Magnetic field of a dipole in co ordinate free form

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the magnetic field of a cylindrical magnet at a specific distance using theoretical models and MATLAB simulations. Participants explore the discrepancies between calculated and measured magnetic field values, focusing on the implications of dipole and higher-order magnetic moments.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Experimental/applied

Main Points Raised

  • One participant calculates the magnetic moment of a cylindrical magnet and attempts to find the magnetic field at a distance of 1 cm, but finds an implausibly high result.
  • Another participant provides a different calculation for the magnetic moment and magnetic field, suggesting the magnet is aligned with the z-axis.
  • There is a discussion about the implementation of the dipole field equation in MATLAB, with one participant suggesting a potential error in using the unit vector instead of the position vector.
  • Concerns are raised about the calculated magnetic field values being significantly higher than the measured values from a sensor, leading to questions about calibration and the influence of higher-order moments.
  • Participants discuss the possibility that the magnetic field may not drop off as expected for a dipole, indicating the need for further investigation into calibration and measurement techniques.
  • One participant mentions the need to measure more points to find an effective calibration formula.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the accuracy of their calculations and measurements, with no consensus on the source of discrepancies. There is acknowledgment that higher-order magnetic moments may influence the results, but no agreement on how to resolve the calibration issues.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the magnetic field may vary significantly depending on the specific location relative to the magnet and that the assumptions made in calculations may not hold true in practice. The discussion highlights the complexity of accurately modeling magnetic fields from real-world magnets.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for individuals interested in experimental physics, magnetism, and those working with magnetic field measurements and simulations, particularly in the context of calibration and theoretical modeling.

Sylvester1
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
Hello everybody!
I am writing this topi because i got stuck in this!I have a cylindrical magnet with 1,5mm Radius,2mm thickness and Br 1,38 Tesla! I want to calculate the magnetic field in a distance s = [0 0 0.01](in meters) ,that means in 1cm distance while my magnet's position is α = [0 0 0].

the vector form is [x y z] .

using the equation found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole#Magnitudefor Vector Form i got a result of [0 0 46.5498] Tesla which is impossible!

for the magnetic moment calculation i used the type m =π*Br*d^2*l/(4 μ0) where d is the diameter of my magnet and l the thickness


Can not spot my mistake since i expect to have uT as a result!Any opinion aprreciated!Thanx in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I get m=0.01553 Am^2 (WolframAlpha) and 3.11mT (WolframAlpha), using your formulas and values and assuming the magnet is aligned with the z-axis.
 
Sylvester1 said:
Can not spot my mistake

We can't spot it either, because we can't see the details of how you actually did your calculation. (hint, hint... :wink:)
 
i used MATLAB to do my calculations!more specific!

MagnetLoc = [0 0 0];

Sensors = [0
0
0.01]

R = magnetLoc - Sensors';

rH = R./norm(R);

theta = acos(R(3)/norm(R));

gamma = atan(R(2)/norm(R));

m1 = 0.0155171294871; % magnitude of magnetic moment m

m = [m1*sin(theta)*cos(gamma) m1*sin(theta)*sin(gamma) m1*cos(theta)];

M = 1.2566370614 * (10^-6); %vacuum perneability (μ0)

A = M/(4*pi*(norm(R)^5));

C = (3 * dot( rH , m) * rH)' - ((norm(R)^2)*m);Field = A*C
 
OK, I'll move this over to the Matlab forum and maybe someone there can check whether you've implemented the equation properly.
 
The first part (3 * dot( rH , m) * rH) should use R I think. Otherwise, you have an expression which grows (with R->0) with 1/R^5.
 
xmm!the equation says to use unit vector of R!if i use R i get even bigger magnitude!

What do you mean with your second recommendation?
 
Sylvester1 said:
if i use R i get even bigger magnitude!
Now that is very surprising, as |R| < |rH|

What do you mean with your second recommendation?
That was just an explanation why the current calculation has to be wrong.
(3 * dot( rH , m) * rH) does not depend on the magnitude of R. For a constant direction, your expression can be simplified to c/R^5 (neglecting the second term here). That is wrong, a dipole field is proportional to 1/R^3.
 
ok you are right!when i use R instead of rH i get 0.0031 Tesla!

What i want to do is find the position of a magnet in an area 1cm to 3cm(see it as a cube) away from my sensor! In order to do that i calculate the theoretical value of the magnetic field at a specific position (here at 1cm) and then i use least square algorithm for the relationship : (Btheoritical-Bexperiment) in order to minimize this and find the best solution!the problem is that even 3100uT is not even close to the value which my sensor gives to me at 1cm distance which is approximately 1000uT according to my sensor!
 
  • #10
- 1.38 Tesla could be the magnetic field at some specific point, not everywhere in the magnet
- higher moments (quadruple, ...) might influence the value a bit

(Btheoritical-Bexperiment) in order to minimize this and find the best solution!
You can solve this (analytically), there is no need to use a minimization algorithm.

Do you get the same ratio measured/calculated for other distances?
 
  • #11
no is completely differenT!it drives me crazy!can not find where i make the mistake..
 
  • #12
Sylvester1 said:
xmm!

xmm? :confused:

(By the way, we have a rule against using text-message abbreviations here. Now you know.)
 
  • #13
Can you give some examples for "different"? It might be possible to use a different formula to fit the data.
 
  • #14
ok let me get some measurements again and i will post them as soon as i get them !
 
  • #15
ok got the measurements!after calibration and removing the Earth magnetic field i got :

for 1cm : x = 173uT y = -74.4733 z = 2048,1 uT

for 2cm : x = -19.7439 y = 53,2893 z = 402,8459 uT

for 3cm : x = -3,4647 y = 4,2611 z = 141,9412 uT
 
  • #16
2048/402.8=5.08 < 23, your field drops slower than a dipole field.
402.8/141.9=2.84 < 1.53=3.375, same here.

The last value fits to the theoretic dipole prediction (~115μT), which is a hint that higher orders of the field could be relevant for 1cm and 2cm.

I neglected the small x- and y-components.
 
  • #17
mfb said:
is a hint that higher orders of the field could be relevant for 1cm and 2cm.

so you mean that i need to find scale factors? maybe the calibration is not correct!i mean that how can i calibrate a magnetometer that is still?
 
  • #18
Your magnet is not a perfect, point-like dipole. Those deviations can be expressed as quadrupole moment, sextupole moment, ...
Alternatively, measure more points, and find some effective formula as calibration.
 
  • #19
ok!thanx for your time!i will come back when i manage to make it work :)!
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K