Talk:Resistor

general

Shouldn't the introduction say what a resistor does in respect of its broader purpose?

I tried! Using the word "philosophical", while probably accurate, is likely to raise a red flag to technical people. It took me a few decades to figure out, in a more-general sense, what resistors generally do in electronics. They "scale current" -- establish its value, or else scale the relationship between voltage and current, but the latter is too messy to try to analogize.Nikevich (talk) 09:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with simple revrseion of User:Nikevich's edits. I wasn't particularly fond of the component that extended the analogy of the resistor, however, the latter components of the edits I felt were a definite improvement to the article. My connection to wiki appears to be sluggish at the moment, so I cannot see the diffs straight up anymore, however I will return and comment more soon. I think undoing the edits is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. User A1 (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.36.232.61 (talk) 09:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just found something really interesting (at least for me). Did you ever see 0 Ω resistor? I just found it a few days ago and can't figure out what is its purpose. Can someone maybe tell me what could be its use? (the instrument is showing around 0,2 Ω but it is resistance from the instrument alone...) If someone does not trust me - he can see the pictures that I just took.

and

Yes, "Zero-ohms" are nothing magical and therefore do have a small resistance. They are used to connect two parts of a pathway on a printed circuit-board, when one pathway for some reason had to be cut in two (e.g. becuase of another pathway crossing its way). As they are "like" a normal resistor, they can be inserted by the same machines used to insert, cut and solder a normal resistor. You could just as easily used a thin (isolated, if board had paths on both sides) piece of wire to connect the two halves, but then you'd probably have to insert it manually... besides, the zero-ohms looks good. Koppe

Well, yes, zero ohm resistors can be used as wire bridges in very low-tech printed circuit boards. But, a more common use these days is in the selection of "build options". For example, a manufacturer of LCD modules might offer a variant with an on-board generator for the bias voltage and a variant where the bias voltage must be supplied externally. Rather than buying and stocking different printed circuit boards for these two variants, he will typically use one that can be built two ways. On one, the on-board bias generator parts would be populated. On the other, they would be omitted and the bias line would be connected to an external connection by a zero ohm resistor.--GrahamDavies 18:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

---

What about a section about 'Contact Resistance'?

I'll be thinking about that!Nikevich (talk) 09:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

---

There needs to be something on star and delta resistor configurations, or is it elsewhere?

It's at Y-delta transform — Omegatron 03:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

---

I think that a color code for resistors should be included and not linked to.

"Resistance is proportional to cross-sectional area and to the material's resistivity, a physical property of the molecules that comprise the resistor. Resistance is inversely proportional to the length of the resistor."

Shouldn't it rather be:

"Resistance is inversely proportional to cross-sectional area and proportional to the material's resistivity, a physical property of the molecules that comprise[?] the resistor. Resistance is proportional to the length of the resistor."?

S.

---

Yes, it should. If you find such errors again, Be bold in updating pages! Andre Engels

---

the resistance between the wiper and one end terminal is proportional to the logarithm of the distance between them.

probably the distance is the logarithm of the resistance! Patrick 11:23 Oct 29, 2002 (UTC)

---

"There is even a system that uses a photoelectric sensor "reading" the optical density of a piece of film. Since the sensor does not touch the film, no wear is possible."

so in other words, it's not a resistor, and shouldnt be in this article listed as one. right? Omegatron 20:28, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

---

why is \mathbf added to the lower resistor calculation? It makes the two look different, as the first R in the bottom is no longer italic (and the equation is uglier). Aren't the PNGs the same for every browser? I don't see how this could look consistent to one person and not consistent to me... - Omegatron

The R should have been bolded for both of them as Req stands for "equivalent resistance". Perl 22:25, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

I'm relatively new to electronics (and to editing wikipedia). I came to this page looking for help on understanding the color code system for indicating resistor values. I found the section here on that topic a little vague. From reading it, I don't know in what direction I'm supposed to read the bands, and I can't quite picture how the whole system would work. I think an example or two (along the lines of what's on this page) would have been helpful (especially if some actual photographic examples were included.

Thanks!

--atduskgreg

I just added a couple of sentences or so; basically, start at the end, and read toward the center. Nikevich (talk) 09:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

-- The gold silver etc is the last band the "normal" colours are first. wolfmankurd

--- I think the article can use more technical info relative to high frequency and power/surge overload performance. In addition, should include more regarding Mil-specs, EIA stds, resistor networks, and a brief listing of major mfrs. I added in a couple of popular mil-specs but didn't want to invest much time w/o first getting a general consensus. AerospaceEngr 21:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

High-frequency performance? Would be nice to give more detail about what you have in mind. Plainly, resistors with leads aren't for microwave use, and wirewounds typically have significant stray inductance; helix-cut elements do, also. As to power and surges, low-mass (thin film) elements probably are quite poor for withstanding short-term overloads, but I don't know enough to write some text on that. Good thoughts! Nikevich (talk) 09:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

---

I added a significant amount of material, although the text as I found it was so good I left it mostly untouched, or made only quite-minor edits. Unfortunately, I previewed numerous times, so the Changes display is somewhat misleading. (The Change display algorithm made it look as though I had deleted some original text; don't panic -- it is still there!)

I added a lot of HTML code to the color-code table to make text [more] readable. (Curious that this didn't seem to be proofread, or do different browsers have different scope for [font color] tags in a table?) (Am using Firefox for editing). That was a labor of love; part way through, I "wised up" and used copy and paste. Nevertheless, lots of Previewing.

We probably should include carbon-pile compression-type variable resistors. (I'm running out of energy.)

Trivia: An early 20th century radio rheostat had a rotating wirewound resistance element and a fixed wiper spring.Nikevich (talk) 09:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

cross sectional area and resistance

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)

what should be fixed

This is frustrating:

Power dissipation

The power dissipated by a resistor (or the equivalent resistance of a resistor network) is calculated using the following: P = I^2 R = I V = \frac{V^2}{R}

All three equations are equivalent. The first is derived from Joule's first law. Ohm’s Law derives the other two from that.

The total amount of heat energy released is the integral of the power over time:

   W = \int_{t_1}^{t_2} v(t) i(t)\, dt.

If the average power dissipated is more than the resistor can safely dissipate, the resistor may depart from its nominal resistance and may become damaged by overheating. Excessive power dissipation may raise the temperature of the resistor to a point where it burns out, which could cause a fire in adjacent components and materials. There are flameproof resistors that fail (open circuit) before they overheat dangerously.

OK what do the values mean? and when are the components of the equations going to be defined - so that people who do not know what they mean, can use them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.1.214.106 (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I know nothing about resistors. I was trying to learn. YOU DO NOT SAY WHAT A RESISTOR ACTUALLY CAN BE USED FOR! you say what it does, but not why that is useful at all. thanks!

Resistors are used for a LOT of things. Pretty much every electrical circuit uses resistors for one purpose or another. The simplest application I can think of would be something like a light dimmer. If you put a high-power resistor in series with a light bulb, you can dim the light bulb, because the resistor converts some of the electrical power into heat, leaving less power for the light bulb. Help at all? - Omegatron 20:01, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

The article is a bit low on info about both uses and different manufacturing techniques (carbon composite, metal film etc), I'll add a bit more info on this in within a few days. GalFisk 09:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the above, I think someone who didn't know anything about what a resistor was would be very confused trying to learn it from this article. After the first paragraph, it goes right to "identifying resistors". I think it would be better to show something like an example of a simple circuit with voltages labled at different points, and maybe some simple explanation of why resistors are useful in the real world. Also, it seems like the Ohm's law reference in the first sentence, arranged to start with "R =", kind of makes it seem like the resistance of a resistor is determined by the voltage and current, and maybe that the device is "magically" constructed to follow that law. Since the sentence reads "by producing a voltage drop" maybe the equation should just be written as "V = IR" 71.233.240.242 (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That "philosophical" addition (it might be gone by the time you read this!) referred to what's inside electronic circuits; indeed, crude light dimmers, or old sewing-machine speed controls, don't match that concept.Nikevich (talk) 10:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Mnemonics on remembering resistor color codes

• • Bad Beer Rots Our Young Guts But Vodka Goes Well. Get Some Now!
  • B.B. ROY of Great Britain had a Very Good Wife
  • Buffalo Bill Roamed Over Yellow Grass Because Vistas Grand Were God's Sanctuary

Black Brown Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Violet Gray White (Gold Silver)

--195.225.129.1 18:07, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I find that some of the mnemonics are not appropriate. Such as "Black Boys Rape our Young Girls ...". People may use this to remember the colours, but the wiki should not promote and encourage the use of these mnemonics. They should be removed.

I did. Nikevich (talk) 10:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Being three score and thirteen in age, I do wonder whether kids learn the colors of the rainbow in sequence; that easily takes care of red through violet. (Indigo was dropped from the traditional sequence probably before World War I.)

Eventually, a technician would not need to think; a red-red-yellow is a 220 kohm resistor.

Wikipedia is not censored. If people use the mnemonics, they should be noted. However, I think we should establish some kind of notability criteria for the ones we include, since anyone can just make a new one up. Maybe a threshold of google hits or something? — Omegatron 17:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The one I remember from school was: * **Bad Boys Rrape Our Young Girls But Violet Gives Willingly - - Bdelisle 07:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Should this be removed from the Talk page, as well? I removed one such, above. Unfortunately, this was informally taught in the Navy electronic tech (ET) and fire control tech (FT) schools in the 1950s.Nikevich (talk) 10:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:Profanity, "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." We have MANY more alternatives in that section, and not including them is not of detriment to the article in any way. They have been removed. --Dancraggs 11:06, Monday May 7 2007 (UTC)

Resistor series

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)

Resistance of a True Vacuum

I always thought that a true (ideal) vacuum would have an INFINITE resistance. Am I Wrong? ?. If not, this reference should be deleted.Light current 15:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that. Yes, a vacuum can carry current. This is how vacuum tubes work. - Omegatron 15:41, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

No, it's exactly that simple. In a true (ideal) vacuum, there is nothing to carry a current, therefore resistance is infinite. A vacuum tube works by modulating the passage of electrons from the hot filament or cathode to the positively charged anode. So that these electrons don't bump into stuff on their way, as much as possible of everything else is removed from inside the glass envelope. Coloquially, that makes a vacuum, hence the name. This does not mean that there is nothing in there when a current is passing.--GrahamDavies 18:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats silly, since when is vacuum as it is understood even in the context of physics actually exclusive of charge carrying particles that are merely passing thru? By the rigid definition you've chosen, quantum mechanics and the fact that more or less, there is photons (which -could- spontaneously decay into particle/anti-particle pairs) everywhere, like it or not, basically means vacuum (as you've described it there) doesn't even exist in the first place. So, a more reasonable definition would be that an ideal vacuum consists of space void of the particles that make up the majority of matter - namely, protons and neutrons. The vacuum tube works when electrons pass thru this space of vacuum.

Besides, supposing that one could construct a perfect vacuum free even of electrons, photons, etc, what would then stop one from making a vacuum tube out of it? The heater element need only heat the emitter, and the electrons coming out of it can be bent with magnetic fields in a way that the photons generated by the heat cannot, making shielding possible - and allowing for a switchable vacuum/electron space behind it, right? So really, you've just said that the device doesn't conduct electricity when there is no current applied.

Which is seriously silly, because nothing conducts electricity when there is no electricity to be conducted - and this has never implied a quantity of resistance - it is rude to divide by zero here. Zaphraud (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

RESISTANCE of CONDUCTORS NOT APPROPRIATE

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)

It has more free electrons. Greeshsah (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Symbol for a resistor

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)

It is the rectangle box in NZ also. I think the zig zag line in the North American symbol and the box is the symbol for pretty much everywhere else. --antilived ^{T | C} 03:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

The rectangular box is the standard symbol for all components, to be a resistor it must have an R, similarly inductors have L, capacitors C, impedences Z. FrstFrs 21:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Afaik, in industrial electrical (not electronic) schematics in the USA, the rectangular block was used for a resistor. Several other symbols (such as contacts) differed from those used for electronic schematics.Nikevich (talk) 10:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Instead of whining like children, can someone explain why there are two different symbols? Who decided it was better to use boxes/rectangles and why? I can see the resistance (pun intended) to using boxes not because of international preference but simply because it is easier to draw by hand. When drawing schematics by hand, a zig-zag is much easier to draw as the writing utensil does no have to be lifted from the paper and the motion is in one direction. A rectangle would mean the drawing of the line would be interrupted, a rectangle be drawn and then continue the line. Imagine drawing by hand a largish voltage divider network or a diagram where multiple resistors need to be drawn in series for clarity. One could easily run a pen down the paper scribbling out the zig zag shaped resistor symbols in a matter of a second or two. A zig-zag is much easier and neater to draw and cannot be mistaken for any other device. I am unaware of any other electronic symbol that uses a zig zag save for a resistance type heating element which is in fact a resistor. Anyone care to chime in and help explain the reason rectangles exist? Thaddeusw (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

Request link correction

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)

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)

current is flow!

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)

I have simply unsprotected the page so you can do this yourself. Kusma (討論) 02:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding table for material/background-color?

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)

High voltage transmission

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)

Thank you.Subhash

ERROR in resistor color codes!

"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)

More Vandalism....

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)

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)

Resistor: An Electron Device in the Field of Electronic Device and Materials

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)

Commercial, Industrial, Military

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. [1].--64.253.147.99 (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible copyvio

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)

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)

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)

Ah, the Wayback Machine. I should've looked there first. Thanks for the catch. Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Infinite amount of Current!!!

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)

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)

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)

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)

5-band resistor

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)

Sounds likely, particularly as value of 2.7 is confirmed by schematic. Suckindiesel (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Radial- lead

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)

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)

power resistors

This is a much too large subject to adequately cover in one WP article. And many important aspects have not been broken off into associated articles. Inadequate coverage of history. No coverage of major manufacturers and their histories.

Too brief coverage of power resistors, which probably need a separate article for expansion. No mention of major historic makers: Dale, IRC (International Resistive Company), Ohmite etc, and what has become of them.

Here is some more history that belongs somewhere:

The vacuum tube equipment that was typical up until the 1950s and 60s typically used mostly 1/2- and 1-watt carbon composition resistors, 20% and 10%. As transistors and then IC circuitry came into use in the 1950s and 60s, smaller 1/4- and 1/2-watt carbon composition 5% resistors became the most common, to save space, because the power levels were lower, and greater accuracy became more feasible to achieve economically. Through-hole circuit construction dominated into the 1970s, after which surface-mounted construction started taking over commercial mass production, calling for surface-mounted resistors and ever shrinking sizes, to save space and facilitate increased density. The older resistor types were used in circuits that were assembled by hand. PCBs were at first assembled by hand, then with increasing robotic automation. The newer smaller surface-mount types are usually assembled be completely automated equipment. Many modern parts are so small that it is very hard to work with them by hand. -71.174.175.104 (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds great; if it's WP:V in a WP:RS, it would definitely be a good addition to the article.

History of foil resistors

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:

Main article: Foil resistor

Okay? Binksternet (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

resistor is a passive elements in which it opposese the voltage and current according to the ohms law —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.21.51 (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Vishay linkspam

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)

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)

So are you in favour of removal? SpinningSpark 23:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Several problems in lede

This isn't a real important article for me, but I'd be happy to rewrite major portions of the lede if no one else (who may have been more involved with this article) acts or expresses disagreement with my concerns.

"The primary characteristics of a resistor are the resistance, the tolerance, the maximum working voltage and the power rating. "

This is a bit misleading since the main characteristic of importance, often the only characteristic of interest, is the resistance itself. The tolerance isn't a characteristic of the resistor but rather a statement regarding the labeling of its resistance (how accurate the stated resistance is). The maximum voltage and power dissipation can be very important in certain cases, but the vast majority of resistors are used in electronic circuitry to process signals (not a power circuit) where these limits are of no concern.

"Less well-known is critical resistance"

Referring back to the beginning of the paragraph concerning the "characteristics of A resistor," this couldn't possibly be one of them. It is rather a characteristic of a particular resistor technology and form factor. It doesn't even belong in the lede (nor do most of the other "characteristics" IMO).

I may go ahead and make a major edit to this section. If you really don't like it, revert and discuss here in detail your concerns. Interferometrist (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. You can't meaningfully specify a resistor without specifying its power dissipation rating (and understanding how that rating is set), nor can you practically ignore the other attributes. Only a circuit-theorist with an infinite supply of ideal resistors ( kept in the physics lab cupboard next to the frictionless planes and massless pulleys) can ignore the atributes of real resistors. We have the article "Resistance" to talk about Platonic ideals, let's leave the real-world facts in this one. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I really think you are wrong. In typical circuitry, outside of power circuits, the power rating of an off-the-shelf resistor is larger, usually much larger, than the actual power dissipated by the resistor in that circuit. But of course there are cases in which the power rating of a resistor is extremely important, namely when it would otherwise be exceeded! However that power rating never NEVER enters into the circuit analysis. That is what I am saying. In any case, do you find my latest edit to the lede acceptable? Interferometrist (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Listen, you reverted that but didn't even address the fact that the critical resistance (a term of questionable usefulness) is not even a characteristic of A resistor!! Come on. And please don't talk like that to me, do try to be civil. I don't care about any "Platonic ideals" -- I work with REAL carbon/metal film resistors in REAL circuits that I have designed which work (or sometimes don't) and I know what is important about a resistor in practice: most often ONLY its resistance. The lede should state what the most important characteristics of a resistor are, and perhaps what less important ones are. It needs to inform an average person, not just to list all of the things you can name about a resistor: those can better be in the sections of the article. If we still disagree, let's talk.Interferometrist (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm expecting your (or someone else's) opinion about the paragraph you reverted. Of course I'm willing to compromise on some wording, but you haven't even addressed most of the specifics. I'll expect a reply here tomorrow and we can work toward agreement. Otherwise I think my version of the paragraph is really better and would feel justified in restoring it.

Also, I'd suggest you simply write a (short) article about "critical resistance" if you think it is of particular importance.Interferometrist (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The power rating of a resistor is important. You cannot dismiss high power applications as being somehow less important than low power, less worthy of defining what a resistor is. Binksternet (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I see, you're in power electronics and I mainly work on signal electronics. I won't rub in the fact that >99% of resistors are used in signal applications (especially if you count the ones inside IC's!) since that's largely because they have more components period. I will try to rework my paragraph to reflect that.

For the record, and for any person just tuning in, my rework of the paragraph in question had been as follows:

The primary characteristic of a resistor is its resistance. When specifying a resistor, concern with the precision of its resistance may require attention to the manufacturing tolerance applying to that resistance, depending on its specific application. Particularly in power applications, the maximum power dissipation of a resistor will often be of importance, as will the maximum working voltage in high voltage circuits. Resistors with higher power ratings are physically larger and may require heat sinking.

The temperature coefficient of the resistance will be of concern in some precision applications. In a low-noise amplifier or pre-amp the noise characteristics of a resistor may be an issue. The series inductance of a resistor can be important in some high-frequency applications for smaller values of resistance. The latter three characteristics are generally dependent on the technology used in manufacturing the resistor. They are not normally specified individually for a class of resistors manufactured using a particular technology.

Please tell me where you disagree with either the content or the emphasis.

Interferometrist (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, guys, there is a big mess int the lede. I think that there is to much irrelevant issues put there, like talk about tolerance etc. If somebody is about to rewrite that part, I'd like to add a contribution. We can agree who would start doing that. Ercegovac (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Reverting all changes to first paragraph.

Please, Wtshymanski, let's make this better, not just revert to something that you might have once thought was fine. You say "longer isn't better" I guess because what I wrote is longer (in order to be clear and useful to a person not in the field of electronics). Do you want me to write something shorter? That's possible, although the lede isn't particularly long in relation to this very LONG and ELABORATED article. I don't like what you reverted to: "A resistor ... produces a voltage (V) across its terminals" which I think would be misleading as it could be read (by someone outside of electronics) as meaning that a resistor produces power, which of course is the opposite of what a resistor does: consumes power. Most people think of constant voltage circuits (mains, batteries) so the I=V/R form of ohms law is the most appropriate. I made it LONGER by INCLUDING the V=IR form as well, but I'd be alright with removing that, if you REALLY think it's becoming too long (but I don't). Interferometrist (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, how is this SHORTER version of the first paragraph?

A resistor is a two-terminal electronic component whose primary characteristic is that it presents electrical resistance between its two terminals in order to implement that component of a circuit. When a voltage V is applied across the terminals of a resistor, then a current I will flow through the resistor in direct proportion to that voltage. The reciprocal of the constant of proportionality is known as the resistance R, since, with a given voltage V, a larger value of R further "resists" the flow of current as given by Ohm's law:

$I={V \over R}$

Interferometrist (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Most important characteristic

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)

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)

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)

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)

Anyway, I edited the section very carefully to reflect the specifications applying to practical resistors (as they would be specified by the engineer or listed in a catalog) giving proper weight to the various specs, only two of which (inductance and excess noise) involve non-ideal behaviour (the others are limitations). And I put the explanation of "critical resistance" (never specified in a catalog but easy to compute: Rcrit = Vmax^2 / Pmax) in a footnote. If still any disagreements, please post them on this talk page. Thanks, Interferometrist (talk) 12:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

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) Whoops, I got that wrong: you are saying that Middleton and Valkenburg do NOT mention that the value of resistance is the main parameter of a resistor (but I'm sure they would say so if you asked them specifically!). In any case the issue is not in question, I'm just not sure who says it where! Interferometrist (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

About Parallel Resistors

In the section referring to parallel resistors, The resistance of N resistors connected in parallel, each of the same resistance R, is given by R/N. Shouldn't it be N/R (as N*(1/R))? I have changed it, though I am wrong, please correct me (and explain why I am wrong). 203.153.39.18 (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh! Forget it. I haven't changed it and have noticed my mistake.Sorry.

203.153.39.18 (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Photo needed

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)

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)

There are pre-1923 published images which are now free, public domain. Here [2][3][4] are three of them. Binksternet (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

So, uh, what exactly is a resistor FOR? What is its FUNCTION? Shouldn't that be spelled out SOMEPLACE in the article???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.70.58.119 (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

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)

Parasitical Properties

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)

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)

Carbon Pile

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)

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)

Request for Discussion of {{Semiconductor packages}} in electronic articles

Please see the corresponding discussion thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronics. Thanks! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Symbol caption in template

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)

lack of Resistor Arrays / Networks section

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)

Could not found the definition of tolerance.

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)

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)

Section about uses and alternatives to resistors

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)

Thermistor principle

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

Foil resistor

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2020

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)

​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)

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)

History

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)

citations needed in Theory section

Greetings Wikipedians! I commend all the contributors for their efforts. The Ohms Law and Power Dissipation subsections lack inline citations to reliable sources. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability (set forth here: Wikipedia policy on verifiability), which states: "Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it....The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." I hope someone will step forward to remedy this problem. Unsourced material is subject to being removed, but hopefully that will not be necessary. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your interest. But no, "Wikipedia's policy on verifiability" has NOT been violated. It only says something has to be verifiable, not verified. This generally means that it is possible to point to a reliable source (RS) and someone will when challenged. Something is also verifiable if it is a direct and clear (= uncontroversial) consequence of well-known (and thus verifiable) facts, and in the case you marked regarding voltage rating on high resistance resistors I would consider to be in this category (and I'm sure it has been stated, but it should be clear that Pmax <= Vmax^2/R). The one about use of metric prefixes with ohms is also clearly a consequence of rules regarding SI units and the fact that these are in widespread use can be verified simply by doing a Google search for these terms. Above all, I believe rather than marking these CN you could have found references yourself and your time would be better spent doing so and adding those references to the article yourself. But no, Wikipedia's policy has not been violated and I don't see anything that could be removed for being non-verifiable in this case.

Happy editing! Interferometrist (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

[ec] Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue certainly applies to the first tag you placed, and arguably to the second one about all resistors having a max voltage rating. N.B. the policy you cited requires citations for material that "has been challenged or is likely to be challenged".

The text regarding naming the ohm and its derived units has stood for over ten years, with competent eyes on the article all during that time. Challenging it now without a reason more specific than "statement\paragraph should be supported by citation to a reliable source" seems specious. In what particular ways does that paragraph seem sketchy? Just plain Bill (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@User:Just plain Bill, I'm not saying it's sketchy, just that it needs to be supported by an inline citation, as explained in my note to @User:Interferometrist below. Readers who come to this article seeking knowledge need some way to verify that what they are reading is true, accurate and accepted by authorities in the field. For that reason, when I write or edit an article, I try to provide as many citations as I can. People shouldn't have to assume that we know what we're talking about. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree. No citation is needed. Constant314 (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@User:Interferometrist|Interferometrist, With respect, I must differ with you on this. The here: Wikipedia policy on verifiability states: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." The person who inserted those subsections on Ohms Law and power dissipation did not provide such an inline citation. Let's not debate whether to define that as a "violation." The point is, those subsections need to be supported by an inline citation to a reliable source. Unsourced material can be challenged and removed, as stated in the Wikipedia RefImprove template, shown below. I hope someone will step up and handle this. Someone with access to textbooks on physics or electrical engineering is better able to do that than I am. Cordially. BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I added an inline reference (ARRL Handbook chapter) for the different resistance units. It may not be needed but it's easy enough to add. I also added a ref for maximum voltage. I think the other requests for citation are legit.--[[User:ArnoldReinhold|agr]] (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@User:ArnoldReinhold @User:Interferometrist User:Just plain Bill -- Let's put an end to this debate. In the interest of teamwork, I did a quick search on the first formula under power dissipation: P = I squared x R. I found this. If you feel that the source is reliable, would one of you please insert it into the article as an inline citation. This formula is not common knowledge. If it's important enough to warrant its own section in the article, it deserves its own citation so readers can verify that it is correct. You seem to have more knowledge of electronics than I do (I'm more of a financial guy), so you should make the call. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

See Electric power#Resistive_circuits. That section in this article is not so much about I²R as it is about how much power a resistor can safely dissipate in the form of heat. The quantitative study of heat transfer is a notoriously gnarly subject, where "gnarly" may be taken to mean "often intractable."

That course page you found is nice, but I don't see it as citeworthy here. To some, it might even look like refspam. Wikipedia is not a textbook, and I will push back against loading up an article with sources without regard as to whether they actually support substantive or noteworthy content about the topic.

As far as I am concerned, the debate was over when Arnold (thanks!) cited the ARRL handbook, which I recognize as a valid source. Regards, Just plain Bill (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@User:Just plain Bill: The ARRL handbook cite addresses Ohm's law. It does not address the power dissipation section. If we're not willing to provide an inline citation for (P = I squared x R), then that formula doesn't belong here, in my humble opinion. It's math that the reader cannot verify. This will be my final word on this topic. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I added an inline reference to "I squared R" as well. I found an older (1968) 45th edition of the ARRL handbook on-line at archive.org, so I can give page numbers. I left a ref to the current edition (98th) as well. Any edition will have this material. This is very basic stuff, but I don't think this article is close to citation overkill. Compare with Ohm's law, for example.--agr (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 10 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): YehLikeJazz? (article contribs).

New article for types of resistors?

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)

New article created

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)

@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)

Agree with separating the many types into a separate article. Constant314 (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)