Heat Transfer Between Reservoirs due to Magnetic Fields

SonOfOle
Messages
41
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A system consists of N pairs of non-interacting, spin 1/2 particles with magnetic moment \mu. It is initially immersed in a uniform magnetic field H_{i} while it is in thermal equilibrium with a reservoir at temperature T_{i}. While remaining in thermal equilibrium with the reservoir, the magnetic field increased to a value of H_{f}. At this point the system is isolated from the reservoir and the magnetic field returns adiabatically to H_{i}. The system is then brought into thermal equilibrium with a second reservoir at temperature T_{f}.

(A) How much work is done on the system by the magnetic field?

(B) How much heat is transferred between the two reservoirs?


Homework Equations


U_{total}=N \mu H
\delta U = Q + W


The Attempt at a Solution



(A) Magnetic fields can't do work, so W=0.
(B) Recall relevant equations, so N \mu H = Q.

This seems like it, but I don't think it is. The temperature doesn't play a role. Does it mean the additional heat transferred to the solution in (B) is the change in energy due to temperature (e.g. \delta U = n R \delta T?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Magnetic fields can't do work
Is one sure about that. If magnetic field flips a magnetic dipole or attracts a metal (e.g. ferromagnetic) object, what is doing the work?

Are all the magnetic moments aligned initially?

How does the magnitudes of the applied magnetic fields compare with the field strength of the magnetic dipole?
 
Hey Astronuc, thanks for the reply. To honestly reply to your questions, I'm not sure. This is a problem I ran into as I'm reviewing past qualification exams in preparation for my upcoming one in August.

My E&M class was weak in the "M", and so I'm wondering if you--or anyone--could point me in the right direction. I've got Griffiths Intro to Electrodynamics, so even referring to places in there to read would help.

Thanks in advance.
 
To solve this, I first used the units to work out that a= m* a/m, i.e. t=z/λ. This would allow you to determine the time duration within an interval section by section and then add this to the previous ones to obtain the age of the respective layer. However, this would require a constant thickness per year for each interval. However, since this is most likely not the case, my next consideration was that the age must be the integral of a 1/λ(z) function, which I cannot model.
Back
Top