Increase Electromagnet Strength Without Additional Energy

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the feasibility of increasing electromagnet strength without additional energy by reducing the core area to concentrate the magnetic field. While the theoretical formula suggests that reducing the area should increase magnetic field density (B) and lifting force proportionally, simulations indicate a much smaller increase in B than expected. Users question the accuracy of the simulation and explore factors such as the distance between magnets and the homogeneity of B within the surface. Despite various configurations tested, the observed amplification of B consistently falls short of theoretical predictions, leading to concerns about magnetic flux loss. The conversation highlights the complexities of electromagnet design and the challenges in achieving desired magnetic field enhancements.
Malverin
Messages
139
Reaction score
7
Hello,
If we have an electromagnet
370px-Electromagnet_with_gap.svg.png

with some lifting force, for example 10N, and make core area smaller at the ends, to concentrate the magnetic field (without saturating the core)

Magnetic-concentrators-used-in-Minisens.jpg


according to the formula, for magnetic flux

7e9e42656cdd33eb62af4b11645baae4.png


magnetic field density B , will be greater.

For example if we make area, 4 times smaller we will get 4 times greater B

Then electromagnet force will increase too, and become 4 time greater

0d4a229eb6eaca489af15547277399f7.png


So we get more force, without puting in additional energy.
But I have made a magnetic field simulation in FEMM
http://www.femm.info/wiki/HomePage

and there is an increase in B, but much smaller than this according to the formula.
Is there something wrong with the simulation, or my thoughts are wrong...?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_flux

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnet
 
Physics news on Phys.org
and there is an increase in B, but much smaller than this according to the formula.
What do you get as result?

Is your distance between the magnets much smaller than the length scale of the surface, even with the smaller surface?
Is B homogeneous within that surface?
 
mfb said:
What do you get as result?

Is your distance between the magnets much smaller than the length scale of the surface, even with the smaller surface?
Is B homogeneous within that surface?

The result was about 2 times increase in B, with area ratio of 5
Yes, the distance is much smaller than the length scale of the surface.
I have measured the field in the core too (in point near the smaler surface, and in point near the big surface)
Inside the core B change should be according to formula I think (there are minimum or no losses inside), but it is not...
 
Here is a screenshot of Neodymium magnet simulation. Area ratio is 19 , B increase is about 3 times. So this means more then 80 per cent flux loss! How is that possible?
Permeability of air is so much smaller. Where did the flux go?
 

Attachments

  • Konus 9.jpg
    Konus 9.jpg
    54.5 KB · Views: 492
Last edited:
That lacks the opposing magnet, the return yoke, and it looks too sharp. As you can see at the field lines, most of the field goes through the sides.
 
mfb said:
That lacks the opposing magnet, the return yoke, and it looks too sharp. As you can see at the field lines, most of the field goes through the sides.

The return yoke to close the loop makes things worse...

This has no sense...:confused:
 

Attachments

  • Konus 19.jpg
    Konus 19.jpg
    44.5 KB · Views: 764
This does not look like your original sketch. And 2 Tesla is a typical saturation strength... are you sure you do not have saturation?
 
mfb said:
This does not look like your original sketch. And 2 Tesla is a typical saturation strength... are you sure you do not have saturation?

Saturation is not the problem. I have used weaker fields and the ratio is the same.
There can be many variants of this setup. The principal is important.
I have tried differen forms and ratios, and increase in B is never equal to this in the formula.
Not even close...
 
Last edited:
Hmm well, it cannot be exact, but I would have expected that you can get a reasonable amplification. Well okay, you get an amplification...
 
Back
Top