Force derived from magnetic energy of a current carrying spring

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation of a derived force from the magnetic energy of a current-carrying spring. Participants explore theoretical aspects, mathematical derivations, and potential applications related to the behavior of the spring under magnetic influence.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the magnetic energy formula for a current-carrying spring and derives a quantity with dimensions of force, questioning its interpretation and action location.
  • Another participant argues that the derived quantity, while having units of force, does not act as a force but represents energy per unit length required to extend the spring.
  • A participant suggests parameterizing the spring and calculating the magnetic force on segments using the Biot-Savart law, considering equilibrium with axial stresses.
  • Multiple participants mention the Maxwell stress tensor as a tool for deriving forces from electromagnetic fields.
  • There is a discussion about an alternate interpretation of the derived force as the additional force needed to stretch the spring when current is applied, though uncertainty about the implications on geometry is expressed.
  • Another participant elaborates on the total energy of the system, deriving an expression for the external force required to hold the spring in place, noting that the assumption of constant current may not be accurate.
  • Further discussion includes the impact of superconductivity on the current and energy relations, leading to a revised expression for the external force that aligns more closely with expectations.
  • Concerns are raised about the assumptions made regarding the geometry of the spring and the simplifications used in the analysis.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of the derived quantity and its implications, indicating that multiple competing interpretations remain unresolved throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of assumptions regarding geometry and the behavior of the current in their analyses, indicating that these factors may significantly influence the derived expressions and interpretations.

etotheipi
The magnetic energy of a current carrying spring, with ##N## turns, length ##x## and cross sectional area ##A##, is $$E_m = \frac{\mu_0 N^2 I^2 A}{2x}$$The (negated) spatial derivative of this yields a quantity with dimensions of force,$$F = - \frac{dE_m}{dx} = \frac{\mu_0 N^2 I^2 A}{2x^2}$$How can we interpret this quantity, and where specifically does it act? Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
etotheipi said:
How can we interpret this quantity, and where specifically does it act?
It doesn’t act anywhere. It has units of force but it isn’t force. It is the energy per unit length required to make the configuration longer.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71, Adesh and etotheipi
Thanks, I see! The term is only applicable in a 'd'Alemberts principle' sense.

I wonder if it's possible to parameterise the spring with something like ##\vec{r}(\lambda) = (a\cos{\omega \lambda}, a\sin{\omega \lambda}, b\lambda##) and calculate explicitly the magnetic force on any given segment of spring with Biot-Savart. Presumably in the equilibrium case that would be balanced by axial stresses in the adjacent pieces of spring. It would be interesting to see if that bears any resemblance to the equation above (though I would suspect not!).

Maybe the behaviour of a current carrying spring would be easier to analyse using a magnetic pressure approach. I'll have to do a bit more reading!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You probably want to look into the Maxwell stress tensor. It can be used to get forces from the fields.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and etotheipi
Dale said:
You probably want to look into the Maxwell stress tensor. It can be used to get forces from the fields.

Cool, I'll give it a go and see how far I get. I've found a few references treating similar problems, although I haven't look at their maths in too much detail yet:

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/nuclear...spring-2003/lecture-notes/forces_stresses.pdf

https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/69C/jresv69Cn4p287_A1b.pdf

https://dqmp.unige.ch/senatore/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Senatore_Lecture10_v2018.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and Dale
Dale said:
It doesn’t act anywhere. It has units of force but it isn’t force. It is the energy per unit length required to make the configuration longer.
Wouldn't an alternate interpretation be the force that must be added to ##kdx## in order to stretch the spring by the same ##dx## when the current is turned on?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Adesh
kuruman said:
Wouldn't an alternate interpretation be the force that must be added to ##kdx## in order to stretch the spring by the same ##dx## when the current is turned on?
Possibly, but I am not certain because that would change the geometry of the spring. I can’t recall if that formula was based on some important assumptions about the geometry.
 
kuruman said:
Wouldn't an alternate interpretation be the force that must be added to ##kdx## in order to stretch the spring by the same ##dx## when the current is turned on?

That could work; the total energy of the system is$$E = \frac{\mu_0 N^2 I^2 A}{2x} + \frac{1}{2}k(x-x_0)^2$$the work done by an external force stretching the spring over an extra incremental extension ##dx## is, if the current is assumed constant,$$F dx = dE = -\frac{\mu_0 N^2 I^2 A}{2x^2} dx + k(x-x_0)dx$$so the external force holding the spring in place is$$F = -\frac{\mu_0 N^2 I^2 A}{2x^2} + k(x-x_0)$$The assumption that the current is constant is slightly off, though, not least because this result seems to show that the external force required is actually less than without the current (when we know full well that the coils will attract each other and try to compress the coil axially).

We can improve this if we make some assumptions about the coil. For instance if it is superconducting, then ##\Phi## is constant always and we must have that ##I = \frac{x}{x_0}I_0 ##, which gives us the relation$$E = \frac{\mu_0 N^2 I_0^2 A}{2x_0^2}x + \frac{1}{2}k(x-x_0)^2$$With the same method, we can now determine the external force required to hold the spring as$$F = \frac{\mu_0 N^2 I_0^2 A}{x_0^2} + k(x-x_0)$$which is much more like we expect!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dale said:
Possibly, but I am not certain because that would change the geometry of the spring. I can’t recall if that formula was based on some important assumptions about the geometry.

You might be right that in a more advanced treatment we need to worry about the geometry, I just took the simplest approach and worked in the ##x\gg r## regime, so that we can take the magnetic field as uniform along the one edge of a rectangular closed curve that passes through the solenoid$$\oint_C \vec{B} \cdot d\vec{r} = Bx = \mu_0 N I \implies B = \frac{\mu_0 N I}{x}$$ $$\Phi = NBA = \frac{\mu_0 N^2 I A}{x} = LI \implies L = \frac{\mu_0 N^2 A}{x}$$ $$E_m = \frac{1}{2}LI^2 = \frac{\mu_0 N^2 I^2 A}{2x}$$
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dale

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K