I think now is a good time to revisit graphene-coated wire... graphene has ~100 times the electrical conductivity of copper.
My idea was a flat wire which we would run over one block of graphite to coat one side of the wire with graphene, then over another block of graphite to coat the other side of the wire with graphene. Then we run the wire through a lacquer dip to insulate it. This could all be done in one fell swoop, one after another, although the time required for the lacquer to dry would slow things down quite a bit.
The flat wire has a couple advantages... it winds more neatly, and it eliminates the 'gap space' of a round wire (better fill factor)... thus one can pack more flat wire into a given coil than one can round wire, making for a more compact coil. Planar transformers are typically 30% of the size and weight of a similar-power wire-wound transformer, for instance. They also have lower leakage inductance, and allow for better high-frequency coil ring-down than wire-wound transformers.
So a flat-wire wound coil would be smaller and would ring better than a wire-wound. Add in a graphene coating on the wire, and you're edging into superconductor behavior as regards sustaining the magnetic field after power-off... it'll ring a long time.
The voltage will experience extremely low resistance going into the coil via the top and bottom graphene coating on the wire, building the magnetic field quickly.
This drastically changes the
time constant of the coil (the ratio of the inductance to the resistance).
Quote from http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=2950.msg44290#msg44290We can take advantage of the disparity between the time it takes to build the magnetic field, and the time it takes that magnetic field to collapse to push the rotor, rather than slow it down.
From the graphic above, we see that the magnetic field of an inductor builds to ~63.2% of maximum in 1 L/R time period, whereas it collapses to only ~36.8% of maximum in that same time period.
Ideally what we want to do is exploit the difference in time and energy between building the coil's magnetic field from ~63.2% to 100% (which would take 4 L/R time periods), and the time and energy necessary to collapse that magnetic field from 100% to ~36.8% (which would take 1 L/R time period). So ideally we'd be putting in 4 L/R time periods to increase the magnetic field by ~36.8% (from ~63.2% to 100%), then utilizing that magnetic field as it collapses in 1 L/R time period by ~63.2% (from 100% to ~36.8%).
Now, obviously that's not going to work for very long... you can't build up by ~36.8% (to 100%) and collapse by ~63.2% for very long before you're hitting 0% during the collapse. The coil on the next few go-rounds would work its way downward in energy until it only builds up from 0% to ~63.2% (because of the rotational speed which gets us that 1 L/R time period). The coil's magnetic field can't collapse below zero, and we can't easily vary the speed of the machine quickly while it's running to take advantage of the 4 L/R time period of building from ~63.2% to 100% (~36.8%), then extracting ~63.2% (100% to ~36.8%) of it in 1 L/R time period, so what we're actually doing when the machine is running is building that magnetic field in the coil to ~63.2% in 1 L/R time period, then collapsing it to 0% in 1 L/R time period before it can act as bEMF. IOW, we've found a way to get around the "hysteresis curve" of the coil.
So in effect, we're doing something like this (outlined in red... forgive my lack of artistic ability):
We're building to ~63.2% in 1 L/R time period, then collapsing the magnetic field all the way back to 0 in 1 L/R time period, doing away with bEMF.
Quote from http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/bulletin/08/nbsbulletinv8n3p455_A2b.pdfIn addition to the effect of the inductance in causing the current in a given coil to lag behind the electromotive force impressed at its terminals, there has to be taken into account the influence of the capacity between the adjacent turns of wire and the capacity of the various parts of the coil with respect to the earth. These capacity effects give rise to a phase angle in the opposite direction to that occasioned by the inductance. The resulting phase angle will, therefore, be in one or the other direction, according as the effect of the inductance or that of the capacity preponderates.
It is convenient, in so far as its effect on the phase angle is concerned, to regard the capacity as equivalent to a negative inductance.
For the ideal case of a capacity concentrated between the terminals of a coil, it is easy to show that the phase angle between current and impressed electromotive force is proportional to L = CR2 (where R, L, and C are, respectively, the resistance, inductance, and capacity of the coil), and the current lags or leads according as this quantity is positive or negative.
In the case of a simple bifilar winding, the capacity between the wires is uniformly distributed, and the resultant phase angle depends on the value of L = 1/3CR2, where C is the capacity which would be measured between the wires if they were entirely disconnected from one another.
According to this definition the effective inductance L' is connected with the measured phase angle phi (which may be positive or negative) by the equation {tangent phi = pL'/R}, where p = 2 * pi times the frequency, L' being taken positive when the current lags behind the impressed electromotive force.
In the case of low-resistance coils, the measured phase angle is positive and it is easy to show that the capacity effect is negligible. Since, however, the change in phase angle, due to a given capacity, is, as shown above, proportional to the square of the resistance associated with it, it is easy to understand that in coils of high resistance the capacity becomes the predominating factor.
A low resistance makes it easier to keep the phase angle positive, which makes it easier to ensure the current lags the voltage. As wire length increases, capacitance and resistance increases and the phase angle goes from positive toward negative, meaning you've got to pump current into the coil along with the voltage. In extreme cases, the current will lead the voltage, which is why it takes so long to build voltage in a very large coil.
Thus a graphene coating on the wire will reduce the resistive effects of the wire, which will increase the effective inductance of any given length of wire (see above regarding capacitive effects being analogous to 'negative inductance', offsetting the coil inductance). Thus we could use less wire length to get the same effect.
