Talk:Ridley–Watkins–Hilsum theory

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted on 1 February 2008 by reviewer Yngvarr (talk · contribs).

Physics Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Needs cleanup

Yea, I know the request is two years old, but it appears valid enough for inclusion. I quickly made the article and stuck a few additional inline links. Hopefully I will get back to this shortly and clean up, make proper refs, and so forth. Yng varr 23:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed orphan status

This is linked from J. B. Gunn, Gunn diode and Cyril Hilsum. The links in all three will need to be changed when this is moved to Ridley-Watkins-Hilsum theory (containing hyphens).

Maybe someone can find this a home in a longer article, and change this to a redirect Michael P. Barnett (talk) 03:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page of editor who set this up has box stating he may have left WP. Absent anyone else taking it up, I think it should be subsumed with redirect. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence?

The first sentence is not a grammatical sentence.

Taking out "that" would make it a grammatical sentence, but it still doesn't make much sense. Jpg1954 (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Michael P. Barnett (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Home

If you are looking for a new home for this, maybe the negative resistance article would be a place. If I am understanding correctly, this theoery is an explanation of negative resistance. And, going the other way, should the negative resistance article refer to Gunn diodes as well as tunnel diodes? Jpg1954 (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, but as a matter of principle would not want to act without opinion of someone more expert than me on solid state theory -- I was trained as chemist, got roped into band structure calculations, but do not have expertize in this area. Is it bad form for me to say that I think you do have this expertize (hope that does not contribute to blowing your pseudonymity)! I am very happy to go along with your suggestions. I am snowed in at moment (literally, but very comfortably) but hope to get to library next week. May even be able to find someone to comment, if still necessary. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No- I do not have the expertise. I have knowldge about the external events related to the discovery, but not about the physics. When asked "and what do YOU know about the Gunn Effect?" I was coached to answer "you put very low voltage DC in and get very high frequency AC out."

My undergraduate degree in in Math (with a total of ONE physics class, E&M), and my graduate work is in Operations Research. Jpg1954 (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]