Confusing on permeability and relative permeability

AI Thread Summary
The relationship between the magnetic field \vec{B} and the magnetizing field \vec{H} is defined as \vec{B} = \mu_0\vec{H}, where \mu is the total permeability of the material. Relative permeability \mu_r indicates how a material affects the magnetic field compared to free space, defined as \mu_r = \mu/\mu_0. The use of \vec{H} is crucial as it simplifies calculations and is more easily controlled in practical applications, especially in the presence of magnetization. In linear media, the relationship can be expressed as \vec{B} = \mu\vec{H}, with the magnetic susceptibility \chi_m linking magnetization to \vec{H}. Overall, understanding these relationships is essential for effective electromagnetic analysis.
KFC
Messages
477
Reaction score
4
In some textbook of fundamental electromagnetism, the relation between magnetic field \vec{B} and so called magnetizing field \vec{H} is

\vec{B} = \mu_0\vec{H}

But later on, they introduce a so called relative permeability

\mu_r = \frac{\mu}{\mu_0}

I might be wrong but my understanding of this definition is relative permeability is used to tell the 'capability to affect the field' of the object while comparing to something in free space? So \mu is actually the total and absolute permeability of that object?

And I am quite confusing with \vec{H} here. Now then we have the \vec{B} to describe the magnetic field, why we need another field variable? Someone said it may related to magnetization. But if there is a magnetization so

\vec{B} = \mu_0(\vec{H} + \vec{M}) = \mu_0\vec{H}

why we still have to use H ?

My last question is: if a material with relative permeability \mu_r=\mu / \mu_0 is considered, the relation between B and H will modified to

\vec{B} = \mu_r\vec{H}

or

\vec{B}=\mu\vec{H}

or

unchanged?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Often, H is much more easily controlled, so H is much more useful both for practical purposes and in calculations. In fact, quite often H is introduced before B.

H behaves much more nicely in the presence of matter, where the magnetization is not in general zero. It's a similar relationship between E and D, but in practice it is E that is more easily controlled.

In linear media, B = μH. The relative permeability μr is dimensionless, so the dimensions wouldn't work out if you used that instead.

The magnetic susceptibility χm (which is dimensionless) determines the magnetization in (linear) matter: M = χmH. Thus B = μ0(H + M) = μ0(1 + χm)H = μH, where μ is defined to be μ0(1 + χm). And then μr = μ / μ0 = 1 + χm.
 
Thank you so much. In your reply, you said: In linear media, B = μH ... I wonder if μ here is the total permeability? That is, μ=μr0 ?

adriank said:
Often, H is much more easily controlled, so H is much more useful both for practical purposes and in calculations. In fact, quite often H is introduced before B.

H behaves much more nicely in the presence of matter, where the magnetization is not in general zero. It's a similar relationship between E and D, but in practice it is E that is more easily controlled.

In linear media, B = μH. The relative permeability μr is dimensionless, so the dimensions wouldn't work out if you used that instead.

The magnetic susceptibility χm (which is dimensionless) determines the magnetization in (linear) matter: M = χmH. Thus B = μ0(H + M) = μ0(1 + χm)H = μH, where μ is defined to be μ0(1 + χm). And then μr = μ / μ0 = 1 + χm.
 
By μ I mean exactly μ, the permeability of the material.
 
Consider an extremely long and perfectly calibrated scale. A car with a mass of 1000 kg is placed on it, and the scale registers this weight accurately. Now, suppose the car begins to move, reaching very high speeds. Neglecting air resistance and rolling friction, if the car attains, for example, a velocity of 500 km/h, will the scale still indicate a weight corresponding to 1000 kg, or will the measured value decrease as a result of the motion? In a second scenario, imagine a person with a...
Dear all, in an encounter of an infamous claim by Gerlich and Tscheuschner that the Greenhouse effect is inconsistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics I came to a simple thought experiment which I wanted to share with you to check my understanding and brush up my knowledge. The thought experiment I tried to calculate through is as follows. I have a sphere (1) with radius ##r##, acting like a black body at a temperature of exactly ##T_1 = 500 K##. With Stefan-Boltzmann you can calculate...
Thread 'Griffith, Electrodynamics, 4th Edition, Example 4.8. (First part)'
I am reading the Griffith, Electrodynamics book, 4th edition, Example 4.8 and stuck at some statements. It's little bit confused. > Example 4.8. Suppose the entire region below the plane ##z=0## in Fig. 4.28 is filled with uniform linear dielectric material of susceptibility ##\chi_e##. Calculate the force on a point charge ##q## situated a distance ##d## above the origin. Solution : The surface bound charge on the ##xy## plane is of opposite sign to ##q##, so the force will be...

Similar threads

Back
Top