Remnant Magnetisation varying with input amplitude

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the measurement of remnant magnetisation in hysteresis loops using a permalloy core, revealing a sinusoidal relationship with varying input amplitude. This behavior is attributed to the linear magnetic response of permalloy, characterized by a constant magnetic susceptibility, χm(ω). In contrast, when using silver steel or mild steel, the sinusoidal relationship disappears, likely due to their non-linear magnetic properties. The mathematical framework supporting these observations includes the equations for linear response theory and the convolution theorem.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of hysteresis loops and magnetic materials
  • Familiarity with magnetic susceptibility, specifically χm(ω)
  • Knowledge of linear response theory in magnetism
  • Basic grasp of Fourier transforms and their applications in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties of permalloy and its applications in magnetic devices
  • Study the differences in magnetic behavior between soft and hard magnetic materials
  • Explore the mathematical foundations of linear response theory in electromagnetism
  • Learn about the convolution theorem and its implications in physical systems
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, materials scientists, and engineers involved in magnetic material research and applications, particularly those studying hysteresis and magnetic susceptibility.

Cortizza
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Thread moved from the techniccal forums, so no Homework Help Template is shown
In a lab we had to measure the remnant magnetisation of a hysteresis loop with a permalloy core. The amplitude of the input sinusoidal wave was varied and the resulting remnant magnetisation measured. This was then plotted resulting in the remnant magnetisation varying sinusoidal with the input amplitude. When the core was changed to silver steel or mild steel the sinusoidal relationship no longer occurred.
Why did the remnance vary sinusoidally with amplitude only for the permalloy sample?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Cortizza said:
In a lab we had to measure the remnant magnetisation of a hysteresis loop with a permalloy core. The amplitude of the input sinusoidal wave was varied and the resulting remnant magnetisation measured. This was then plotted resulting in the remnant magnetisation varying sinusoidal with the input amplitude. When the core was changed to silver steel or mild steel the sinusoidal relationship no longer occurred.
Why did the remnance vary sinusoidally with amplitude only for the permalloy sample?
Welcome to the PF.

Have you found datasheets or other technical information on those core materials? You should be able to find Google Images showing the hysteresis curves as you increase the amplitude of the excitation.
 
I'm not sure of your definition of "remnant magnetization", but it sounds like you were basically measuring ## \chi_m(\omega) ## , where ## \vec{M}(\omega)=\chi_m(\omega) \vec{H}(\omega) ##. The vector ## \vec{H}(\omega) ## is the applied magnetic field at frequency ## \omega ## from the solenoid. And ## \chi_m(\omega) ## is the magnetic susceptibility=it is in general frequency dependent. ( Presumably you measured ## \chi_m(\omega) ## for only one specific frequency, which is ok).## \\ ## In the first case, you must have had a material where the response was linear, so that ## \chi_m(\omega) ## is a constant for a given frequency (sometimes a complex one, so that a phase delay can be included in the response). ## \\ ## For the other materials, it is likely they are more like a permanent magnet, where no such linear response occurs. You simply can not write a linear equation for these materials relating ## \vec{M}(\omega) ## to ## \vec{H}(\omega) ##. ## \\ ## There is one additional item that may be worth including if you have any mathematical background in linear response theory: The equation ## \vec{M}(t)=\int\limits_{- \infty}^{t} \chi_m(t-t') \vec{H}(t') \, dt' ## is applicable if the system responds linearly. The equation ## \vec{M}(\omega)=\chi_m(\omega) \vec{H}(\omega) ## follows from the convolution theorem, where in this last equation, these are all Fourier transforms of the quantities of the integral equation.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
12K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K