws. --178.197.233.33 (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

But yeah, if you want to call the negative differential resistance suddenly "negative resistance", then please explain this in the introduction, and remove the words "hypothetical" because negative differential resistors are real and not hypothetical...by the way I know electrical engineers who can build everything, but are in lack of basic physics. That's what I think this article should be about: Basic physics and the ohm's law, not fancy devices with tricky negative resistance ("we can build everything, can't we?"). However, by mixing the words and concepts this article became simply wrong. There is no "true line" in this article. --178.197.233.33 (talk) 09:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking about this issue once more: The Problem is, that the resistance R always need to be positive. But for a current you always need to have a positive and negative pole! Anyway, as only positive resistors are possible, the correct operations are only R = U / I and R = -U / -I, and if you got a negative resistance -R = -U / I, you actually did a measuring error. Or lets say: When you measure a current, there will always be also a positive voltage U! There won't be a current with only 5V or only -5V, both of them are needed for a current. But we always measure at the positive pole by definition, otherwise resistance would be negative, and this can't be possible in the mathematical system of Ohm. So the real ohm's law actually looks like this: R = |U / I|, then it doesn't matter a which pole you measure the voltage. Hope this helped. --178.197.232.9 (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

That is completely misguided. SpinningSpark 09:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Negative resistance term used in antenna design

I added a reference to an antenna design page where the term negative resistance is used in reference to power transfer between multiple driven elements. This appears to be a handy way of looking at antennas and the effects of mismatched elements. However this isn't negative resistance. The author is talking about power transfer, and then deriving an equivalent negative resistance in the element that has more RF power than is being supplied to it by the driver circuit. This excess power comes from another driven element. The impedance of the element doesn't change. Zen-in (talk) 03:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The impedance most certainly does change. A huge range of UHF/microwave circuits use coupled lines or resonators and such arrangements always result in a change in impedance as observed at the input. The impedance of the element measured in isolation does not change of course, it is the impedance of the whole structure that has changed. The negative impedance arises when an applied voltage results in a current coming out so V/I is a negative number. As you rightly point out, the element is acting as a source of power under these conditions. This is much like the situation with a battery cell; in its normal range of operation V/I is in the fourth quadrant and hence negative. However, a sufficiently large voltage applied at the terminals will bring it back into the first quadrant where V/I is positive again. At no time is the slope of the V/I curve negative - the differential resistance is always positive (and usually taken as a constant = internal resistance). SpinningSpark 09:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

This is issue has rumbled on for years and I think we now need a solution. I propose that the page at this title (negative resistance) becomes a disambiguation page pointing to negative differential resistance and negative impedance converter and the material is moved as appropriate. This is more in line with industry standard terms and addresses the comments of the objectors above. SpinningSpark 09:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. I'm sympathetic, but "negative resistance" is still the common name. The technical distinctions can be explained in the text. Glrx (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you opposing a split per se or do you just object to the proposed titles? It is more than a technical distinction, there are two quite different subjects and, as several editors have pointed out, the page is a mess by mixing them. It goes against the style of Wikipedia to have two different meanings in one article. I would settle for leaving the differential meaning at negative resistance and pointing to other meanings with a hatnote, but I think it should be split in some fashion. SpinningSpark 23:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the split as a big issue. There already is a negative impedance converter article with a {{main}} direction from this article. I'm indifferent about mentioning a NIC in this article (a hat note is OK). I think NICs were used to turn caps into inductors in filter design, but there isn't a high demand for negative resistors. The idea is cute, but is probably better at the NIC article. Bottom line: this article doesn't have a lot of NIC ink. Glrx (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. My feeling is, for better or worse the term "negative resistance" is applied to both "negative differential resistance" and the other kind that NIC's have - "negative static resistance", or "true negative resistance" or whatever - so I think this article is needed to distinguish between the two. Also the NIC isn't the only circuit that uses negative static resistance - I believe the gyrator and "frequency dependent negative resistor" 1 p.135 circuits also do - so it should be described. The controversy is mostly semantic; the terminology hasn't jelled yet. I think maybe if the article just stuck to describing the properties, and acknowledged where terminology ambiguities existed (and if there aren't too many editors like Circuit-fantasist around :), it could be a useful article. --Chetvorno^TALK 05:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose – I do not see what problem this proposal addresses. The article seems OK as it is, and is sensibly titled. Dicklyon (talk) 05:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see a need for a name change, although I am out of date regarding what is the current common name (is there any evidence that a name change is necessary?). From an earlier discussion, a resistor only has constant resistance in a minuscule range of all possible voltages, currents, frequencies, and temperatures, so there is no need to offer an apology about the title of this article, and the content covers the issues. Johnuniq (talk) 08:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

  Actually, circuits like NICs can produce a negative resistance over a very large range. Essentially, they are limited only by the voltage of the amplifier supply rails. SpinningSpark 09:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - It's a slippery slope with too many potential forks.Zen-in (talk) 03:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Too complex/specialist in tone

Wiki style guidelines suggest that articles should proceed from general explanations, suited to a general reading population (ie with an interest in the topic at hand), to progressively more detailed information. IMO the current introduction to this article, while no doubt accurate, fails in this. Virtually all of us have flourescent light bulbs in our homes or places of work; most of us will at some time or other have to replace the ballast in these lamps; these ballast devices are necessary to .... deal with the ... tube's negative resistance characteristic. The introduction to this article should provide the simple, general explanations required of such links to it, rather than a scholastic text. Would someone with the necessary expertise please remedy? LookingGlass (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

confusing section about entropy relation.

That is, current will always flow from higher voltage to lower voltage, and (at least with I≠0 and V≠0) the quantity V/I will be positive. Please explain what you mean with this statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jangirke (talk • contribs) 04:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Please do not sprinkle tags in articles without first engaging on the talk page. There is no paragraph in any article that someone would not find "confusing".

The "Entropy consideration" section was added on 19 January 2014 (diff) and I think it should be sourced or removed. It's making the point that a simplistic analysis of "negative resistance" may suggest that such a device could be used to generate perpetual motion, however a power supply is needed. Transistor does not make a big deal of the fact that a power supply is needed, and I think the attempt to "explain" what is going on by referring to entropy is unhelpful. The article should state that a power supply is needed, but that's all. Johnuniq (talk) 05:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I removed the section. If there's a source available, we could put it back and talk about how to tune it up, but without one it seems like just synthesis. Dicklyon (talk) 06:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there was anything especially controversial in the material you removed. There is a fundamental difference between differential negative resistance, like a tunnel diode (which is essentially just a non-linear resistor from a network theory point of view and absorbs power into the one-port just like a regular resistor) and a negative resistance simulator, like an NIC (which is actually delivering power out of the one-port). Personally, I find the I-V quadrant view very instructive in illuminating this difference. I am not sure that it is entirely necessary to invoke entropy (conservation of energy is enough) but this book uses exactly that approach (ie entropy and quadrants). Also, this book talk about negative resistance, quadrants and power flow in regard to solar cells. SpinningSpark 16:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Figure 1

What is the horizontal axis showing? This page is for the general public so why do you use eV and not Joule? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jangirke (talk • contribs) 04:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I've always thought that diagram was not useful for this article. We just need the simple I-V plot. There are three different plots there, it is entirely unclear what all the axes of the plots represent, and most of it is irrelevant to the central focus of this article. I know there has been some discussion and to and fro with different lead diagrams in the past but it could still do with another debate. SpinningSpark 16:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Missing an implementation?

If I am correct the Lambda diode is missing. - Regards Snaily (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Rewrite

Completely rewrote and expanded article. I tried to address some of the issues raised previously on this page by formally defining the different types of resistance, and improving the sourcing. I am not quite done with some of the sections, so I plan to do some improvements. --Chetvorno^TALK 02:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

That's massive. Dicklyon (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it got kind of bulky. It started out as an effort to improve explanation of some of the confusing aspects of the subject but kept getting bigger. --Chetvorno^TALK 03:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed this in detail but my first impression is that it makes a good job of addressing a number of long standing problems in this article. In particular it introduces a great deal of clarity in defining the various types of negative resistance and the section on operating points is a great addition. I am slightly niggled by the replacement of my negative resistance amplifier diagram (old figure 5) but I mustn't WP:OWN and I expect there was some basic flaw in it that you couldn't over come in the text.

Why has the section on neurons gone? It was short, but an interesting diversion outside of electronics. SpinningSpark 10:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The new reflection amplifier drawing added some labels so I could refer to them in the text, but on second thought it wasn't really an improvement, I put yours back. Also added back that interesting section on neurons. --Chetvorno^TALK 15:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but now the diagram annotation does not match your new formulae so one or the other has to be changed. SpinningSpark 16:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I know, I'm working on it. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The article uses notation such as I, Δi, and di. Notation in the outside world is inconsistent, too, but upper case variables usually refer to absolute quantities and lower case to incremental changes from an operating point (with the implication the changes are small enough that linearity may be assumed). (Sometimes upper case is DC and lower case is DC, but the lower case often carries the connotation of small signal AC.) So I'm happy to see R=V/I (absolute resistance) and r=v/i (incremental resistance) and even r=ΔV/ΔI (incremental shift from an operating point) or r=dV/dI (differential resistance). I have trouble with r=Δv/Δr; it seems to say r=ΔΔV/ΔΔR=ddV/ddR. Glrx (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

In describing current or voltage in a negative resistance device, the article required 3 different variables for each: the DC bias or operating point, the incremental shift from the operating point = the AC signal, and the sum of the two, the total time varying voltage or current. For clarity I decided to stick to lowercase variables for time-varying voltages and currents and uppercase for DC (except for the standard convention of using uppercase for phasor quantities). This required two lowercase (AC) variables for each of current and voltage. I used:

• DC operating point: V, I
• Change from operating point: Δv, Δi
• Total: v(t) = V + Δv,     i(t) = I + Δi

If the article instead went with the convention you mention above, and used v and i for the incremental changes (the AC signal), it would have to define two additional variables v_T, i_T for the total voltage and current (which are the axes in every I-V graph in the article), adding confusion for newbies. The "delta" notation is perfectly well-used and I think it is better than the alternatives. Since i and v are clearly defined in the "Definitions" section, I don't see that there should be any confusion over the meaning of Δv or Δi. As shown in fig. 1, Δv = v₂ - v₁, or v(t₂) - v(t₁) --Chetvorno^TALK 00:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't like terminology like ΔV and dI (a change in a constant quantity???) when uppercase variables are used for DC. I think it will be confusing for people used to elementary electric circuits. What does R = dV/dI mean? Does it only apply to a change in DC operating point, or is it also the differential resistance to a time-varying (AC) signal? Using lowercase v and i instead of V and I for total current and voltage emphasizes the point that in nonlinear devices like these both differential and static resistance are dynamic quantities that change with current and voltage. --Chetvorno^TALK 00:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

A great re-write but it is a difficult read. I think it dives into technical descriptions too quickly, which is a natural choice. Some Wikipedia pages have history and summary sections first. You asked what R = dV/dI means. I don't think there is anything wrong with using R = ΔV/ΔI for the slope of an I-V curve to measure resistance piece-wise between two points on the curve. Because ΔV = V2 - V1 and ΔI = I2 - I1 so all values are constants. Zen-in (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a pretty difficult read. I think some of that is unavoidable; it is simply a difficult abstract subject. Maybe History section should go first, although it might be hard to understand without some background. The Definitions and Types sections are really the heart of the article; maybe they should go first. Re the terminology: Reading your and Glrxs comments above, I think it was wrong to use lower case Δv and Δi; ΔV and ΔI would be better. The problem with changing it is all the diagrams use the former terminology. Let me see how difficult it would be to change them. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Negative conductance

This might seem a little pedantic, but I cannot see that it makes sense for 'negative resistance' to be referred to as 'negative conductance'. I think what is meant here is that the underlying phenomenon can be described by either of these two terms; but resistance and conductance are, of course quite distinct concepts. 'Systems which exhibit negative resistance also exhibit negative conductance, and their behaviour can be referred to by either term' is probably the correct way to express the idea that is intended here.

Another point: the V-I characteristic of a dry battery is usually represented as having a negative slope when it is discharging (terminal voltage falls when discharge current rises). Does this mean that the device exhibits negative resistance ? I think not; the device is usually modeled as a constant voltage element in series with a positive resistance. This conundrum (if it is one) is resolved by adopting the usual sign convention, according to which the discharge current is ascribed a negative sign (current flowing outward from a terminal to which a positive voltage sign has been ascribed). A rigorous representation of the discharge situation would then place the V-I plot in the 2nd quadrant, where it would have a positive slope. For the lead article to be truly rigorous (and to avoid any possibility of confusion), a sign convention for current and voltage should be explicitly stated, I feel. G4oep (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I included the term "negative conductance" because a few sources use it. The sign convention for current and voltage used in electrical engineering, as explicitly stated several times in the article, is the passive sign convention. See the How it works section for the directions of current and voltage. Read the definition of static resistance in the Definitions section, then read the Negative static or "absolute" resistance section, which explains clearly how the passive sign convention results in a negative resistance for power sources. There are two diagrams in the article, Fig. 2 and the battery I-V curve in the "Types" section, that show the I-V curves of power sources as you describe them, and the latter section explains the point that the static resistance of a battery or other power source is negative (in the 2nd or 4th quadrant) but the differential resistance (source resistance, slope of the curve) is positive. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The electrical resistivity and conductivity article starts off defining the R quantity then goes on to say the C quantity is its inverse. Electrical resistance and conductance does something similar. This is clearer and more accurate than this article, which says that it is "also called", making it sound as if the terms are synonymous. It would be the consistent thing to do to follow that pattern here. I have to mention that I never really approved of the merging of the resistance and conductance articles for the very reason that they constantly tie themselves in verbal knots like this, but now that it is done, it would be best to follow the pattern. SpinningSpark 23:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess both of you are right. I don't think the conductance is important enough that it has to be in the introduction, do you? --Chetvorno^TALK 05:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

How does this look? --Chetvorno^TALK 06:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me. SpinningSpark 10:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I agreeG4oep (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I don't mean to WP:OWN the article. Please feel free to make changes. --Chetvorno^TALK 03:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Resonant tunneling diode figure

I don't mean to dominate or "own" the article, but I think the recently added animated figure showing graphs of the resonant tunneling diode is not worth including. The righthand graph of the diode's I-V curve is the only useful part, the other two obscure graphs will be confusing for the general readers who will be viewing this initial section. In addition the animation has a large size of 354 kB, and the article is already huge. --Chetvorno^TALK 01:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not clear at all what this plot about. I assume that the curve on the right is an I-V curve, but as one axis is labelled Composite Plot Axis and the other Energy (ev) even this is unclear. The animation does not add anything relevant to the article, so I shall remove it. --catslash (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to search the archives, but I think this figure has been discussed before and removed before. I support its removal again. SpinningSpark 23:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Negative resistance used for measurement

I have removed this from the article,

Also, a multiport oscillators, based on the negative resistance, becoming widely used for the precision measurements. They utilize a low- to a middle- frequency range (30 kHz - 30 MHz), and use multi-transistor circuits with the negative resistance instead of the "pure" negatrons. They called "frequency components" and there are a lot of different measurement devices based on this method (for example, to measure electrical parameters, environment parameters, geometrical sizes and so on).

References

I can't make head nor tail of it, and the (unpublished) paper it refers to is just as obscure. SpinningSpark 15:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

1. I was made that additional for the next reasons: a) this WP article is really greate! It looks better than some papers about the negative resistance. But I noticed something missed in it and feel that can add some important info; b) negative resistance is in the area of my scientific interests c) measurements is also in it. So, what is the thing that I feel was missed? It's a using of a negatron-based devices in the measurement of the environmental/circuit parameters. It's a few scientific scholars in the world that had a deal with this subject (I know 2: in Ukraine and in Russian).

2. That preprint is a short review/classification of this question so I referenced to it. If you think it will better, I'll add some additional references about this (I've found more than 50 papers about this on Google Scholar and trust that it's even much more of it). Jettec1 (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The English is completely mangled in that addition. If I understood it, I might try to clean it up, but I don't - much of the terminology is obscure. For a start, what is meant by a multiport oscillator and how does that relate to negative resistance or measurement? And what on earth is a frequency component. You seem to be saying that's what a negative resistance multiport oscillator is called, but that doesn't make it any clearer. @Chetvorno: do you understand this? SpinningSpark 16:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, it's true - my English is really bad. Sorry. So seems your help will be very useful. Well: 1. As "multiport oscillator" I meant a device that can be described in the form of the four-terminal network (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-port_network) instead of the "pure" negatrons (as a Gann diode) that seems to be a two-terminal. Please, refer for example to a papers (they are in Ukrainian peer-review journals, but you can see circuits with several transistors, that has a negative resistance on its external ports) the first, the second. 2. "Frequency component" is a collective name for current and prospective devices, where the negative resistance effect used for measuring/processing signals (for example we can build an RF filter or synthesiser based on the negative resistance effect). Hope this clarify something. Thank you for your help! Jettec1 (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any transistors in the first link. There are symbols with two chevrons in a circle that I don't recognise, but they can't be transistors as they are two-terminal. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you talking about an oscillator where the oscillator output is controlled by another port? Like a Voltage-controlled oscillator? Does frequency component mean "frequency-dependent component"? SpinningSpark 18:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

1. Ok, here I've made a screenshot for your convenience screen_link (It's from the previous link, but need to scroll one page up, I apologize). Two chevrons in a circle it's a (current source). 2. "...oscillator output is controlled by another port..." Yes and no. Yes - the oscillator output frequency is controlled by another port; No - because there are circuits that can be controlled by several another ports (so it may be a many port device (multipole)) 3. No, I mean a component, based on a negative resistance, that can change it output frequency according to a measurement parameter. Jettec1 (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@Chetvorno, Glrx, and Catslash: Pinging more users for opinions. SpinningSpark 09:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what is going on, but WP:UNDUE is the hurdle here. As editors, it is not our function to decide what is important. No matter how good or important the work is, it needs to have more visibility before it goes into WP. "It's a few scientific scholars in the world that had a deal with this subject (I know 2: in Ukraine and in Russian)." That suggests the viewpoint is not widely held.

I don't get much looking at the sources.

1. The PeerJ Comp Sci top line is "NOT PEER-REVIEWED. This is a rapid communication before peer review".
2. The page 115 link would not work for me; the connection would time out.
3. Технічні науки seems to be about the value of using simulators and modeling in circuit design. The circuit is a one-port oscillator that is intent on measuring the capacitance C_w of a capacitive sensor. The goal appears to use capacitance to imply the "thickness" / measure distance. For some reason, either the capacitance or circuitry (or maybe both) is nonlinear:

   Modeling capacitive transducers to determine the thickness

   A well-known method of creating models and calculation using frequency converters application of Kirchhoff's equations for the equivalent capacity of the circuit, followed by substitution Thomson in the formula for finding frequency generation. However, this approach has some shortcomings, in particular inability to simulate and observe the shape obtained and calculate nonlinear oscillations distortions associated with it, the complexity of modeling bahatoharmonikovyh generators and more.

   (BTW, "frequency converter" apparently means capacitance-to-frequency converter / aka oscillator)

   The article's focus is about using symbolic algebra in nonlinear modeling. It discusses edge effects of the parallel plate capacitor to point out that the capacitance is not simply the parallel plates dominating the fringing capacitance.

4. Evernote would not load for me.

My sense is negative resistance is a minor issue here; it's used to make an oscillator so the capacitance and thickness can be determined. It makes sense to be a one-port oscillator, and that leads naturally to a negative resistance viewpoint. There's talk of the time domain and frequency components, but I don't get a clear sense why; the oscillator is LC; compare RC oscillator which would be close to linear with C in period. In any event, the goal is high accuracy measurements that account for sensor or other nonlinearites.

Glrx (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes you are right about nearly all (especially about frequency convertor), but the next is wrong: "My sense is negative resistance is a minor issue here..." No, negative resistance is a thing that makes this method work. You are right that we have LC oscillator, but, in fact, C = Cvt + Cnr, where Cvt - is an equivalent capacity of the transistors junctions, Cnr - is a capacitive reactance of the negative resistance (impedance). Why it is important? Because Cnr is really changes great according to the voltage on the input ports. So, as the result, we obtain a VERY sensitive device (for particular I was obtaining ~ 60 kHz/pF on a 1 MHz center frequency). It gives a great possibility to use it in measurements of the small quantities. And we can, of course, measure a lot of different values: pressure, thickness, temperature and so on.

From the other side, as far as Cnr changes great according to a port voltage, ve can build an effective tune RF filters, synthesizers and so on. I was planning to add this information later.But now I'm completely not sure: if you think that this information is not good for your article, maybe it will better to create a separate article, or maybe just don't touch on this question. Waiting for you opinion. Thanks.

Jettec1 (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, this is outside my area of expertise. However, for inclusion in the article, the paragraph should give a clear explanation of the principle of operation and some indication as to why negative resistance is central to it. --catslash (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with Glrx and Spinningspark. I also found the Krynochkin paper incomprehensible, and I wasn't able to access the other two papers you linked: [1], [2]. Capacitance-to-frequency or other sensors based on negative resistance oscillators (if that is the subject of the papers) sounds like an interesting application, but without any sources I can read there is no way to determine if it is WP:NOTABLE enough to include. It seems only tangentially related to negative resistance, maybe better articles for this content would be Voltage controlled oscillator or Signal conditioning. But to include it on Wikipedia at all, better sources are needed, to meet both WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:NOTABILITY. As Glrx said, an unpublished research paper on a preprint archive is not a WP:RS. And research papers are not really enough; primary sources should be backed up by secondary sources (WP:PSTS). Does this subject appear in any textbooks or survey articles, Jettec1? --Chetvorno^TALK 19:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Chetvorno, thank you for you opinion. As far as I see, I've made a conclusion from our conversation, that this info (sensors based on negative resistance oscillators) is not widely famous on the English-speaking part of the scientific society. But I completely sure, that there are a lot of papers/research concern this, in Russian and Ukrainian languages. BTW, I've found an international organization dealt with this: International Frequency Sensor Association. They also publish a journal Sensors & Transducers Journal, in wich "...the Sensors & Transducers journal significantly contributes in areas, which are not adequately addressed in other journals, namely: frequency (period), duty-cycle, time-interval, PWM, phase-shift, pulse number output sensors and transducers...". About the survey articles, that I know - I know only that preprint and several books, but all of them are non-English. Jettec1 (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, want to ask all of you (@Chetvorno, Glrx, and Spinningspark:), about smthng. I have planned: a) collect all English-written info about this question, that I have; b) place it to the Dropbox folder; c) shared it for you (because, you reported, that you cannot open my links - I don't know why). So, I want to know: will this plan helpfull to resolve your doubts and will you help write an appropriate info to improve this WP article? Because, it was really glad to hear your opinions, but I'm no the kind of the guy who wants just add something that he know, in every place where he is. I just want to hear a clear answer (if it's possible): if adding info about sensors based on negative resistance oscillators will improve this article - I will work, if not - (useless/not interesting/doesn't fit some rules) I will give up. Thanks. Jettec1 (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem opening your links, but a drop box is likely to be helpful to those who can't, especially the circuit diagrams. You won't get a clearer answer than the one you got from Chetvorno on the "rules" you need to meet: WP:V and WP:N. If your sources meet them then there is no problem with including the material. It does not matter that the source material is in Russian, that is perfectly ok. But the article needs to be in English, and the problem we are all having is understanding it. What I have got so far is that these devices consist of a VCO that works by the input voltage altering the negative resistance at the input to produce a large change in frequency at the output. What would be really helpful here is a circuit diagram of a real application with a clear description in English of what it is measuring and how it works. Figure 1 in the Технічні науки article would probably make a good example, it seems particulary simple. By the way, is your term frequency component a translation of частотним виходом? If so, I suspect that that is not a good translation, I cannot find виходом in any online Russian dictionary so it is improbable that the meaning is something as simple as component. SpinningSpark 14:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Misspelling of выход (output) perhaps? --catslash (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

виходом is the instrumental of вихід which is Ukrainian for выход (I reckon) - i.e. it's saying that the output of the sensor is a frequency. --catslash (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

And here is a Ukrainian patent for a Сенсор магнітного поля Magnetic field sensor з частотним виходом with frequency output. --catslash (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Ahh! it's Ukrainian, that probably means I have mortally offended someone by calling it Russian. Apologies. Now we have the right language, Google translate tells me the paper was published by Khmelnytskyi National University. So, for what the OP calls a "frequency component", we would say "frequency output device" or somesuch, no? This is beginning to make sense now. SpinningSpark 16:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I propose to put this back in the article as follows. Any comment before I do? SpinningSpark 11:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The negative resistance property of a feedback oscillator can be used to construct a very sensitive measuring instrument with a frequency output. In this technique the negative resistance is varied at the input of a voltage controlled oscillator causing the output frequency to change in response. These devices work within the range 30 kHz to 30 MHz. Many parameters, both electrical and mechanical, can be measured by this method. For instance, a flowmeter has been constructed with a sensitivity of 500-1300 Hz per litre/hour

References

SpinningSpark, sounds great. I apologize, that there is not too much help from my side - it's the end of the semester in the University and I have a lot of the work with my students. But I hope that I'll have a more time after the Winter holidays, and may return to this article. Jettec1 (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose addition. That is not how it works. The papers are not using the contorted Negative resistance#Feedback oscillators can be viewed as having a negative resistance, the papers are starting with an actual negative resistance. One can make an oscillator with a negative resistance and a tank. If you know L, then you can compute C from f. The basic notion of measuring C is simple. If an instrument is must use a single port for the measurement, then the designer is driven to the negative resistance model. All one needs is enough negative R to counteract R_loss.

The device is not varying the negative resistance to cause a change in the response. Ideally, everything is linear, so f is invariant to the amount of negative R. The real world has nonlinearities, so a linear model does not offer a good explanation of the oscillator's frequency or waveshape. Better (nonlinear) models would give a better correlation to actual C.

The varying is not an intentional feature of the instrument. In fact, it seems to be a weakness in the measurement technique. The classic approach (early 1930s electronics) would be not to model the nonlinearities, but rather to reduce them until a linear model is adequate. The waveshapes are overdriven; amplitude control (an intentional varying of the negative R) could keep things more linear.

They are not secondary sources.

There is still a matter of WP:DUE for these papers. I don't get the sense that the cited papers are a typical or even common approach to measuring capacitance. Laboratory instruments usually measure capacitance with a bridge. The bridge has its own low-distortion oscillator; null measurements are used, so the measurement is sensitive and use relatively small measurement amplitudes. There are instruments that measure C by incorporating it into an integrator or RC oscillators. Still others use LC oscillators. IIRC, some high-dielectric fluid level meters and some moisture sensors use oscillators to measure capacitance.

There is something deeper going on here, but I don't recall the papers coming out and saying it. I believe the capacitive sensors are physically very small, so the measuring port needs to be small and nearby. While that is good for the research issue, it takes its relevance further away from this article. That belief is tempered by the low frequencies; 30 MHz is 10 meters, so there are few transmission line effects such as those that drive the use negative resistance oscillators at microwave frequencies.

We just don't know enough about the approach.

Glrx (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

> That is not how it works...

1. Thank you for you opinion, but seems that I have to disagree with you. Yes, every oscillator should have negative resistance (either by nature, either by schematic) and so? If we use the schematic analogs of the negatrons we obtain the way to impact this negative resistance value by the measurement parameter (C, L or R). And so, increase the change of the generated frequency. And so, increase the sensitivity of the measurement device.

> The device is not varying the negative resistance to cause a change in the response....

2. Yes, it does. When the measurement parameter is changed - the equivalent C (in the oscillator LC circuit) is also changed. This is because:

- the great part of the equivalent C is a 'Cnr'-capacitive reactance of the negative resistance

- the capacitance of the transistor junctions has a dependence from the supply voltage of the transistors and this supply voltage was changed

> They are not secondary sources.

I'm unfamiliar with the Wiki source's classification (yes I read it, but feel that I don't sure how this system works). So, seems we need additional opinions about either they are secondary sources or not.

> I don't get the sense that the cited papers are a typical or even common approach to measuring capacitance.

Yes, you are right: you cannot see it in every lab. But it's a lot of different real devices that use this approach and papers describing it.

> We just don't know enough about the approach.

Is this a reason to not include this approach to the Wiki? And also note: we do not talk about the capacitance measurement itself, but about using a negative resistance-driven oscillators in measurements.

> That belief is tempered by the low frequencies; 30 MHz is 10 meters, so there are few transmission line effects such as those that drive the use negative resistance oscillators at microwave frequencies.

Don't forget that we use a schematics 'analogs' of the "nature" negative resistance devices. So, it's no problem with the low frequencies. While "nature" negatrons oscillator has an internal feedback, parameters of which determined during it production (semiconductor material, size). In the schematics 'analogs' we can easily adjust the central frequency (and the negative resistance value) by the supply voltage, or by changing the schematic connections, or by changing the transistors. I've seen 'negatron analogs' devices working on the sub-GHz. Jettec1 (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)