Magnetic field variation with distance

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the variation of magnetic field strength (B) with distance (x) from magnets, highlighting the lack of a standard formula due to complex configurations and polarities. The user presents two empirical functions, f(x) = 53.491265*0.48728247^x and f(x) = 85.849644*0.28785481^x, derived from their measurements, indicating B_0 values at the surface. Despite the observed relationships, the user questions the viability of their data and seeks advice on establishing a more reliable relationship. The conversation emphasizes the importance of theoretical validation alongside empirical data.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of magnetic field concepts and measurements
  • Familiarity with empirical data analysis techniques
  • Knowledge of mathematical modeling and function fitting
  • Basic principles of physics related to magnetism
NEXT STEPS
  • Research theoretical models of magnetic field variation, such as the inverse square law
  • Learn about curve fitting techniques using tools like Python's SciPy library
  • Explore methods for validating empirical data against theoretical predictions
  • Investigate the impact of magnet configuration on magnetic field measurements
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, engineers, and researchers interested in magnetism, as well as students studying electromagnetic theory and data analysis in experimental physics.

dfx
Messages
59
Reaction score
1
First of all I have put in a lot of research into this and I do realize there is no standard formula for the variation of B with the distance because the configuration/polarities and so on tend to get complicated.

However, part of my investigation involves measuring the variation of the magnetic field with the distance. The values I have got so far tend to indicate no standard relationship and I get really ugly functions like:

[tex]f(x) = 53.491265*0.48728247^x<br /> <br /> and f(x) = 85.849644*0.28785481^x[/tex]

showing the magnetic field as function of distance, x for 2 separate magnets.

The initial values, 53... and 85... are [tex]B_0[/tex] which is the magnetic field at the surface (distance 0).

The graph digitally plotted seems to intersect through only 2 out of 5 points (it JUST shaves the error bars of some other points).

I am tempted to say the relationship holds for my magnets. While I do realize in physics what you observe is true, are such almost random relationship possible? Would my data be viable? Can you advise any other way of establishing the relationship?

PLEASE HELP! Advice/feedback much appreciated. :)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Delta2
Physics news on Phys.org
Basing a formula purely on data is hard to justify. You can have little confidence what happens beyond the range you tested. In this case, you can calculate from theory what the asymptotic behaviour must be and check that your formula behaves the same way. (It doesn't.)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Delta2

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K