I Calculating Magnetic field strength of a magnet

[bob012345]

Why are you not using an integral?
And where does the $2\pi$ come from since the area of the circle is $\pi r^{2}$

I did use an integral but I was just showing the differential flux element before the integration occurs. The magnetic field is symmetric in cylindrical coordinates around the $z$ axis so I used a differential element in the plane of the loop which is $2\pi \rho$ in circumference and $d\rho$ thick because $B_z$ is constant over that differential element.

 

[Charles Link]

Flux $\phi(z)=\int\limits_{0}^{2 \pi} \int\limits_{0}^{R} (\frac{q_m}{4 \pi r^2}) \frac{z}{\sqrt{z^2+\rho^2}} \rho \, d \rho \, d \phi$, where $r^2=z^2+\rho^2$. The $2 \pi$ comes from integrating over $\phi$.

 

[Einstein44]

@bob012345 @Charles Link
I have a question about the experiment, when I am using bare copper, the coils are not allowed to touch am I correct? Because I have seen this being done on YouTube with the coils touching, but I am unsure if this is correct. If this is not allowed, would insulated wire be a good solution?

 

[bob012345]

@bob012345 @Charles Link
I have a question about the experiment, when I am using bare copper, the coils are not allowed to touch am I correct? Because I have seen this being done on YouTube with the coils touching, but I am unsure if this is correct. If this is not allowed, would insulated wire be a good solution?

The wire needs to be insulated or its one thick loop instead of many loops.

 

[cmb]

@bob012345 @Charles Link
I have a question about the experiment, when I am using bare copper, the coils are not allowed to touch am I correct? Because I have seen this being done on YouTube with the coils touching, but I am unsure if this is correct. If this is not allowed, would insulated wire be a good solution?

You might have been seeing enamelled wire, which is insulated but appears copper-coloured.

You will get bigger EMF for smaller clearances between magnet and wire, so it is worth reducing the clearances.

 

[bob012345]

If there were one solid loop with uninsulated wire then it seems to me one could at most pick up half the $emf$ if the contact points were exactly opposite on the loop. Less if closer according to the ratio of the short path to the total circumference.

 

[Einstein44]

If there were one solid loop with uninsulated wire then it seems to me one could at most pick up half the $emf$ if the contact points were exactly opposite on the loop. Less if closer according to the ratio of the short path to the total circumference.

I finished my experiment (using insulated wire), this time I had very little fluctuations so overall some good results. Although the best fit curve turned out to not be fully linear, but slightly curved. Ill have to have a look into that.

If anyone is interested in seeing these results, you can send me your email and I will share a google sheets with you (I cannot post this on here since I will be using this data, but since some of you were asking to see it I am more than happy to show it to you.)

 

[hutchphd]

If there were one solid loop with uninsulated wire then it seems to me one could at most pick up half the $emf$ if the contact points were exactly opposite on the loop. Less if closer according to the ratio of the short path to the total circumference.

That is not correct unless the wire is closed. The loop will instead simply consist of the half circle and the leads to the voltmeter. See Prof Walter Lewin's famous lecture on induced EMF

 

[bob012345]

That is not correct unless the wire is closed. The loop will instead simply consist of the half circle and the leads to the voltmeter. See Prof Walter Lewin's famous lecture on induced EMF

In that comment I assumed the wire is a closed loop. Not like this;

But like this only the wires are uninsulated;

 

[hutchphd]

The measurement will depend upon how you close the loop with your meter. Even for a closed loop (although it is a bit more complicated). Prof Lewin will convince you.

 

[bob012345]

The measurement will depend upon how you close the loop with your meter. Even for a closed loop (although it is a bit more complicated). Prof Lewin will convince you.

I see your point. So, if there is a solid closed loop, there is an $emf$ around the loop. Is it possible to tap only a portion of that induced voltage say if the leads went straight out on either side to infinity? Given that the current through the leads to the voltmeter is ≈ zero and there has to be a current in the closed loop, it seemed reasonable to me it could be tapped. I was thinking of it like a rheostat.

 

[hutchphd]

But think about traversing the loop with the two leads from the DVM. When the leads are close together do you read zero or the full loop EMF? How about when they are 180 deg apart ? Is it +EMF/2 ? Maybe -EMF/2?
Even with the leads to infinity you got to attach the DVM in a particular way eventually and the result will depend.
The answer I like best is that Kirchhoff simply doesn't work when the are time dependent B fields. There is no single valued voltage.
Prof Lewin says there were several EE faculty (at MIT) who thought this was a trick! Not easy (I never really understood the issue until Lewin lectures...although I knew there was something amiss in my understanding)

 

[bob012345]

But think about traversing the loop with the two leads from the DVM. When the leads are close together do you read zero or the full loop EMF? How about when they are 180 deg apart ? Is it +EMF/2 ? Maybe -EMF/2?
Even with the leads to infinity you got to attach the DVM in a particular way eventually and the result will depend.
The answer I like best is that Kirchhoff simply doesn't work when the are time dependent B fields. There is no single valued voltage.
Prof Lewin says there were several EE faculty (at MIT) who thought this was a trick! Not easy (I never really understood the issue until Lewin lectures...although I knew there was something amiss in my understanding)

Wow! I watched the video and I did find it fascinating. Thanks. So, non-conservative fields...

I was just thinking earlier today that in a single closed loop if you attached voltmeter leads at two random point on the loop how would it know what the voltage should read because it seemed that it would be path dependent. I resolved that by thinking it was like a rheostat whereby it would choose the shorter path. Now, it seems it is kind of like a rheostat but which path depends on which way the meter is. So doing two measurements would always yield the total $emf$ if you subtract them. Based on this it seems putting the leads 180° apart would give half the value of the $emf$ since $R_1$ is equal to $R_2$ but the sign would depend on the meter but as prof. Lewin says one just uses Lenz's law to figure the actual sign.

Prof. Lewin has a great lecture style.

 

[Charles Link]

Wow! I watched the video and I did find it fascinating. Thanks. So, non-conservative fields...

I was just thinking earlier today that in a single closed loop if you attached voltmeter leads at two random point on the loop how would it know what the voltage should read because it seemed that it would be path dependent. I resolved that by thinking it was like a rheostat whereby it would choose the shorter path. Now, it seems it is kind of like a rheostat but which path depends on which way the meter is. So doing two measurements would always yield the total $emf$ if you subtract them. Based on this it seems putting the leads 180° apart would give half the value of the $emf$ since $R_1$ is equal to $R_2$ but the sign would depend on the meter but as prof. Lewin says one just uses Lenz's law to figure the actual sign.

Prof. Lewin has a great lecture style.

We have a couple of recent threads on the Physics Forums that discuss Professor Lewin's paradox in detail.

See https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-to-recognize-split-electric-fields-comments.984872/
You might also find the "link" in post 2 of this thread of interest, where a couple of us worked a tricky homework problem involving a changing flux in the loop. We finally got an answer that we all agreed upon towards the very end of what was a rather lengthy series of posts.

 

[hutchphd]

We finally got an answer that we all agreed upon towards the very end of what was a rather lengthy series of posts.

Although that is true I do not think most of that thread was a useful exercise. Not for me at least. There is too much bad physics done (present company excepted !)

 

[Charles Link]

Although that is true I do not think most of that thread was a useful exercise. Not for me at least. There is too much bad physics done (present company excepted !)

I agree. On that one, we all spun our wheels an awful lot, but I think it might be worthwhile to look to the very end where we finally got a solution. In addition, @cnh1995 's solution (post 192 )is a good one, and although the link in post 164 above was met with some controversy, I do see the merit in recognizing the difference between the electrostatic conservative E field $E_s$, and the non-conservative induced E field $E_m$. From the $E_s$, you can deduce an electrostatic potential at each point, which @cnh1995 's solution utilizes. See also post 193, where I worked through some of the mathematical detail of post 192. We're getting sidetracked here though=we should try to stay on the topic at hand of the magnet falling through the loop. :)

 

[bob012345]

I agree. On that one, we all spun our wheels an awful lot, but I think it might be worthwhile to look to the very end where we finally got a solution. In addition, @cnh1995 's solution (post 192 )is a good one, and although the link in post 164 was met with some controversy, I do see the merit in recognizing the difference between the electrostatic conservative E field $E_s$, and the non-conservative induced E field $E_m$. From the $E_s$, you can deduce an electrostatic potential at each point, which @cnh1995 's solution utilizes.

Thanks. I found prof. Lewin's supplement where he proposes a test of the concept. I'll try that first and then this problem before I look at the answer at the end.

 

[bob012345]

I agree. On that one, we all spun our wheels an awful lot, but I think it might be worthwhile to look to the very end where we finally got a solution. In addition, @cnh1995 's solution (post 192 )is a good one, and although the link in post 164 above was met with some controversy, I do see the merit in recognizing the difference between the electrostatic conservative E field $E_s$, and the non-conservative induced E field $E_m$. From the $E_s$, you can deduce an electrostatic potential at each point, which @cnh1995 's solution utilizes. See also post 193, where I worked through some of the mathematical detail of post 192. We're getting sidetracked here though=we should try to stay on the topic at hand of the magnet falling through the loop. :)

Is the solution at the very end for a different problem as I see a ground connection which is not in the original? I see no conserved fields in the original.

 

[Charles Link]

Is the solution at the very end for a different problem as I see a ground connection which is not in the original? I see no conserved fields in the original.

It's the same problem. In the solution of post 192, he chose to set $V_B=0$. The choice was rather arbitrary. Meanwhile the conservative $E$ fields arise rather surprisingly in a problem like that. You can work the problem without them, and solve for the currents with 6 equations and 6 unknowns, (like I did, and I did do that correctly), but if you compute the EMF's and the $IR$ voltage drop for each segment, you will find they generally don't agree. There is an electrostatic potential difference that arises between the various nodes, that must be added to the EMF's to get the voltage drop to be equal to the $IR$ product. This electrostatic potential $V_{ab}$ can be computed from $\mathcal{E}-IR$, and that is what they are wanting for the answer to the problem. This wasn't completely clear to us at first=we found it to be a very educational problem.

 

[bob012345]

It's the same problem. In the solution of post 192, he chose to set $V_B=0$. The choice was rather arbitrary. Meanwhile the conservative $E$ fields arise rather surprisingly in a problem like that. You can work the problem without them, and solve for the currents with 6 equations and 6 unknowns, (like I did, and I did do that correctly), but if you compute the EMF's and the $IR$ voltage drop for each segment, you will find they generally don't agree. There is an electrostatic potential difference that arises between the various nodes, that must be added to the EMF's to get the voltage drop to be equal to the $IR$ product. This electrostatic potential $V_{ab}$ can be computed from $\mathcal{E}-IR$, and that is what they are wanting for the answer to the problem. This wasn't completely clear to us at first=we found it to be a very educational problem.

That seems contrary to the video and supplement from prof. Lewin I have been studying. He never mentioned an electrostatic potential and this problem isn't too different. If the question had been what would a voltmeter read between A and B are you suggesting the answer would be completely different? Also, if it were just the circle would there be an electrostatic potential too?

 

[Charles Link]

That seems contrary to the video and supplement from prof. Lewin I have been studying. He never mentioned an electrostatic potential and this problem isn't too different. If the question had been what would a voltmeter read between A and B are you suggesting the answer would be completely different?

Yes, Professor Lewin gets it right. Even though I was already completely familiar with Professor Lewin's concepts, the homework problem (of post 2 of the "link" of post 164 above) was some new material for me. In post 193 of that homework problem, I showed the mathematics behind the solution of post 192. Since Professor Lewin works simply with EMF's and closed loops, he doesn't need to concern himself with an electrostatic field, because when you go around a loop $\oint E_s \cdot dl=0$, while $\oint E_m \cdot dl=-\dot{\Phi}=\mathcal{E}$. (I solved the problem by Professor Lewin's method, but the solution presented by @cnh1995 in post 192 gets the answer much quicker.)
Meanwhile, yes, the voltmeter does not read this electrostatic potential, and will get different results (per Professor Lewin), depending upon how the leads are connected to the ring.

 

[bob012345]

Yes, Professor Lewin gets it right. Even though I was already completely familiar with Professor Lewin's concepts, the homework problem (of post 2 of the "link" of post 164) was some new material for me. In post 193 of that homework problem, I showed the mathematics behind the solution of post 192. Since Professor Lewin works simply with EMF's and closed loops, he doesn't need to concern himself with an electrostatic field, because when you go around a loop $\oint E_s \cdot dl=0$, while $\oint E_m \cdot dl=-\dot{\Phi}=\mathcal{E}$. (I solved the problem by Professor Lewin's method, but the solution presented in post 192 gets the answer much quicker.)
Meanwhile, yes, the voltmeter does not read this electrostatic potential, and will get different results (per Professor Lewin), depending upon how the leads are connected to the coil.

Thanks. If a voltmeter won't even read it then it sounds more like bookkeeping than physics.

 

[Charles Link]

Thanks. If a voltmeter won't even read it then it sounds more like bookkeeping than physics.

I find the electrostatic potential that can arise in these problems to be an interesting concept. When you consider an inductor that has an induced $E_m$, in order for there to be nearly zero electric field inside the conducting coil of the inductor, there must necessarily be an electrostatic $E_s=-E_m$. If $\int E_m \cdot dl=\mathcal{E}$, we must also have an electrostatic potential of the same amplitude that will exist both inside and outside the inductor, (while the $E_m$ stays inside the inductor. Remember $\oint E_s \cdot dl=0$). For the case of the inductor, (the coil of wire in our experiment above when properly insulated), it can be argued that it is this electrostatic potential that we are measuring on the oscilloscope.

Professor Lewin's case can complicate matters, but with an insulated coil, and when you run both leads together in a twisted pair to the oscilloscope, you normally avoid the problems that Professor Lewin discusses.

 

[hutchphd]

I find the electrostatic potential that can arise in these problems to be an interesting concept.

I cannot disagree more vehemently as we have previously discussed. It is a confusing sideshow IMHO.

 

[bob012345]

I find the electrostatic potential that can arise in these problems to be an interesting concept. When you consider an inductor that has an induced $E_m$, in order for there to be nearly zero electric field inside the conducting coil of the inductor, there must necessarily be an electrostatic $E_s=-E_m$. If $\int E_m \cdot dl=\mathcal{E}$, we must also have an electrostatic potential of the same amplitude that will exist both inside and outside the inductor, (while the $E_m$ stays inside the inductor. Remember $\oint E_s \cdot dl=0$). For the case of the inductor, (the coil of wire in our experiment above when properly insulated), it can be argued that it is this electrostatic potential that we are measuring on the oscilloscope.

Professor Lewin's case can complicate matters, but with an insulated coil, and when you run both leads together in a twisted pair to the oscilloscope, you normally avoid the problems that Professor Lewin discusses.

But if we exactly canceled the $E_m$ field there would be no current. I'd like to see what Kirk McDonald says on the matter. Also, should we start a new thread?

 

[Charles Link]

I cannot disagree more vehemently as we have previously discussed. It is a confusing sideshow IMHO.

The thing we want to do here is make sure that when we measure the voltage from the coil, that we indeed get a good measurement. We got off on a tangent, but the proposed connected ring would not work for this measurement, and the reason, as you mentioned in post 158, is basically because of Professor Lewin's concepts.
Hopefully we can get back on track, but I think it was useful to address the matter in some detail. :)

 

[Charles Link]

But if we exactly canceled the $E_m$ field there would be no current. I'd like to see what Kirk McDonald says on the matter. Also, should we start a new thread?

We certainly should try to avoid getting sidetracked any further.

Just a couple comments on what the OP was asking back around post 153 on whether it is necessary to use insulated wire: The answer is yes. If the coil connects into a closed conductive ring at any point, there will be currents that circulate in the closed loop from the Faraday EMF from the magnet. These currents will generate an opposing magnetic field, and the EMF will be greatly reduced. The goal is to measure the EMF from the changing flux from just the magnet. For that we need to have insulated wire in the coil.

 

[bob012345]

We certainly should try to avoid getting sidetracked any further.

Just a couple comments on what the OP was asking back around post 153 on whether it is necessary to use insulated wire: The answer is yes. If the coil connects into a closed conductive ring at any point, there will be currents that circulate in the closed loop from the Faraday EMF from the magnet. These currents will generate an opposing magnetic field, and the EMF will be greatly reduced. The goal is to measure the EMF from the changing flux from just the magnet. For that we need to have insulated wire in the coil.

So far we have been focusing on the $emf$ produced in the coil with the goal of measuring it. We have ignored the reaction force opposing the magnets fall. I suspect it is small enough to ignore but could be easily calculated since it is just the current in the loops and the field at the loops. In this case the radial field $B_{\rho}$ instead of $B_z$ .

 

[vanhees71]

The important point is that for time-dependent fields the electric field has no scalar potential, because it's curl doesn't vanish due to (SI units)
$$\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{E}=-\partial_t \vec{B}.$$
It's at the heart of this problem in fact! There is no scalar potential of the electric field and no voltage but an EMF (which is a pretty bad old name, I like the German word "Ringspannung" much more, but I don't know whether there's a English translation for that).

 

[hutchphd]

So far we have been focusing on the emf produced in the coil with the goal of measuring it. We have ignored the reaction force opposing the magnets fall. I suspect it is small enough to ignore but could be easily calculated since it is just the current in the loops and the field at the loops. In this ca

If you have an open loop (closed only by the high impedance voltmeter) the current produced by the EMF will be very small and hence the reaction force negligible

 

[Delta2]

The important point is that for time-dependent fields the electric field has no scalar potential, because it's curl doesn't vanish due to (SI units)
$$\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{E}=-\partial_t \vec{B}.$$

No I don't think this is very accurate. The most accurate thing to say is that in the general case, the electric field has a scalar potential $V$ as well as a vector potential $\vec{A}$ that is it is $$\vec{E}=-\nabla V-\frac{\partial \vec{A}}{\partial t}$$

In the lorenz gauge, both V and A obey the non homogeneous wave equations. The source of V waves are the time varying charge densities, while the source of A waves are the time varying current densities.

 

[bob012345]

If you have an open loop (closed only by the high impedance voltmeter) the current produced by the EMF will be very small and hence the reaction force negligible

That makes sense and if one has a closed loop of many turns then one should expect a respectable reaction force like when a magnet falls through a conductive pipe.

 

[bob012345]

No I don't think this is very accurate. The most accurate thing to say is that in the general case, the electric field has a scalar potential $V$ as well as a vector potential $\vec{A}$ that is it is $$\vec{E}=-\nabla V-\frac{\partial \vec{A}}{\partial t}$$

In the lorenz gauge, both V and A obey the non homogeneous wave equations. The source of V waves are the time varying charge densities, while the source of A waves are the time varying current densities.

How is this related to the $emf$ of magnets falling through loops?

 

[Delta2]

How is this related to the $emf$ of magnets falling through loops?

It is related in a way that cannot be expressed by words...
Seriously speaking I don't know how the wave equations can be expressed when we have a magnet that is producing a magnetic field, the V and A formulation is when magnetic field is produced by current density.

 

[bob012345]

It is related in a way that cannot be expressed by words...
Seriously speaking I don't know how the wave equations can be expressed when we have a magnet that is producing a magnetic field, the V and A formulation is when magnetic field is produced by current density.

Probably the derivation for the Maxwell equations based on microscopic considerations of electrons and nuclei in Jackson section 6.7 Second edition.

 

[hutchphd]

That makes sense and if one has a closed loop of many turns then one should expect a respectable reaction force like when a magnet falls through a conductive pipe.

I think the number of turns doesn't matter (only the amount of copper). Suppose I have two turns of longer thinner wire (with half the cross-section) closed once. Then the resistance will quadruple (it is thinner and longer) so the current will be half. But there are now two loops so there is no net change in the "back" field. You think this through until we are sure. This is why a pipe works fine also I reckon...

 

[bob012345]

I think the number of turns doesn't matter (only the amount of copper). Suppose I have two turns of longer thinner wire (with half the cross-section) closed once. Then the resistance will quadruple (it is thinner and longer) so the current will be half. But there are now two loops so there is no net change in the "back" field. You think this through until we are sure. This is why a pipe works fine also I reckon...

What you say is true, a coil of one turn of cross sectional area $A$ gives the same reaction force as two turns of area $A/2$. I only meant that an $N$ turn loop is better than a one turn loop of the same wire if you wanted a measurable effect since reaction force goes as $B N I$ and $I$ is the same for one loop or many since the increase in resistance due to length is countered by the increase $emf$ due to the number of turns.

 

[Charles Link]

a follow-up on this one: In post 157, the OP @Einstein44 says he finished the experiment. Could you @Einstein44 furnish a little more detail: Did you use an oscilloscope?, and did you get a curve similar to @bob012345 's of post 123? Hopefully you found the formulas derived by @hutchphd in posts 120 and 122 of much use. Could enjoy getting a little more feedback on your experimental results.

 

[Einstein44]

a follow-up on this one: In post 157, the OP @Einstein44 says he finished the experiment. Could you @Einstein44 furnish a little more detail: Did you use an oscilloscope?, and did you get a curve similar to @bob012345 's of post 123? Hopefully you found the formulas derived by @hutchphd in posts 120 and 122 of much use. Could enjoy getting a little more feedback on your experimental results.

I didn't use an oscilloscope, because that was too complicated to use, but instead I went for a voltage probe, which displays the voltage on the computer like an oscilloscope would. The formula you have derived were helpful for understanding, however I wanted to do this project on my own, instead of relying on other people's work, so I made some simplifying assumptions and derived another formula which shares some similarities with the one you derived.
I am not sure if this is a good idea if I talk in more detail about the experimental results, as I am scared that I am going to get penalised for doing so, since I will be using those. If you want I can send you a private message and explain this to you.

 

[Charles Link]

For the voltage probe=perhaps an "a to d" converter, (analog to digital), if it has a fast enough speed, it would be just as good as an oscilloscope. It is ok if your project is being graded or judged. It is always fun to see some experimental results, but I am confident that if you did the experiment well, that you did get results similar to what we forecast in the posts around 123. Glad we were able to be of assistance. You do have a very interesting experiment. :)

 

[vanhees71]

I didn't use an oscilloscope, because that was too complicated to use, but instead I went for a voltage probe, which displays the voltage on the computer like an oscilloscope would. The formula you have derived were helpful for understanding, however I wanted to do this project on my own, instead of relying on other people's work, so I made some simplifying assumptions and derived another formula which shares some similarities with the one you derived.
I am not sure if this is a good idea if I talk in more detail about the experimental results, as I am scared that I am going to get penalised for doing so, since I will be using those. If you want I can send you a private message and explain this to you.

Just for curiosity: Why should you get penalised for sharing your experimental results?

 

[Einstein44]

For the voltage probe=perhaps an "a to d" converter, (analog to digital), if it has a fast enough speed, it would be just as good as an oscilloscope. It is ok if your project is being graded or judged. It is always fun to see some experimental results, but I am confident that if you did the experiment well, that you did get results similar to what we forecast in the posts around 123. Glad we were able to be of assistance. You do have a very interesting experiment. :)

Yes, thank you :) The results were good and pretty accurate I believe, so that turned out well. The voltage probe did the job, it was possible to set it to record data at higher speeds, so this was no problem. Thanks to everyone who contributed as well. I have learned a lot, which is always what I am aiming for.

 

[Einstein44]

Just for curiosity: Why should you get penalised for sharing your experimental results?

The problem is this is a graded project and I am not sure if I would be allowed to share this with other people who could help with that. Also, I think that if I post my results on here, it would appear as plagiarism if an originality check is made (even though they are mine), so I just want to avoid it altogether just to be sure I am not making a mistake here.

Edit: which is why I decided to do my own derivation... even though the one suggested on here was really good, I can't really use it since it was posted here, although it is still good to know other ways of solving these problems.

 

[Charles Link]

The problem is this is a graded project and I am not sure if I would be allowed to share this with other people who could help with that. Also, I think that if I post my results on here, it would appear as plagiarism if an originality check is made (even though they are mine), so I just want to avoid it altogether just to be sure I am not making a mistake here.

Edit: which is why I decided to do my own derivation... even though the one suggested on here was really good, I can't really use it since it was posted here, although it is still good to know other ways of solving these problems.

From what I could tell, the available on-line literature on this topic was somewhat limited. You found a good "link" with post 25, but even that was somewhat difficult to work with. I think @hutchphd 's computation in post 120 is first-rate, and it could be part of standard textbook type literature on the topic. I believe you also posted a "link" to someone that had done a variation of this experiment, (Edit: I'm referring to post 110, and now I see @bob012345 posted the "link"), but the calculations in the "link" are not terribly advanced, and @hutchphd 's calculation actually fills in this hole that previously existed in the on-line literature. I think it should be ok to seek higher expertise when the topic is not treated in enough detail in the write-ups that you do find on-line.

 

[Einstein44]

From what I could tell, the available on-line literature on this topic was somewhat limited. You found a good "link" with post 25, but even that was somewhat difficult to work with. I think @hutchphd 's computation in post 120 is first-rate, and it could be part of standard textbook type literature on the topic. I believe you also posted a "link" to someone that had done a variation of this experiment, (Edit: I'm referring to post 110, and now I see @bob012345 posted it), but his calculations were not terribly advanced, and @hutchphd 's calculation actually fills in this hole that previously existed in the on-line literature. I think it should be ok to seek higher expertise when the topic is not treated in enough detail in the write-ups that you do find on-line.

Yes, I think the same thing. Although I don't believe they would accept me taking the exact model he has done and use that, but maybe getting a little help perhaps is ok...

 

[Charles Link]

Yes, I think the same thing. Although I don't believe they would accept me taking the exact model he has done and use that, but maybe getting a little help perhaps is ok...

@hutchphd 's calculations with the poles along with computing the flux from the solid angle are really simple, but also really the ideal solution for this problem. I understand your reluctance to use it, but in the future, if anyone else comes up with the same experiment, it will be posts 120-123 of this thread that I will refer them to. In that sense, you also made a contribution to this by asking the right questions. :)

additional note: posts 138-139 are also of interest here. The $M$ of $B=\mu_o H+M$ makes things slightly more complex in computing the flux. From a theoretical standpoint, when the derivative is taken on @hutchphd 's formula (post 120) for the flux, it gives exactly what we are looking for, as discussed in post 139. This makes the solution of posts 120-123 all the better, and we really couldn't ask for more. If you were to compare your results to those that are predicted here, I think you would find that they match to a "T".

 

[vanhees71]

The American Journal of Physics has some studies of this kind (both experimental and theoretical):

https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2744047
https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4979655

 

[rude man]

I have been trying to calculate the magnetic flux thought a single loop of wire occurring from a magnet (meaning it has a nonuniform field), so I have the following equation:
Φ=∮BdAcosθ
Now my problem is that I do not know how to calculate the magnetic field strength (B)of that magnet (which has a cylindrical shape) in order to find out its flux. I have not seen a clear answer to this on the internet, although I think that is is possible to use the Biot Savart equation in some form to do this?

Since the B field around your magnet is caused by amperian currents circulating on the sides of the magnet, if the magnet is a right circular cylindrical you may assume that the B field resembles that of a solenoid of same physical shape.

To find the equivalent amperian current you could experimentally determine the magnetic dipole moment $\bf \mu$ of your magnet, probably best by determining the torque $\bf \tau$ exerted on the magnet by an external known $\bf B$ field. $\bf \tau = \bf \mu \times \bf B$. For the equivalent solenoid, $\mu = i ~ \times ~area~ of~ the ~ solenoid~ \times number~ ot~ turns$., i = solenoid current = equivalent amperian current.

 

[Charles Link]

@rude man This one we pretty much solved. We made it a joint effort. The solution that we found to work is found in posts 120-123. See also post 196 above.