Boundary conditions ##\vec{B}## and ##\vec{H}##

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on boundary conditions for magnetic fields, specifically the equations governing the divergence and curl of the magnetic field vectors ##\vec{B}## and ##\vec{H}##. It highlights that while the curls may not be necessary for the problem at hand, understanding the perpendicular magnetization components is crucial. There is uncertainty about whether the boundary conditions should apply only on-axis or across the entire surface, suggesting the potential use of a surface current model. The conversation also notes that standard methods exist to solve the problem without needing Legendre's method. Overall, the participants aim to clarify the conditions for the parallel components of ##\vec{H}## across the surface.
happyparticle
Messages
490
Reaction score
24
Homework Statement
Find boundary conditions ##\vec{B}## and ##\vec{H}## for a cylinder of radius a and length 4a and ##\vec{M} = M\hat{z}## on the axis of the cylinder
Relevant Equations
##\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{B} = 0##
##\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{H} = - \vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{M}##
##\vec{\nabla} x \vec{B} = \mu_0 \vec{J}##
##\vec{\nabla} x \vec{H} = \mu_0 \vec{J}_f##
When asking for boundary conditions I'm wondering if this is enough in this situation to give
##\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{B} = 0 , B_{2\perp} - B_{1 \perp} = 0##
##\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{H} = - \vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{M}, H_{2\perp} - H_{1 \perp} = - (M_{2\perp} - M_{1 \perp})##
##\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{B} = \mu_0 \vec{J}, B_{2\||} - B_{1 \||} = \mu_0 \vec{K} \times \hat{n}##
##\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{H} = \mu_0 \vec{J}_f , H_{2 \||} - H_{1 \||} = \vec{K}_f \times \hat{n}##
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It probably isn't necessary to include anything about the curls of the vectors, because that is a surface current type treatment that is completely separate from the pole model of magnetostatics. Meanwhile, what do you know about ## M_{2 \, perpendicular} ## ? =if it is outside of the material? For the ## M_{in \, perpendicular} ##, it is ## -M ## on the left endface, and ## +M ## on the right endface.

Edit: Scratch part of that=I think they may be looking for boundary conditions everywhere on the surface, (they aren't completely clear here=do they want just the on-axis conditions? ), and it may be useful to employ the surface current model to get the conditions for the parallel components.

It may be worth mentioning that this problem has two very standard ways of solving it, and Legendre's method with boundary conditions are not needed to solve it. See https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/a-magnetostatics-problem-of-interest-2.971045/
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes happyparticle
a follow-on: It still needs a little work, but let's get started using ## \nabla \times \vec{H}=\vec{J}_{free}=0 ##. Using Stokes theorem on this, what can you say about the parallel components of ## \vec{H} ## anywhere on the entire surface, i.e. ## H_{out \, parallel} ## and ## H_{in \, parallel} ##?
 
Finally find it, thank you.
 
  • Like
Likes Charles Link
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Thread 'Trying to understand the logic behind adding vectors with an angle between them'
My initial calculation was to subtract V1 from V2 to show that from the perspective of the second aircraft the first one is -300km/h. So i checked with ChatGPT and it said I cant just subtract them because I have an angle between them. So I dont understand the reasoning of it. Like why should a velocity be dependent on an angle? I was thinking about how it would look like if the planes where parallel to each other, and then how it look like if one is turning away and I dont see it. Since...
Thread 'Correct statement about a reservoir with an outlet pipe'
The answer to this question is statements (ii) and (iv) are correct. (i) This is FALSE because the speed of water in the tap is greater than speed at the water surface (ii) I don't even understand this statement. What does the "seal" part have to do with water flowing out? Won't the water still flow out through the tap until the tank is empty whether the reservoir is sealed or not? (iii) In my opinion, this statement would be correct. Increasing the gravitational potential energy of the...
Back
Top