Field due to Magnetic Materials

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between the magnetic fields H and B in the context of a paramagnetic or diamagnetic sphere subjected to an external magnetic field of H = 10 Oe. It is noted that while B and H are essentially equal outside the material, the magnetization (M) of the sphere does influence the fields outside. The participants express confusion about the implications of the equation H = (1/μ)B - M, questioning whether H refers to the applied field or the total field after considering the material's contributions. There is a consensus that while H can be set externally, the actual field around the sphere is not uniform due to the sphere's magnetic properties. The discussion highlights the complexities of understanding magnetic fields in relation to material magnetization.
physiguy
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Say you have a paramagnetic (or diamagnetic) sphere (or some other shape) and you apply a field of H = 10 Oe. Now, we have H=(1/\mu)B-M.

That would indicate that outside of the material, B and H are essentially the same, right? B = 10 Gauss, outside of the material.

But shouldn't the magnetization of the material affect the field outside, as well?

Certainly if these were permanent magnets it would. I would expect that in all cases we would want to integrate M over the volume of our shape, then calculate the field from that dipole moment. But these equations seem to suggest that would be zero. Or am I misunderstanding their terms?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The magnetization of the material affects both fields outside, but B and H are still equal.
 
So let's say that I have a sphere (radius R) of permeability \mu and I apply a field H = 10 Oe. Would it be correct to say that the field around the sphere is not uniformly 10 Oe, because the sphere changes its value? (And also correct that B = H?)

If so, what good is H=(1/\mu_0)B-M?
 
Perhaps my question is not totally clear.

In H=(1/u)B-M, is H the applied field, or the total field, after the contributions of the magnetic material? And if it is the total field, how does this do us any good? I have always heard that H is what you "set on the dial."
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top