Increase Electromagnet Strength Without Additional Energy

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Malverin
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Electromagnet Strength
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the potential to increase the strength of an electromagnet without adding additional energy by altering the core area to concentrate the magnetic field. Participants explore the implications of this approach through simulations and theoretical considerations, focusing on the relationship between magnetic field density and core geometry.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that reducing the core area of an electromagnet should theoretically increase the magnetic field density (B) and the lifting force proportionally, based on the formula for magnetic flux.
  • Another participant questions the results obtained from simulations, asking if the distance between magnets is significantly smaller than the length scale of the surface and whether B is homogeneous within that surface.
  • A participant reports a measured increase in B of about two times with an area ratio of five, but expresses confusion about why this increase is not as large as predicted by the formula.
  • One participant shares a simulation result showing a threefold increase in B with an area ratio of nineteen, raising concerns about significant flux loss and questioning where the flux has gone.
  • Another participant notes the absence of an opposing magnet and return yoke in the simulation, suggesting that this may lead to field lines escaping through the sides.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential for saturation, with one participant asserting that saturation is not the issue, as weaker fields yield similar ratios.
  • Another participant expresses surprise that the amplification of B is not closer to the theoretical expectations, acknowledging that while some amplification occurs, it is not as significant as anticipated.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the effectiveness of the proposed method for increasing electromagnet strength. There are competing views regarding the results of simulations, the role of saturation, and the implications of core geometry on magnetic field density.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential limitations in their simulations, including assumptions about homogeneity and the impact of missing components like return yokes. There is also uncertainty regarding the exact relationship between core area and magnetic field density, as well as the effects of saturation.

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: 513
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: 788
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...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K