Talk:Resistor

message: removed for verification:
(Additional note: There are two reasons why a small cross-section area tends to raise resistance. One is that the electrons, all having the same negative charge, repel each other. Thus there is resistance to many being forced into a small space. The other reason is that the electrons collide with each other, causing "scattering," and therefore they are diverted from their original directions. More discussion is on page 27 of "Industrial Electronics," by D. J. Shanefield, Noyes Publications, Boston, 2001.)
I am not sure the repelling of electrons has anything to do with resistance, though I could be wrong.  Wouldn't that affect thing like superconductors, though?  Similarly, electron "collisions" wouldn't seem to affect anything, since electron motion is pretty much random, and only the net flow of electrons or the electric field wave is really important...  - Omegatron 16:46, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
Actually it does, especially when high frequency AC is used. It's called "skin effect".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.127.150.131 (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  cross sectional area and resistance 

message: There are series of resistor values, namely E6, E12, E24 - these have a geometric sequence relation to each other in their resistance value, take a look at preferred number to see what I mean. According to that article, International standard IEC 63 defines those values.
--Abdull 15:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resistor series 

message: This article is about RESISTORS so I have removed the bit about resistance of CONDUCTORS.
This is better put under the article on resistanceLight current 07:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RESISTANCE of CONDUCTORS NOT APPROPRIATE 

message: In other languages (see the German or Italian article), the symbol for a resistor is a rectangular box. This page claims that this is also true in the UK. 
Is there some sort of international standard concerning these symbols and should this page reflect other internationally used symbols?
Kusma 00:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the rectangular box symbols. Could possibly be improved to describe where each symbol is used and what standards apply. EdC 13:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This is not true. The capacitor has a -||- symbol. The impedance has a rectangular box, but it is filled with black, not empty like a resistor.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.174.72 (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

text: All the diagrams on the page, and on all other electronics related pages, should be changed to the international style. After all, the majority of the world uses it, and even in the US where the zig-zag style is used some people use boxes anyway. I can confirm that on all the schematics I have seen published in Japan they use boxes. Unless anyone objects I'll fix it. Mojo-chan (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, I object, the zig-zag is widely understood, there is no need to change it.  There is no consensus on Wikipedia to conform to a particular system.  This was discussed at the Electronics WikiProject but no decision was made to support a standard.  On other matters of style on Wikipedia, such as language variations, the general principle has been that articles should have a consistent style within the article, but should not be changed arbitrarily to another style. SpinningSpark 03:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: IEEE standard 315 also known as ANSI standard Y32.2 shows both box and zig-zag symbols with the "IEC" notation, indicating they are recommended by the IEC . So both symbols are international standards and there's no need to change them.  Don't worry about the symbols and spelling of "color", instead worry that the schematics are *correct*. I wouldn't wire up a bathroom fan based only on a schematic I found on Wikipedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have decided to give up editing Wikipedia. Stupidity, American-centric ideas and the ability of people with too much time on their hands to enforce their personal preferences has not only driven a lot of good editors away, but it has also done a lot of damage to the content too. If you compare the Japanese version to the English one the contrasting work together/I'm always right attitudes, as well as numerous other flaws, become obvious. I'm not going to waste my time any more. Mojo-chan (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

text:  Hilarious.  From personal experience, melt-down "I'm taking my bat and ball and going home" posts get absolutely no notice.  No-one cares about any particular editor - when there's a legion, decimation is just part of the cost of doing business. Enjoy your sulk. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  So what you are saying is that you are right and anyone who disagrees can fuck off. Which is pretty much exactly what I was talking about. Also, you clearly took notice thus contradicting yourself. Classic. Mojo-chan (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree with Spinningspark - This is just like color versus colour.  As an avid electronics hobbyist, I tend to see the zig-zag symbol more often than the box symbol, but they are interchangeable and both are standard symbols.  Neither symbol would confuse an expert in the subject.  Both are illustrated here in the article, which is perfect.  If extra schematics were added here, I would have no problem using either symbol.  But the zig-zag goes back over a hundred years in engineering practice (and not just in the USA), so there is no cause to get rid of it here.   CosineKitty (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, I'm not unsympathetic, I'm just pointing out that no-one (but me) cares. If you look at the list of top-4000 edit count accounts now and compare it to one from several months ago, you'll find several hundred of the top 4000 accounts are inactive - shockingly, you wouldn't be the first to quit. Nobody gets to be "right" on Wikipedia, but does anyone have a quote of an international standard that prohibits the zig-zag symbol? That's about all we can say here; both symbols get widely used and you don't even dabble in electronics for very long without running across both.  I'll also point out that the rest of the world should grovel on their bended knees to the American taxpayer for having funded the Internet - we don't know what the world would be like if the Europeans or the oil sheiks had been the only source of financing for internetworking computers, but you can bet we wouldn't have a Wikipedia or anything like it. ( Couldn't do a Wikipedia on Minitel, could you?) It's always funny to watch the crowds shouting "Yanqui go home!" while dressed in Coca-Cola T-shirts. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Everyone, please be civil.  National chauvinistic arguments over our favourite circuit symbols open a door to a new, unfathomed level of geekery that no one should enter.  As far as I see it, both symbols are accepted by large, internationally recognised standards organisations and are both used in countless thousands of schematics and I have textbooks and read papers that use either symbol.  If I was writing the article from scratch, I'd use rectangles, because that is the symbol I personally use.  However, it makes no sense to replace every use of the symbol based on a personal preference for one standard over another.  Papa November (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: open a door to a new, unfathomed level of geekery  - Isn't that on the logon page? That ought to be on the logon page.  C'mon, this is the Wikipedia. Who edits here who hasn't bitten the head off a chicken? *NORMAL* people don't write encyclopedias. I don't see anyone not being civil; lively disagreement is not to be mistaken for incivility. For what it's worth, Australian National Standard 1102.104 has both box and zig-zag in it, but my on-line standards library warns that this standard is not identical to IEC 60617, and I'm not about to shell out two hundred Swiss francs to see the IEC standard. No-one else here will do it either, because Wikipedia is the encyclopedia written by cheapskates.  --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I apologize to Minitel - compared to most of the government-sponsered teletext boondoggles of the '80s, it is a brilliant success.  You still couldn't do a Wikipedia on it, though. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Much as it goes against the grain to support an American chauvinist, a difficulty with the box symbol in theoretical articles is that it is also used as a symbol for a general impedance and there is a consequent difficulty in distinguishing them.  For a practical circuit diagram, every component is a definite something so the issue does not arise and either symbol will do.  But in an article about a circuit law or theorem, it is better to use an unequivocal symbol for resistor when a resistor is meant. SpinningSpark 15:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Well I absolutely agree with you. Not only are zig-zags easier to draw (and MUCH easier to tap if it's a potentiometer, or when you decide to turn one resistor into a voltage divider), but they are much more distinct when viewed. I like to see boxes where you are representing a component that doesn't have a particular symbol, and not elsewhere. But anyway this is a moot point because the article uses zig-zag resistors and no one from the square-headed countries have any trouble understanding these much more descriptive pictures (including the capacitor symbol with two non-contacting plates, the curly inductor/transformer symbol, and the resistor consisting of a long current path packed inside a small box 4 times as long as it is wide :-) Interferometrist (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbol for a resistor 

message: I am in the process of disambiguating the Power disambiguation page. This means I find links to Power, and try to figure out which of the several power related articles were really intended. This artice contains a link to Power which should actually be a link to Power rating. Since the page is protected, I request that someone with authority to edit the page make the improvement. Gerry Ashton 20:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody had linked power to the article about electrical power.  The sentence in question was about the power rating of a resistor, meaning how much energy per time it is capable of dissipating as heat, so I changed the link to Power (physics). CosineKitty (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Request link correction

message: First off, if I have used the template above incorrectly please let me know...
The second sentence has the redundancy ""... divided by the current that is flowing through the resistor."" It should read sans "that is flowing" and be simply ""... divided by the current through the resistor.""
Again the second sentence under "The idea resistor"; "... remains constant regardless of the applied voltage or current flowing through the device."  Should be written w/o 'flowing'
The last sentence prior to "Power dissipation" also contains this error "...break down and admit a larger flow of current under sufficiently high voltage." w/o 'flow of'.
Those are the only three that I found, there seem to be many more correct usages than incorrect.  Thank you Admins for your attention... ~--Ketter 02:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have simply unsprotected the page so you can do this yourself. Kusma (討論) 02:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  current is flow! 

message: Not sure if it's accurate, but I remember from one of my schoolbooks a chart showing how the background-color of a resistor (the typical kind with color-rings to show value) corresponded with the material used.  E.g. white=carbon-film, blue=some metal-oxide (can't remember, it's been 15 years :-).  If someone had such a table (and if resistors are still coded this way), it would be a great addition to this page.
--koppe 10:00, 6 July 2006 (CET)
Background color isn't used anymore although most mfrs have standardized on tan for carbon film & blue for metal film. Most metal oxides are gray but some are light blue, green, or violet. AerospaceEngr 16:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding table for material/background-color? 

message: Why is power(electric) transmitted at high voltage when power loss due to ohmic heating is
V2/R
as well as 
I2R?
Why does the ohmic loss decrease with increase in the amplitude of the voltage(Of AC)?Subhash
:You seem to have mis-applied those formulae, In V2/R , the "V" that's being refered to is the voltage drop along the transmission line, NOT the overall transmission voltage.  Since the voltage drop is proportional to the current through the line (OK, this is an over-simplification, but accept it for now), that leads to the I2R formula for the power loss in a transmission line.  So this means that the power wasted in ohmic heating of the line is proportional to current squared, since power is current x voltage ( another over-simplification, but close enough ) and you have to transmit a certain amount of power, by choosing to do it at a high voltage, less is wasted in heating because the current is lower. Astaroth5 09:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: High voltage transmission

message: "The Standard EIA Color Code Table per EIA-RS-279 is as follows:
black=1 brown=2 red=3 orange=4 yellow=5 greem=6 blue=7"
This is in error and is incomplete: Green is misspelled; more importantly, the numbers are off by 1.  It should read:
black=0 brown=1 red=2 orange=3 yellow=4 green=5 blue=6 violet=7 grey=8 white=9
As per any number of online references.  Precision resistors are often confusing to the novice and even to some experienced people.  Additional color bands will indicate more information such as much tighter tolerances and temperature coefficient, though these types are not often seen by most users.  In practice, the tiny size of the bands and their precise coloring can be difficult to discern; I'm having to use a magnifying glass these days!
--Damon Hill, damon161@comcast.net
:???  You must be looking at some cached version of the vandalized page.  I reverted that vandalism on Nov 16th!  Alfred Centauri 23:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ERROR in resistor color codes! 

message: I am reading this page 13 Feb 2007.  It has been vandalized again.  Unfortunately... I do not know enough about the subject to correct it.
--71.170.63.164 04:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can u track down the vandalizer in the history section and send him/her a warning?  [[[User:XU-engineer|XU-engineer]] 22:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Vandalism.... 

message: As the topic of Resistor is a vital element in the field of Electronics the page must include basic science information about what the device is in terms of applied materials physics and materials chemistry. When I add this knowledge it is deleted "as a cut and past" actually no. It was, however, free hand from my head and my deep understanding and research, (So adopt me if the style is not good enough for the page, and I will comply. Or if you need references thats OK too...) I do feel some representation of the Materials Science / Applied Physics is appropriate if you also have a Technology section that lists varios "material based" resistive schemes. As the simple Man made color coding and material composit choices to make a resitor are interesting for a hobbiest, it in no way defines 'what' a resistor is in natural terms. To be more concise the terms to define a resistor should not be by the word resistor or some ratio relative to other properties of electron resistance through a material. To be a vital representation; the atomic understandings as of 'today' of the electron in a material needs to be expressed here 'as a free charge carrier' in the conduction band of the material for a deeper understanding for all, than just man made constructs describing man made elements. Some may have expressed recent additions as cut and past and reverted the post (A1 to bad), others may have seen the possibility for expansion with citation into material science and physics to provide more depth of understanding for others... In any case my post was not cut and past, its from 20 years in the field and trying to boil the facts down for others to have a clearer understanding of what a "resistor" is in electronics by documented research in the field of Electronic Devices and Materials. Insert non-formatted text here
:If you say its not cut and paste, then i will believe you as most people wouldn't bother to debate this. Anyhow, if you re-instate it with some references, that is great! I think it needs a little grammatical and some potentially scientific tuning, but sure, just move your work into the latest revision. Remember nothing is lost on wiki! My apologies if you think there is some barrier to entry that i have thrust upon you. User A1 11:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resistor: An Electron Device in the Field of Electronic Device and Materials 

message: Need a reference to a standard for the given temperature ranges. I've tried looking online, but so far unsuccessful. I've seen a couple different temperature specifications: Commercial, Industrial, Extended, Automotive, Military. There is one JEDEC source, but it doesn't specifically mention the above labels. .--64.253.147.99 (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial, Industrial, Military 

message: Hello,
I rolledback a potential copyvio diff based upon a matching text found here. It is unclear which way the violation goes -- looking through their website I have been unable to determine it concretely.User A1 (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken a look at the URL you link to and there is no date of publication or name of author. Lots of websites mirror Wikipedia or take snippets of its related content. Perhaps that is what's going on here. Let's try to establish stronger copyvio evidence before deleting. Binksternet (talk) 04:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The wayback machine says that content has been there almost a year, and it just got added to wikipedia; and it has a copyright notice on it.  It should so, and the editor who added it should be invited to comment if he feels that's not the right decision. Dicklyon (talk) 04:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, the Wayback Machine. I should've looked there first. Thanks for the catch. Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyvio 

message: We all know that potential difference V=I(current)/R(resistance)
 so, I=V/R
Just imagine a 1 volt potential difference & 0 Ώ(ohm) resistance....i.e.....
 I=1/0='INFINITY'
That means current supplied will be infinite amount.......check it out ...how wonderful & amazing!!!!!!!!
- Rana Jose(e-mail: ranajose@gmail.com)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranajose (talk • contribs) 08:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is mathematically incorrect. division is only a valid operation on real numbers for non-zero real numbers. For r in R, r/0 is undefined, not infinite. This simply means your mathematical model cannot describe a zero resistance object. User A1 (talk) 13:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: V = IR, not V/R, however I = V/R, as stated. Therefore current I will be large for low values of R, but not infinite. In the real world zero resistance can't be achieved, except perhaps at -273C. Another limiting factor is the internal resistance of the current source, which is effectively in series with the circuit resistance. Try shorting out a 6-V lantern battery & a large lead-acid battery, the first will produce a couple of amps whereas the second will produce an enormous current which will burn your hand off, if you are foolish enough to try it. The difference lies in the internal resistances of each battery type. Suckindiesel (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, zero resistance is easy to achieve; that's what the superconducting state is.  But you can't support any voltage difference across a superconductor, and the current must remain below a finite limit known as the critical current for it to stay superconducting.  The idea of 1 volt across 0 ohms is not physical, but 0 ohms itself is. Dicklyon (talk) 00:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infinite amount of Current!!! 

message: I have come across a 5-band resistor with the following color code: red-violet-gold-gold-yellow. The value of this resistor is marked 2.7 ohms in my schematic. I understand if there is a gold 4th band in a 5-band resistor, but a 3rd and 4th gold band? It is an older resisor, so the yellow 5th band is likely a TempCo of 25 ppm. So I would assume that red-violet=27, gold=0.1, so that gives me a value of 2.7 with +/-5% tolerance with a TempCo of 25ppm. Correct?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Negative1331 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds likely, particularly as value of 2.7 is confirmed by schematic. Suckindiesel (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  5-band resistor 

message: A newbie editor has just created Radial- lead. Would someone please check if it can be merged in here? Thanks. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I merged it in; feel free to move or amend.  Now I'll work on deleting the mal-named redirect. Dicklyon (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radial- lead 

message: User:Uriburi has been edit-warring, adding a section about the history of the foil resistor. The most immediate response is that the English used is impossible to read because it is poorly translated from another language. The second, more measured response is that the information, if put into this article, will put foil resistors out of balance with all the other kinds of resistors, because none of them have history sections. What is needed is for this information to flesh out an article about foil resistors, and we'll link to it from here in this manner:  
Okay? Binksternet (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good plan, though it will probably give Uriburu a sense of déjà vu.  Said user started out by creating a separate article, Foil resistors, which some anonymous user then redirected to the relevant section of resistor.  Favonian (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why, look at that... I bet the IP editor deleted the content and made it a redirect for the same reasons we've been deleting the content from this article. A few paragraphs of incomprehensible text about the history of foil resistors does not make an article. Binksternet (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I spent some time trying to copyedit this contribution, the main problem seemed to be competence in English which is something that can always be fixed, but in the end I did not save it as I came to the conclusion there really is nothing salvagable.  The only hard information is from the three linked patents, I don't think the contributor has any further information, it is just padded out with waffle and if you try to copyedit it you are left with nothing.  The first patent is from 1957 for a foil heater element, the sort of thing you sometimes see at the back of fridges to stop them icing up.  It might make an interesting factoid in an article but it is not really part of the genealogy of foil resistors as a pcb component.  The other two patents are from a much later period (1980s if I remember correctly) so none of them represent the historical innovation of these components which occured in the 1960s.  Plus there are no sources (or even unsourced information) putting these patents in proper historical context.  So sorry, I do not think that this can be turned into a viable section or a sub-article.  That's not to say that one could not be written, but this is not it. SpinningSpark 23:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice if this article had a general section on the history of resistors, similar to what is found in the article on diodes or transistors. I would offer to help but I don't know anything about the history. Rikat (talk) 03:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of foil resistors 

message: I think user Prari has a point with this deletion and it should have been discussed rather than go into edit war mode and restore it twice.  The edits all seem to have been with the sole purpose of working in refs to Vishay rather than actually improving the article.  The edit summary of "rv inane, ignorantly worded and misplaced text which originally accompanied Vishay linkspam" is not exactly civil, but come on, does "Because of the expense these resistors tend to be used in power supplies and welding controls" actually mean anything?  Expense has never been a reason for using anything in the electroncs world. SpinningSpark 17:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We can debate the merits of the added text, but one thing is clear; the intention of the (original) addition was clearly linkspam, one need look no further than the contributions of User:LindseyRose to see that.  Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 17:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So are you in favour of removal? SpinningSpark 23:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vishay linkspam 

message: The comment (seemingly unrelated to the edit!) by Binksternet is extremely misleading:
:"Middleton and Van Valkenburg do not say that resistance is the primary characteristic of resistors. In fact, they list wattage first"
I have no idea what this reference might have been thinking, or more to the point, the context in which they (may have) said that "wattage" (maximum power dissipation) is the primary characteristic of a resistor, but that statement as quoted out of context is rather ridiculous! Of course the resistance itself is the most important and the "wattage" is also extremely important in the cases WHERE IT IS OR MIGHT BE EXCEEDED. In signal electronics, in 99% of cases, the power rating doesn't even need to be thought about. Anyway, if no one here wants to discuss further the issues I have been trying to discuss in the previous 2 sections, I will go ahead and make edits which I am sure are justified, but taking into account all of the specific suggestions that have so far been posted (such as "longer isn't better", and the relatively greater importance of the power rating in power electronics circuits). Interferometrist (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You are jumping to conclusions... I was reverting an addition made here by Wtshymanski in which he adds "+ The primary characteristic of a resistor is its resistance" to the Middleton and Van Valkenburg reference. The book does not say that, it simply lists important characteristics of resistors and it begins with power capacity or wattage. Binksternet (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well let's not argue over a misunderstanding then! I will make an edit which I feel comfortable with and if you have comments or disagree with the wording, emphasis, or facts, then please post them here and we'll try to converge. Though I'm a bit confused about what you are saying and you accidentally gave a link to an article on the 1953 coup in Iran which I don't think has too much to do with resistors ;-)  Interferometrist (talk) 10:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, I will leave that incorrect link up there but this one by Wtshymanski is the one I meant to insert. Too many open windows on my computer, I guess! Binksternet (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Binksternet: LOL, I will leave that incorrect link up there but this one by Wtshymanski is the one I meant to insert. Too many open windows on my computer
I've got about 50 open windows myself, so yes I understand! But now I'm confused about what is in the Middleton and Valkenburg reference which I don't have a copy of: I had thought that it defined "critical resistance" since that had been an issue (but a very obscure parameter, not applying to an individual resistor, and not appropriate in the lede so I relegated it to a footnote. If someone wants to delete the footnote altogether I'd hardly object.). In any case, the latest changes I made reflects the fact that the main characteristic of an individual resistor is simply the resistance itself, just as Middleton and Valkenburg say on the pages you mention. This is much better than a laundry list of parameters which could possibly be specified in a catalog, or treating "tolerance" and "temperature coefficient" as special qualities rather than simply as stipulations regarding what the actual resistance will or might be for a particular part number at a particular temperature. I hope we all agree now :-) Interferometrist (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most important characteristic 

message: We need a photo of some power resistors, not titchy little electronics resistors.  Does anyone out there have access to, oh, say, a grounding resistor for a medium voltage distribution system, or a dynamic braking bank for a hoist drive, an old-time wound-rotor motor drive, a load bank for generator testing? Not all resistors come in blister packs at Radio Shack. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not very easy to see in this small photo, but the two gray metal enclosures are a pair of 3.92 ohm AGR46 Avtron grid resistors which can each dissipate a steady 8200 watts. Here's an Avtron image of the same type. The sheet metal pieces inside them jangled like crazy when I hooked them up to audio amplifier outputs, and sent audio test signals. Binksternet (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

text: There are pre-1923 published images which are now free, public domain. Here  are three of them. Binksternet (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It frustrates me to think of how many good pictures I could have taken at my former employer...office work is boring. I found one Russian captioned picture which at least nods the head in the direction of power resistors. Commons is full of shots of things dumped out of people's junk box collection of spare parts...--Wtshymanski (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I, too, regret the many times I did not use a camera. We couldn't have known then it would be useful today. Binksternet (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: With any luck, in a week or two I can take some pictures of a generator load bank, though I found a good water-cooled one on Commons. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Why does it have to be "for" anything? They are beautiful in and of themselves.  Gather the rosebuds, man...gather. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo needed

message: I am unsure in the logic for deletion. If there is a desire to not inform the user on practical methods of solving issues then why not remove those sentences? An entire deletion seems a bit overkill. Still, unsure why we should not include this information a resistor is a practical part and this information would have been of great help to me in my earlier career
173.52.114.254 (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: First, read WP:NOR. Wikipedia has a policy of no original research, which means articles are written as summaries of already published works. If you can cite the parasitical properties to an engineering text on resistors, such as Kenneth L. Kaiser's Electromagnetic Compatibility Handbook and especially Robert A. Pease's Analog Circuits, you will be able to put something about that into the article. Quantifying the phenomenon is important, too; Pease talks about fractions of a picofarad per through-hole resistor. Note that the article parasitic element (electrical networks) is devoted to the topic. Binksternet (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parasitical Properties 

message: There is no reference to a carbon pile resistor in the article. From my limited understanding it is a type of variable resistor, that i assume, reduces in resistance as pressure is applied to a 'pile'(stack?) of individual carbon elements. 79.66.209.200 (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've started a section - but it needs pictures and some history. They pop up all over the place yet I can't find any other description of them on the Wikipedia- thank you!  --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carbon Pile 

message: Please see the corresponding discussion thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronics. Thanks! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Discussion of {{tn|Semiconductor packages}} in electronic articles  

message: If anyone wonders why I added the resistor symbol caption in such an odd way, please read this suggestion:
Template_talk:Infobox_electronic_component#Symbol_caption
Anonimski (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbol caption in template 

message: This article needs a section about resistor arrays / networks; including talk about surface mount (convex, concave), SIP through-hole, DIP through-hole, other surface mount types; types of array / network diagrams including schematic examples.  98.164.0.184 (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  lack of Resistor Arrays / Networks section 

message: Could not found the definition of  resistor's tolerance in Wikipedia. Is it a measurement of extra-load that the resistor can "tolerate" ? or it is a measurement of  "deviation" of resistance than expected?
Is it only the property of a resistor? if tolerance is also property of other components (capacitors, inductors, batteries etc), there should be a separate page on tolerance.
RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Click the wikilink "manufacturing tolerance" in the third paragraph for the definition of tolerance.  Briefly, it is deviation from nominal value.  Tolerance is one of many properties of resisters. Constant314 (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could not found the definition of tolerance. 

message: I wonder if this article would benefit from a section about uses of resistors? Uses are a large part of the lede section but not treated much in the body of the article. I would also include then alternatives to resistors for some uses, such as other methods of current limiting that don't waste some of the energy as heat, for example in the way that modern LED controllers or dimmers work. Thoughts on this from people who are active on this article? SageRad (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section about uses and alternatives to resistors 

message: What is thermistor made of ? Greeshsah (talk) 06:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thermistor principle 

message: This section was added by Special:Contributions/Stammitreg, an apparent SPA. I've copy edited the section in hope of clarifying it, and reducing peacock language about the device's inventor. Suggestions and complaints can go here... Just plain Bill (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foil resistor 

message: I would like to add information about all the other types of the resistors and their uses, which can be really helpful to others. Electroniclinic (talk) 12:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You can suggest edits here on this talk page on the form "Please change X to Y" citing reliable sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

text: You will be auto-confirmed after a few days and a few edits.  You will be able to edit this article then. Constant314 (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2020 

message: Could we add a separate History section just to cover the development of resistor technology from the 19th to 21st centuries?Ordinary Person (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Hello All. I am new to the editing side of WP, and I am open to being corrected if there is anyone keeping up with this article who thinks I am wrong. I think it would be a good idea to condense the sections on different types of resistors and start an article to list the different types. I am not suggesting to get rid of them entirely, just bring it in a little. I think this could give room to expand freely on the different types (who's applications to different fields seems to vary, but maybe the new article could reflect the different application more clearly than could a list of all resistors nestled into a long article about resistors?) and also free up this article to stay more general, hit the main points about the main ones, acknowledge some of the more obscure ones, and just overall look more tidy. 
There are handful of more minor edits I think would work well (some restructuring in the lead, swapping out a photo, readablity), but I wanted to see if this one really big change would meet some push-back/ generate alternatives first. YehLikeJazz? (talk) 06:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @GünniX added the merge tag to your new article, probably because we need a bit more discussion. I think if we build a new article, we need to a) significantly reduce the material here in this article and b) modify the other article to be more appropriate as a list article. @GünniX, I'd agree with @YehLikeJazz? though that this list of resistors within this article is enormous and takes up a lot of an already very technical article. I think it make sense to separate out. Thoughts? Etherfire (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with separating the many types into a separate article. Constant314 (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

text: I agree with separating the material. But articles with the name "List" have usually a list with one line per item without redundant explanations (like List of file formats). Perhaps it would be better to split the article by chapters (e.g. separate articles for "Fixed resistor" and "Variable resistor"). --GünniX (talk) 04:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that keeping some more generalized information on the types of resistors (i.e., fixed, variable) and their subgroups (axial-lead, in-line, etc.) would serve the purpose of this article well. I wasn’t sure about how I would go about it originally, but I think I would like to work on it. @GünniX I had not considered doing two articles for the different types instead of a list article, but I agree. I think that would work out much cleaner and would better follow the wiki guidelines. If @Constant314 or @Etherfire have anything to say or add, you are most welcome to chime in on this. YehLikeJazz? (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article for types of resistors? 

message: Hello. I know that if this is something the community does not want it will end up getting deleted, but I created a page, List of resistors, for listing out different types of resistors and made room for some that were left out of this article. It may need some rearranging and it does not have every type listed yet, but it's a start. It might be a good idea to consolidate some of the types of resistors information on this page but I do not feel like I should be the one to do that. I am new to wiki-editing and fairly new to electronics as well.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by YehLikeJazz? (talk • contribs) 23:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @GünniX added the merge tag to your new article, probably because we need a bit more discussion. I think if we build a new article, we need to a) significantly reduce the material here in this article and b) modify the other article to be more appropriate as a list article. @GünniX, I'd agree with @YehLikeJazz? though that this list of resistors within this article is enormous and takes up a lot of an already very technical article. I think it make sense to separate out. Thoughts? Etherfire (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with separating the many types into a separate article. Constant314 (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

text: I agree with separating the material. But articles with the name "List" have usually a list with one line per item without redundant explanations (like List of file formats). Perhaps it would be better to split the article by chapters (e.g. separate articles for "Fixed resistor" and "Variable resistor"). --GünniX (talk) 04:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that keeping some more generalized information on the types of resistors (i.e., fixed, variable) and their subgroups (axial-lead, in-line, etc.) would serve the purpose of this article well. I wasn’t sure about how I would go about it originally, but I think I would like to work on it. @GünniX I had not considered doing two articles for the different types instead of a list article, but I agree. I think that would work out much cleaner and would better follow the wiki guidelines. If @Constant314 or @Etherfire have anything to say or add, you are most welcome to chime in on this. YehLikeJazz? (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article created