What will happen if I assemble magnets with flush joints and the same polarity?

AI Thread Summary
Assembling magnets with flush joints and the same polarity results in a non-magnetic structure due to the opposing magnetic fields cancelling each other out. The discussion emphasizes that even with high coercivity materials like samarium-cobalt, the magnetic field lines will not behave as expected when the pieces are bonded together. Instead of creating a strong magnetic entity, the assembly may lead to a configuration that traps magnetic flux, potentially resembling a magnetic monopole. Theoretical considerations suggest that the final assembly could exhibit unique magnetic properties, but practical outcomes indicate a lack of magnetism. Ultimately, the experiment highlights the complexities of magnetic interactions in assembled structures.
danR
Messages
352
Reaction score
4
I cut some magnets into buckeyball-faced polyhedra and bond the pieces together so that all joints are completely flush. Assume the joints are perfectly planar-flush, and bonded with a monolayer of something with a small molecular size. Or better yet, the thing is assembled in a vacuum and the unoxidized faces bond together directly

The pieces all have with the same polarity outward.

What do I have?

Edit:The material is samarium-cobalt with very high coercivity. Just to make isolated local domains a wee bit harder to posit as the outcome.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You haven't actually done this, because if you had you would notice that what you built is fairly non-magnetic.

Draw the field lines of the pieces. Where do the field lines go when you glue them together?
 
Vanadium 50 said:
You haven't actually done this, because if you had you would notice that what you built is fairly non-magnetic.

Draw the field lines of the pieces. Where do the field lines go when you glue them together?

1. Of course I haven't done it. It's a gedankenexperiment.

2. You tell me. It's high coercivity samarium-cobalt. Those lines will not be so easily dissuaded by mere assembly. Assembly can proceed several ways, but if I start by joining one piece to another, I have a somewhat wider single (slightly curved) plate-magnet with a north on one side of the plate and south on the other and the lines of force curving fairly normally around the entire assembly.

Continue from there, step by step. Eventually the pieces and the electrons and the lines of force start to realize: 'Hey, we've been duped!'

But it's too late. We have a ball with a North outside, and a South trapped inside.

Edit: I assume you will answer we have a rather warm metal ball with no magnetism whatever.
 
Or a Dirac pipe will form to let the flux flow from the North pole to the South.
 
Blibbler said:
Or a Dirac pipe will form to let the flux flow from the North pole to the South.

I didn't know Dirac smoked a pipe. You're thinking of a Bohr pipe?

C'mon, I want a serious discussion! If we assemble the sphere to the point of one segment missing, then we can picture the outside flux all curving around to inside the remaining hole. No problem.

What happens when we bond in the last piece? The field intensity is almost as high at the edges of each segment as its middle, the coercivity is high. Obviously we'll need a vise to ram it in, and perhaps the whole thing must be wrapped in duct tape. That would obviate the need for glue.

Since magnetic monopoles are not forbidden, and appear to answer much, I see no theoretical reason why the final assembly would not be a magnetic monopole. Does anyone say a monopole has to small? That it must be a single particle?
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top