Reply to "Comment on Phi memristor: Real memristor found", arXiv:1909.12464

TL;DR

This paper responds to criticisms of the Phi memristor claim by clarifying misunderstandings, supporting the memristive nature with historical experiments, and analyzing parasitic effects to affirm the device's validity.

Contribution

It provides a detailed rebuttal to critiques, supports the memristor claim with historical experimental evidence, and analyzes parasitic effects to validate nanoscale device viability.

Findings

Historical experiments support memristive behavior despite parasitic effects.

Parasitic inductor effects can be mitigated in macro-scale devices.

Nano-scale devices can safely neglect parasitic effects.

Abstract

In this reply, we will provide our impersonal, point-to-point responses to the major criticisms (in bold and underlined) in arXiv:1909.12464. Firstly, we will identify a number of (imperceptibly hidden) mistakes in the Comment in understanding/interpreting our physical model. Secondly, we will use a 3rd-party experiment carried out in 1961 (plus other 3rd-party experiments thereafter) to further support our claim that our invented Phi memristor is memristive in spite of the existence of a parasitic inductor effect. Thirdly, we will analyse this parasitic effect mathematically, introduce our work-in-progress (in nanoscale) and point out that this parasitic inductor effect should not become a big worry since it can be completely removed in the macro-scale devices and safely neglected in the nano-scale devices.