Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Möbius resistor

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Petros471 17:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Möbius resistor[edit]

Non-notable patent. Obviously trying to get coverage via Wikipedia, an amazing 80% of all Google hits are on Wikipedia and mirrors! The remaining ones are USENET archives or http://www.rexresearch.com (the home of "unconventional", suppressed, dormant, or emerging sciences, technologies, inventions, theories, therapies, and miscellaneous alternatives that offer real hope of liberating humanity). Please delete as WP:NOR. --Pjacobi 12:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is of interest . Shouldn't be deleted in my opinion. Marokwitz 12:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this might actually work. Cedars 13:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because it is only an unusually wound bifilar winding, a method used to construct inductionfree wire resistors. But nobody bothered to actually construct the Möbius geometry. --Pjacobi 13:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can come up with some indication that this is actually being made and used somewhere. Patents are not, of themselves, notable. Any speculation on possible use is crystal-ballism. Fan1967 13:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an electrical component patented in 1966 — it's not exactly a new thing. The stub was created in March 2005 by an anon, before which it had been a redlink on Möbius band. It's an interesting application of topology to electronics, and in my opinion deserves at least a stub. (In fact, I felt it deserved an image too, since the article didn't do a very good job of describing how it actually works, so I drew one myself.) Yes, it's an obscure topic and the references aren't that great — but they're sufficient to establish that this thing exists and has been written about in respectable magazines (see the quotes on the rexresearch page). Thus it is not OR, and I feel we should keep it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wouldn't expect something from 1966 to have much of a web presence, if it never found a practical application. Nevertheless, it's verifiable. "Notability", to me, seems to apply mainly to people, places, and events - things bound to a time and a place. Scientific research only needs to be verifiable (not original), which this is. — AKADriver ☎ 13:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Mobius-strip geometries occur today in several recent patents on clock distribution on chips. The one I heard of had counter-rotating traveling waves going around the edges of the strip, with some inverters bridging the edges to pump the thing, and of course taps studded all over the place. This becomes practical only because modern switching frequencies (5-10 GHz) are on the same order as speed-of-light x size of chip. linas 14:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ilmari, AKADriver and Linas. -- Slowmover 15:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the site link has several articles from publications, though it seems a technique that was eclipsed by the meander / zigzag winding. Ace of Risk 16:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Better to have a more general coverage of non-inductive resistors, and include within. Ace of Risk 16:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This seems sort of the best way to go, but I would assume better to proceed the other way around: Expand the two sentences about power resistors at resistor into an article, note the dominance of the wire-wound type mention the induction problem and bifilar winding. Then, as a historical curiosity, the Möbius resistor may be mentioned (to keep the nice drawing). But the current state is totally out of proportion (I know, that this isn't a deletion criterium). --Pjacobi 21:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed Jumbo Snails 18:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well. Once we do have a good article on non-inductive resistors, this probably ought to be merged there. Someone who understands the subject will first have to write that article, though. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Need better link that rexresearch.com, a website which promotes "suppressed/dormant/emerging science, inventions, technologies, experiments", including a lot of wacky stuff which can only be called pseudoscience in the most literal sense ---CH 21:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rexresearch page is just a concatenation of a bunch of articles from other sources. Unfortunately those other sources are in print, and not particularly new, so there are probably no official versions online. Thus, the rexresearch link serves a useful purpose. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at the moment NN and its had since 1966!. BlueValour 21:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.