Talk:Chua's circuit

message: If hundreds of papers have been written on the subject, why is this a stub? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.209.58.47 (talk • contribs) 
:I would expand it, but I don't have time to learn chaos theory. Here's the list of papers. - mako 20:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

message: What is a "locally active resistor" ? How is it any different from any other resistor in this circuit?
--68.0.124.33 (talk) 17:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the distinction is that it's a "resistor acting as a resistor", rather than a "resistor being part of a nonlinear component". - mako 23:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  locally active resistor 

message: To date, а huge number of various types of chaotic attractors in Chua's system have been discovered.
(Bilotta, E., Pantano, P., Gallery of Chua Attractors, World Scientific, 2008, isbn=978-981-279-062-0),
(Leonov G.A., Kuznetsov N.V., Vagaitsev V.I, Localization of hidden Chua's attractors, Physics Letters A, Vol. 375, is. 23, 2011, pp. 2230-2233 ).
nk (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have found that the figure with coexisting hidden Chua attractors was chosen for the cover page of the International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos in Applied Sciences and Engineering, volume 27, number 12, 2017: 
https://www.worldscientific.com/na101/home/literatum/publisher/wspc/journals/content/ijbc/2017/ijbc.27.issue-12/ijbc.27.issue-12/20171218/ijbc.27.issue-12.cover.jpg KudryashovaLenaPhDMath (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various attractors in Chua's system 

message: Is this just a dorky academic thing?
Leon Chua is the memristor guy right?
Anything to do with that?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:47EB:72C9:21B:77FF:FEAD:46DE (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the practical use of this? 

message: User:Shrees123, I'd like to explain why I reverted your well-intentioned and knowledgeable additions to the article:
*The excessively mathematical description of chaos in general was not appropriate for the introduction, because the introduction will be read by people without a technical background and should use nontechnical language if possible, and also because this article is about Chua's circuit specifically and not chaos in general. 
*The section title "Introduction" placed at the top does not comply with WPs article format given in the Manual of Style and breaks the article format.  The first section is automatically the introduction and does not need a section title.
*The section on "Harmful" and "Harmless" effects, while interesting, again is too broad in scope, covering chaos generally while this article is about chaos in electrical circuits.  I didn't know that chaotic circuits have practical applications in electronics, as you mentioned.  If you want to add a section about that, I think that would be a great addition to the article.
I think the link to the page on how to construct Chua's circuit is good and belongs in the article, although it should not be put in as a Bare URL but should be formatted in a Citation template.  I hope you'll forgive my intervention and continue to contribute to the article, you seem to know a lot about this arcane subject, certainly more than I do.  Cheers, ChetvornoTALK 04:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The article doesn't need a description of what chaos is in general, readers can find that at the Chaos theory or Butterfly effect articles.  In addition, the contributions of this editor are not complying with the format rules for WP articles (WP:MoS).  For example, the lead sentence should be a definition of the subject, with the article title bolded in the sentence (WP:LEAD).  The paragraph should not have been added ahead of the article's lead sentence.    Also the style of writing, with its questions, is not appropriate to an encyclopedia but more like a textbook.  --ChetvornoTALK 18:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shrees1234 recent additions 

message: "The function f(x) describes the electrical response of the nonlinear resistor"
Let's say that if x is the voltage across the negative resistance then the current is I(x). If you derive the first equation you can see that that f(x)=R*I(x). I don't see any reason to incorporate resistance of completely separate resistor into the function describing "electrical response of the nonlinear resistor". Much more sensible approach would be to pull f(x) out of the parenthesis and change it's definition to f(x)=I(x).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.237.79.35 (talk) 14:39, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the f(x) function in the "dynamics" section?