4.5 Article

Exact Analysis and Physical Realization of the 6-Lobe Chua Corsage Memristor

期刊

COMPLEXITY
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-HINDAWI
DOI: 10.1155/2018/8405978

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Korean Government [2016R1A2B4015514]
  2. Cooperative Research Program for Agriculture Science and Technology Development [PJ0120642016]
  3. Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea
  4. US Air Force Office of Scientific Research [FA9550-18-1-0016]
  5. National Research Foundation of Korea [2016R1A2B4015514] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A novel generic memristor, dubbed the 6-lobe Chua corsage memristor, is proposed with its nonlinear dynamical analysis and physical realization. The proposed corsage memristor contains four asymptotically stable equilibrium points on its complex and diversified dynamic routes which reveals a 4-state nonlinear memory device. The higher degree of versatility of its dynamic routes reveal that the proposed memristor has a variety of dynamic paths in response to different initial conditions and exhibits a highly nonlinear contiguous DC V-I curve. The DC V-I curve of the proposed memristor is endowed with an explicit analytical parametric representation. Moreover, the derived three formulas, exponential trajectories of state x(n)(t), time period t(fn), and minimum pulse amplitude V-A, are required to analyze the movement of the state trajectories on the piecewise linear (PWL) dynamic route map (DRM) of the corsage memristor. These formulas are universal, that is, applicable to any PWL DRM curves for any DC or pulse input and with any number of segments. Nonlinear dynamics and circuit and system theoretic approach are employed to explain the asymptotic quad-stable behavior of the proposed corsage memristor and to design a novel real memristor emulator using off-the-shelf circuit components.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据