Do Multiple Magnets Increase Magnetic Chain Strength Proportionally?

rfoo
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Does the number of attached identical magnets linearly relate to the number of paper clips/bolts/nuts that are magnetically chained together?


Homework Equations


I have no idea.


The Attempt at a Solution


Yes they are linearly related?

I am guessing that yes it is linear. But I need equations and a full explanation on why this is. Please help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
huh? I don't understand your question. Can you show a diagram?
 
adjacent said:
huh? I don't understand your question. Can you show a diagram?

that's all i am given. there is no diagram or anything...
 
adjacent said:
huh? I don't understand your question. Can you show a diagram?

ok i think i sort of understand what this question is asking. it is saying, if there are more magnets attached to each other, will there be proportionately more papersclips that will attract to the magnets? basically like... how does stacking a bunch of magnets increase the strength of them? provide equations and such
 
rfoo said:
ok i think i sort of understand what this question is asking. it is saying, if there are more magnets attached to each other, will there be proportionately more papersclips that will attract to the magnets? basically like... how does stacking a bunch of magnets increase the strength of them? provide equations and such

For ferromagnets, we assume the magnetization is linear with field:

\vec M = \chi_m \vec H

So for ferromagnets, yes they are linearly related.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top