Is paramagnetized liquid oxygen itself a magnet?

AI Thread Summary
Liquid oxygen is paramagnetic and exhibits magnetization when placed in a magnetic field, proportional to the field's strength. However, it does not emit its own magnetic field and cannot be classified as a magnet because it lacks persistent magnetization once removed from the field. The definition of a magnet typically requires the ability to maintain magnetization independently. While in a magnetic field, liquid oxygen is influenced by the larger field rather than generating its own. Therefore, it is not considered a magnet in the traditional sense.
dlwilliamson
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
1. When liquid oxygen, being paramagnetic, is placed in a magnetic field it possesses magnetization in direct proportion to the field strength.



2. Does this mean that it emits a magnetic field and is itself a magnet while in this field



3. or is it just a part of the larger magnetic field it is immersed in?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I believe because liquid oxygen is paramagnetic, and not ferromagnetic, it cannot be called a magnet. But this depends on your definition of a magnet. I think the official definition is that a magnet must hold a persistent magnetisation, which oxygen would not do once removed from a magnetic field.
 
Yes, But does it have its own magnetic field while in the larger magnetic field?
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'

Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'

TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
View full post »

Thread 'Prove that evolution is constant (Provide at least two arguments to support your position)'

I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
View full post »

Similar threads

B Magnetic fields attracting two disc-shaped magnets
Replies
11
Views
2K
I How induction works within a coil (nuances of it)
Replies
6
Views
2K
I Charge movement relative to magnetic field frame dependence/invariance
Replies
5
Views
849
B Not sure about the magnetic flux (phi) depending on a cosine function
Replies
9
Views
1K
B Experiment issues (electromagnetism)
Replies
42
Views
2K
Why magnet can attract liquid oxygen but not aluminium?both paramagnet
Replies
3
Views
3K
I Railgun: Significant magnetic field where projectile is?
Replies
8
Views
1K
B Quantum teleportation of usable information
Replies
19
Views
2K
I Is this analogy between Magnetic Force and Gravitational Force accurate in helping to understand what contributes more to a stronger magnetic force?
Replies
11
Views
2K
I Homopolar generator question: Magnetic “wake”
Replies
7
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top