Doubt regarding definition of magnetic susceptibility

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the definitions of intensity of magnetization (I), magnetizing force (H), and magnetic susceptibility (Xm). Intensity of magnetization represents how much a material is magnetized, while magnetizing force indicates how effectively a magnetic field can magnetize a material. The confusion arises when considering that large values of both I and H should imply greater magnetic susceptibility, yet the formula Xm = I/H suggests the opposite when H increases. Participants express uncertainty about the accuracy of definitions and their implications, questioning whether the textbook explanations align with the mathematical relationships. The conversation encourages further exploration of reliable sources, like Wikipedia, to clarify these concepts.
hale2bopp
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Intensity of magnetisation(I) is defined as the magnetic moment per unit volume of the material. It represents the extent to which a specimen is magnetised.

I=M/V

Magnetising force or magnetising intensity(H) is defined as the number of ampere turns flowing round unit length of toroidal solenoid to produce the magnetic induction B, in the solenoid.
It represents the degree to which a magnetic field can magnetise a material.

H=nI

Magnetic susceptibility (Xm) of materials is defined as the ratio of intensity of magnetsiation of that material to the magnetising intensity of the magnetic field.
It represents the ease with which a specimen can be magnetised.

Xm=I/H

My question is, according to the definitions and what they represent, of I and H, if I and H are large, doesn't it mean that the extent to which the specimen is magnetised , and the degree to which a magnetic field can magnetise the specimen, are more? In that case, that would make magnetic susceptibility more since the specimen can be more easily magnetised. Then how come according to the formula, is H is more, Xm is less? Is there something missing in the definition, or something wrong in my understanding?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In that case, that would make magnetic susceptibility more since the specimen can be more easily magnetised.

I don't think this statement is accurate: [What is your source? ]

It represents the degree to which a magnetic field can magnetise a material.
 
These definitions and what they represent, were copied out of my school textbook. It seems to me, that the definitions and what they represent, are contradicting the mathematical definition. So is what they have written as 'what the quantities represent', wrong?
 
Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'
So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...
Back
Top