Understanding Magnetic H Field Strength: MMF, Effective Length & Reluctance

  • Thread starter Thread starter bootsnbraces
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Field Magnetic
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on understanding the relationship between magnetic field strength (H), magnetomotive force (MMF), effective length, and reluctance. It highlights that while H field strength is calculated as MMF divided by effective length, this does not fully account for the effects of reluctance, particularly in different materials. The comparison between magnetic and electric fields illustrates that while the equations may be mathematically similar, the physical interactions differ significantly, with ferromagnetic materials enhancing magnetic fields and dielectrics weakening electric fields. The conversation emphasizes the importance of recognizing these differences to avoid confusion in electromagnetism. Ultimately, understanding these principles can simplify calculations in magnetic circuits by drawing parallels to electric circuits.
bootsnbraces
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Hi all, I am trying to get my head around some experiment results but I am struggling a bit.
According to my notes H field strength is equal to MMF / effective length

However this doesn't take into account the effects of reluctance? Eg a toroid made from 2m of iron bar and a straight 1m length of iron bar will require the same mmf to generate the same H field regardless that in one case 50% of the path is through the low permitivitty of air?

can anyone shed some light on this for me please:confused:

thanks in advance guys and girls
 
Physics news on Phys.org
please -- someone's got to have a better understanding of this than me lol
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's kind of similar to the way electric fields work. If you apply e.g. 1V to a parallel plate capacitor with a gap of 1mm you get 1000V/m independant of the permittivity of the dielectric.
Understanding the equations of electromagnetism becomes easier if you realize that the units and equations used in the SI system are defined such that the magnetic H field behaves mathematically equivalent to the electric E field. And B equivalent to D. That's just mathematically though and only in the SI system. The physical reality is basically the opposite of this, which can cause confusion. That has to do with the fact that matter interacts differently with magnetic fields than with electric fields. A dielectric material will weaken an E field. A ferromagnetic material will strengthen a B field.

Let's compare a few equations here.

Electric capacitance: C = q/V, measured in As/V
But you could also write: C = \Phi_D/V
Magnetic permeance: P = \Phi_B/NI, measured in Vs/A

So the magnetic permeance is mathematically equivalent to the electric capacitance.

E = EMF/l

H = MMF/l

D = \epsilon E

B = \mu H

In fact when calculating a magnetic circuit you can usually look at the mathematically equivalent electric circuit ( by replacing B with D, H with E, C with P, V with A, etc. ), do all the calculations with that and in the end transform the results back.
 
Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'
So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...
Back
Top