Welcome
Username or Email:

Password:


Missing Code




[ ]
[ ]
Online
  • Guests: 88
  • Members: 0
  • Newest Member: omjtest
  • Most ever online: 396
    Guests: 396, Members: 0 on 12 Jan : 12:51
Members Birthdays:
No birthdays today

Next birthdays
05/14 hvguy (42)
05/14 thehappyelectron (15)
05/14 Justin (2025)
Contact
If you need assistance, please send an email to forum at 4hv dot org. To ensure your email is not marked as spam, please include the phrase "4hv help" in the subject line. You can also find assistance via IRC, at irc.shadowworld.net, room #hvcomm.
Support 4hv.org!
Donate:
4hv.org is hosted on a dedicated server. Unfortunately, this server costs and we rely on the help of site members to keep 4hv.org running. Please consider donating. We will place your name on the thanks list and you'll be helping to keep 4hv.org alive and free for everyone. Members whose names appear in red bold have donated recently. Green bold denotes those who have recently donated to keep the server carbon neutral.


Special Thanks To:
  • Aaron Holmes
  • Aaron Wheeler
  • Adam Horden
  • Alan Scrimgeour
  • Andre
  • Andrew Haynes
  • Anonymous000
  • asabase
  • Austin Weil
  • barney
  • Barry
  • Bert Hickman
  • Bill Kukowski
  • Blitzorn
  • Brandon Paradelas
  • Bruce Bowling
  • BubeeMike
  • Byong Park
  • Cesiumsponge
  • Chris F.
  • Chris Hooper
  • Corey Worthington
  • Derek Woodroffe
  • Dalus
  • Dan Strother
  • Daniel Davis
  • Daniel Uhrenholt
  • datasheetarchive
  • Dave Billington
  • Dave Marshall
  • David F.
  • Dennis Rogers
  • drelectrix
  • Dr. John Gudenas
  • Dr. Spark
  • E.TexasTesla
  • eastvoltresearch
  • Eirik Taylor
  • Erik Dyakov
  • Erlend^SE
  • Finn Hammer
  • Firebug24k
  • GalliumMan
  • Gary Peterson
  • George Slade
  • GhostNull
  • Gordon Mcknight
  • Graham Armitage
  • Grant
  • GreySoul
  • Henry H
  • IamSmooth
  • In memory of Leo Powning
  • Jacob Cash
  • James Howells
  • James Pawson
  • Jeff Greenfield
  • Jeff Thomas
  • Jesse Frost
  • Jim Mitchell
  • jlr134
  • Joe Mastroianni
  • John Forcina
  • John Oberg
  • John Willcutt
  • Jon Newcomb
  • klugesmith
  • Leslie Wright
  • Lutz Hoffman
  • Mads Barnkob
  • Martin King
  • Mats Karlsson
  • Matt Gibson
  • Matthew Guidry
  • mbd
  • Michael D'Angelo
  • Mikkel
  • mileswaldron
  • mister_rf
  • Neil Foster
  • Nick de Smith
  • Nick Soroka
  • nicklenorp
  • Nik
  • Norman Stanley
  • Patrick Coleman
  • Paul Brodie
  • Paul Jordan
  • Paul Montgomery
  • Ped
  • Peter Krogen
  • Peter Terren
  • PhilGood
  • Richard Feldman
  • Robert Bush
  • Royce Bailey
  • Scott Fusare
  • Scott Newman
  • smiffy
  • Stella
  • Steven Busic
  • Steve Conner
  • Steve Jones
  • Steve Ward
  • Sulaiman
  • Thomas Coyle
  • Thomas A. Wallace
  • Thomas W
  • Timo
  • Torch
  • Ulf Jonsson
  • vasil
  • Vaxian
  • vladi mazzilli
  • wastehl
  • Weston
  • William Kim
  • William N.
  • William Stehl
  • Wesley Venis
The aforementioned have contributed financially to the continuing triumph of 4hv.org. They are deserving of my most heartfelt thanks.
Forums
4hv.org :: Forums :: General Science and Electronics
« Previous topic | Next topic »   

Magnetic moment question

Move Thread LAN_403
AndrewM
Sat Oct 13 2007, 01:22AM Print
AndrewM Registered Member #49 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 04:05AM
Location: Bigass Pile of Penguins
Posts: 362
I'm working on a sizing problem for work, but since I've out of school for a a year and a half, I burned out my brain thinking about this today:

I'm procuring some iron-cored solenoids, basically. When I choose these devices, I have a required magnetic moment, and I simply compare this to the moment of products published by the manufacturer.

However, I now need to estimate the magnetic field near one of these things. I made an FE model of an arbitrary number of wire loops, n, with a free space core, and claimed that the current in each of my model loops could be calculated using the definition of magnetic moment (M=IA): I=M/(n*A). The idea was that starting from the magnetic moment and working backwards would "automagicly" encompass the effects of the core material and the electrical characteristics (ampere-turns) of the rod. I want to do it this way because the magnetic moment is the one piece of data I always have from the mfg, while sometime core and winding characteristics aren't provided.

I get numbers that are reasonable, however I cannot rigorously defend this method, and others have suggested things may be coming out too high. Can anyone comment?

The brain-burn-out started to happen when I started to wonder if the external field was not affected by the core...? In essence, if I have a solenoid producing some field H, and I insert an iron core, does the field B=uH inside the core only, or outside the solenoid as well???
Back to top
Hazmatt_(The Underdog)
Sat Oct 13 2007, 02:21AM
Hazmatt_(The Underdog) Registered Member #135 Joined: Sat Feb 11 2006, 12:06AM
Location: Anywhere is fine
Posts: 1735
I'm not too sharp on magnetics, but if I wanted to quantify your solenoid scenario what I would do is start out with a carefully controlled experiment, namely a transformer. This way you know the turns, can find the flux density, permeability through the hysterisis curve, and quantify a lot of your material parameters, like the mu of your core.

Then knowing all of those parameters, determine the flux from the solenoid from your V and I input measurements to the solenoid, AND an air core coil of known turns and inductance that is in the field. This extra coil acting as a Gauss Meter. I would also compare the field with and without a core material to verify your core permeability because in free space permeability is 1.

What's going to be a major factor is that this is an ideal scenario because not all of the turns in your solenoid will contribute equally to the field, its a lumped sum of all of the contributions, so geommetry is going to count.

The first step I think though is going to be getting some precisce measuring gear. You're going to need a fairly accurate ammeter, volt meter, decent scope, function generator, and some low frequency AC sources like a 12V transformer that can source a few amps, but that should be doable.

here's some transformer stuff: Link2

Matt.
Back to top
AndrewM
Sat Oct 13 2007, 03:04AM
AndrewM Registered Member #49 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 04:05AM
Location: Bigass Pile of Penguins
Posts: 362
I have no idea how what you just suggested will help me; either I was unclear, or I don't understand your idea.

I'm trying to choose from a wide range of coils with a wide range of materials. The only information I have is the total magnetic moment and coil dimensions. Even if I could do an experiment, it wouldn't be generally applicable given the range of products I'm looking at. Plus, I have no hardware in-hand, nor can I get any (these rods are probably in the $100k range)... this is a sizing effort.
Back to top
Carbon_Rod
Sat Oct 13 2007, 03:11AM
Carbon_Rod Registered Member #65 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 06:43AM
Location:
Posts: 1155
It has been too long for me too,
Are you asking about flux densities or saturation energies?
Back to top
AndrewM
Sat Oct 13 2007, 03:22AM
AndrewM Registered Member #49 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 04:05AM
Location: Bigass Pile of Penguins
Posts: 362
I'm looking to estimate flux density (field strength) outside of the coil.

I should add, this is all a steady-state case.
Back to top
Hazmatt_(The Underdog)
Sat Oct 13 2007, 04:52AM
Hazmatt_(The Underdog) Registered Member #135 Joined: Sat Feb 11 2006, 12:06AM
Location: Anywhere is fine
Posts: 1735
So we're talking a D.C. applied potential here then?

Check out Biot Savart law in a college Physics text, its in mine, i dunno if this is going to come out well

B = u0iN/ 2pir for toroid, but again its not totally uniform, so geommetry will affect your results.

B= u0NiA/ 2 pi r^3 for current carrying coil, A= area of loop. For your case it may be cross sectional area, my book only shows a single turn loop. So I don't know if its cross sectional area OR "effective" area, I say that because you have the field distributed in multiple turns and not a single turn, meaning the geommetry again.

Back to top
Steve Conner
Sat Oct 13 2007, 12:20PM
Steve Conner Registered Member #30 Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 10:52AM
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Posts: 6706
Hi Andrew,

The flux density is B=uH inside the core. Because flux always travels in closed loops with no sources or sinks, the flux density must also be the same over a surface drawn in the air just outside the end face of the core. So the flux density just at the poles of the magnet should be u times greater than with an air core. Hence, I'd expect it to be u times greater than the same solenoid with an air core everywhere else in space, too.

Link2

There may be some differences in the near field however, since the iron core will tend to concentrate the field inside itself. I imagine that your model of an air cored solenoid with the same dimensions and u times more amp-turns might show a stronger field very close to the windings, even though it has the same magnetic moment seen from far away.

But you can test this in FEMM by comparing two identical solenoids except that one is air-cored, and the other has a core of permeability u and the ampere-turns adjusted by a factor of 1/u to compensate.
Back to top
AndrewM
Sun Oct 14 2007, 12:05AM
AndrewM Registered Member #49 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 04:05AM
Location: Bigass Pile of Penguins
Posts: 362
Thanks Steve, you and hyperphysics supported what my instincts tell me (that the core increases the field everywhere), however this might mean my simulation has problems elsewhere.

New question: my "model" is simply the superposition of current loops, using a function that uses the Biot-Savart law for infinitesimal wires to calculate the field at any point near a loop. As for the function itself, however, I would have expected that if I was to reduce the loop radius to very small compared to the measurement distance, and I calculated the loop current such that it gives me a certain magnetic moment, then the field strength reported would equal the field strength predicted by the analytical dipole field strength function here using the same moment M. I'm finding, however, that this is not the case, and I'm bewildered!! The shape and direction returned by my function is correct, but the magnitude is very wrong. The form of the Biot-Savart law I'm using is at the top of here

Any ideas?
Back to top
AndrewM
Mon Oct 15 2007, 10:48PM
AndrewM Registered Member #49 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 04:05AM
Location: Bigass Pile of Penguins
Posts: 362
A little more detail. The function I'm using is below. Please explain why, when using a current calculated to provide a certain moment M, the output of this function does not match that predicted by the analytic magnetic dipole field equation for the same M (and when distance>>radius of loop)

%[Bx,By,Bz]=CurrentLoop(x,y,z,px,py,pz,fx,fy,fz,r,I) - A. Maurer
%x y z:     loop center location
%px py pz:  loop orientation vector components (loop boresight)
%fx fy fz:  field measurement location
%r:         loop radius
%I:         loop current

function B=CurrentLoop(x,y,z,px,py,pz,fx,fy,fz,r,I)

%one loop frame basis vector is "on axis"
L3=[px py pz];

%choose arbitrary orthogonal axis (since loops are symmetrical)
if pz~=0
    L1=[1 1 (-px-py)/pz];  
elseif py~=0
    L1=[1 (-px-pz)/py 1];   
elseif px~=0
    L1=[(-py-pz)/px 1 1]; 
end
L1=L1/norm(L1);        

%round it out with a right handed set
L2=cross(L1,L3);

%rock out with an inertial frame that is intuitive
I1=[1 0 0];
I2=[0 1 0];
I3=[0 0 1];

%transformation matrices, Loop to Inertial, visa versa
TLI=[dot(I1,L1) dot(I2,L1) dot(I3,L1); dot(I1,L2) dot(I2,L2) dot(I3,L2); dot(I1,L3) dot(I2,L3) dot(I3,L3);];
TIL=transpose(TLI);

%Transform the measurement coordinations into the loop frame, centered on
%loop center
T=[fx,fy,fz]*TIL-[x,y,z]*TIL;

B=[0, 0,0];
%octogon "loops"
n=8
for i=0:1:n-1
    theta=i*pi/(n/2);
    %find element direction
    dl= [-sin(theta)    cos(theta)     0];
    %find element location
    l=  [cos(theta)*r   sin(theta)*r   0];
    %Biot-Savart goodness
    B=B+(1.26E-6*I/(4*pi))*cross(dl,T-l)/(norm(T-l)^3); 
end

%transform the field vector back to the inertial frame
B=B*TLI;
Back to top

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob

Go to:

Powered by e107 Forum System
 
Legal Information
This site is powered by e107, which is released under the GNU GPL License. All work on this site, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License. By submitting any information to this site, you agree that anything submitted will be so licensed. Please read our Disclaimer and Policies page for information on your rights and responsibilities regarding this site.