11 thoughts on “Beyond Faraday”

  1. More or less, yes, but the collisional length in graphene is extremely long, so the electrons behave more “ballistically” (like they were particles in a vacuum), and less “collisionally” (like pushing honey through a straw), and so it’s plausible to use their momentum in devices like this. So it’s the “current”, but the point of these devices is that the current is not all made up of what you might really call drift current.

        1. I didn’t expect people had the capacity for such reactions. It certainly impedes the discussion of current events (or potential ones). You two wouldn’t be part of the #resistance, would you?

  2. This discovery seems more about miniaturization of transformers than specifically inductors. I wouldn’t think miniaturization of inductors would be all that revolutionary, as one can get the same derivative action from coupling capacitors with transistors. But, I guess I can see some appeal to being able to step voltages up or down on a small scale. I’m not a circuit designer, so maybe others could shed more light on the actual utility of this discovery.

  3. I’m not sure that a 30% reduction in required chip area and a Q factor of 12 is anything to get too excited about, especially since it requires laying down graphene and inserting bromine atoms. It might be a while before we see this in a commercial device.

Leave a Reply to Eric Weder Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *