Permanent Magnetic Field vs Electromagnetic Field
If I put a permanent magnet under a box and an energized electromagnetic coil under another box could you tell me which box was covering the permanent magnet? If the answer is yes what test would you use?
Note: The coil is receiving a steady dc current.
electromagnetism magnetic-fields
add a comment |
If I put a permanent magnet under a box and an energized electromagnetic coil under another box could you tell me which box was covering the permanent magnet? If the answer is yes what test would you use?
Note: The coil is receiving a steady dc current.
electromagnetism magnetic-fields
Is the supply current assumed to be essentially unlimited? Because if not, it will eventually deplete.
– Alex S
3 hours ago
@AlexS Yes, a continuous supply.
– Lambda
2 hours ago
add a comment |
If I put a permanent magnet under a box and an energized electromagnetic coil under another box could you tell me which box was covering the permanent magnet? If the answer is yes what test would you use?
Note: The coil is receiving a steady dc current.
electromagnetism magnetic-fields
If I put a permanent magnet under a box and an energized electromagnetic coil under another box could you tell me which box was covering the permanent magnet? If the answer is yes what test would you use?
Note: The coil is receiving a steady dc current.
electromagnetism magnetic-fields
electromagnetism magnetic-fields
asked 15 hours ago
LambdaLambda
2,51141125
2,51141125
Is the supply current assumed to be essentially unlimited? Because if not, it will eventually deplete.
– Alex S
3 hours ago
@AlexS Yes, a continuous supply.
– Lambda
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Is the supply current assumed to be essentially unlimited? Because if not, it will eventually deplete.
– Alex S
3 hours ago
@AlexS Yes, a continuous supply.
– Lambda
2 hours ago
Is the supply current assumed to be essentially unlimited? Because if not, it will eventually deplete.
– Alex S
3 hours ago
Is the supply current assumed to be essentially unlimited? Because if not, it will eventually deplete.
– Alex S
3 hours ago
@AlexS Yes, a continuous supply.
– Lambda
2 hours ago
@AlexS Yes, a continuous supply.
– Lambda
2 hours ago
add a comment |
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
The box containing the coil will heat up more and more due to the joule effect. So measuring the temperature you could tell.
add a comment |
If this is a normal coil wound with resistance wire, then around the coil with current will be the electric field and magnetic field, and around the permanent magnet only magnetic field. If the boxes do not shield the electric field, it will not be difficult to detect the coil with current by measuring the electric field.
there are "non contact voltage testers" on the market.amazon.com/Voltage-Detector-Non-Contact-Electric-12~220V/dp/… . Here is a report on DC testers e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/374701.pdf
– anna v
13 hours ago
@annav Thank you, I have it.
– Alex Trounev
13 hours ago
@annav Thanks for posting the links. I am wondering if the probes wouldn’t also measure the magnetic field.
– Lambda
10 hours ago
@Lambda if you look at the designs ,no. they are designed for electrif fields
– anna v
5 hours ago
add a comment |
Warm it up near or beyond the Curie temperature, it will make no difference to the coil but the "permanent" becomes "impermanent".
add a comment |
If the permanent magnet and the electromagnet are shaped so that the field in the box has precisely the same shape, there is no way to know which box covers which magnet, simply by measuring the field using a tiny probe magnet or tiny probe coil with very small current.
However, it may be possible to distinguish between the two cases by a more "intrusive" measurement: A metal detector, for example, would very likely respond slightly differently for one than the other. The electromagnet coil would act as a transformer secondary if driven by an electromagnet above the box, and should behave in a slightly different way than the permanent magnet.
Edited for clarity: "Driven" means, in this context, that the electromagnet above the box is energized by a time-varying current, which will produce a time-varying field, which in turn will "drive" a time-varying additional EMF in the coil below the box.
Transformers do not work for DC.
– my2cts
14 hours ago
I guess "driven" needs to be clarified.
– S. McGrew
14 hours ago
add a comment |
With an x-ray snapshot you should be able to see the difference :). However the magnetic fields can be made to be indistinguishable within certain intensity limits. There is a limit to what a permanent magnet can achieve in a certain volume. An electromagnet can produce a much stronger field.
See https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/AnnaWoo.shtml .
That answer is wrong. Electromagnets can produce a stronger pulsed field, but not a study state field as the windings would burn up fast.
– Sparky256
10 hours ago
Are you saying that the information in th elink is wrong? It states that the strongest permanent field is 0.1 T, much less that that of a steady state electromagnet. Do you have a reference for your statement?
– my2cts
9 hours ago
@Sparky256 Btw: some electromagnets can exceed 10T. Obviously continuously, as they are superconducting. Here is a link: home.cern/news/news/engineering/…
– cmaster
8 hours ago
@Sparky256 You claim my answer is wrong. Do you have a reference to show for it ?
– my2cts
7 mins ago
add a comment |
Electromagnets can produce a stronger pulsed field, but not a steady-state field as the windings would burn up fast. Oddly enough the same intense magnetic pulse is used to magnetize neodymium-iron-born (NIB) magnets.
For a steady-state magnetic field (not superconducting) NIB alloys have the strongest field for now. Some NIB alloys will tolerate intense heat at the cost of total field strength.
New contributor
This heavily depends on the coil material, and, perchance, the cooling. Superconducting magnets don't have any issue delivering extremely strong magnetic fields continuously, and they obviously classify as electromagnets...
– cmaster
8 hours ago
@cmaster. I am aware of superconducting magnets, which can also transfer DC power as a superconducting transformer. Superconducting was not part of the OP's question, so it is not part of any answers. It would have to be posted as a separate question.
– Sparky256
8 hours ago
The record for the strongest steady state field is 45T ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(magnetic_field) ). I don't believe that permanent magnets reach fields anywhere near this value. Please show me the paper.
– my2cts
9 mins ago
@Sparky256 NIB magnets reach about 1T ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium_magnet#Magnetic_properties ).
– my2cts
4 mins ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f452932%2fpermanent-magnetic-field-vs-electromagnetic-field%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The box containing the coil will heat up more and more due to the joule effect. So measuring the temperature you could tell.
add a comment |
The box containing the coil will heat up more and more due to the joule effect. So measuring the temperature you could tell.
add a comment |
The box containing the coil will heat up more and more due to the joule effect. So measuring the temperature you could tell.
The box containing the coil will heat up more and more due to the joule effect. So measuring the temperature you could tell.
answered 13 hours ago
Run like hellRun like hell
1,243725
1,243725
add a comment |
add a comment |
If this is a normal coil wound with resistance wire, then around the coil with current will be the electric field and magnetic field, and around the permanent magnet only magnetic field. If the boxes do not shield the electric field, it will not be difficult to detect the coil with current by measuring the electric field.
there are "non contact voltage testers" on the market.amazon.com/Voltage-Detector-Non-Contact-Electric-12~220V/dp/… . Here is a report on DC testers e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/374701.pdf
– anna v
13 hours ago
@annav Thank you, I have it.
– Alex Trounev
13 hours ago
@annav Thanks for posting the links. I am wondering if the probes wouldn’t also measure the magnetic field.
– Lambda
10 hours ago
@Lambda if you look at the designs ,no. they are designed for electrif fields
– anna v
5 hours ago
add a comment |
If this is a normal coil wound with resistance wire, then around the coil with current will be the electric field and magnetic field, and around the permanent magnet only magnetic field. If the boxes do not shield the electric field, it will not be difficult to detect the coil with current by measuring the electric field.
there are "non contact voltage testers" on the market.amazon.com/Voltage-Detector-Non-Contact-Electric-12~220V/dp/… . Here is a report on DC testers e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/374701.pdf
– anna v
13 hours ago
@annav Thank you, I have it.
– Alex Trounev
13 hours ago
@annav Thanks for posting the links. I am wondering if the probes wouldn’t also measure the magnetic field.
– Lambda
10 hours ago
@Lambda if you look at the designs ,no. they are designed for electrif fields
– anna v
5 hours ago
add a comment |
If this is a normal coil wound with resistance wire, then around the coil with current will be the electric field and magnetic field, and around the permanent magnet only magnetic field. If the boxes do not shield the electric field, it will not be difficult to detect the coil with current by measuring the electric field.
If this is a normal coil wound with resistance wire, then around the coil with current will be the electric field and magnetic field, and around the permanent magnet only magnetic field. If the boxes do not shield the electric field, it will not be difficult to detect the coil with current by measuring the electric field.
answered 13 hours ago
Alex TrounevAlex Trounev
30215
30215
there are "non contact voltage testers" on the market.amazon.com/Voltage-Detector-Non-Contact-Electric-12~220V/dp/… . Here is a report on DC testers e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/374701.pdf
– anna v
13 hours ago
@annav Thank you, I have it.
– Alex Trounev
13 hours ago
@annav Thanks for posting the links. I am wondering if the probes wouldn’t also measure the magnetic field.
– Lambda
10 hours ago
@Lambda if you look at the designs ,no. they are designed for electrif fields
– anna v
5 hours ago
add a comment |
there are "non contact voltage testers" on the market.amazon.com/Voltage-Detector-Non-Contact-Electric-12~220V/dp/… . Here is a report on DC testers e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/374701.pdf
– anna v
13 hours ago
@annav Thank you, I have it.
– Alex Trounev
13 hours ago
@annav Thanks for posting the links. I am wondering if the probes wouldn’t also measure the magnetic field.
– Lambda
10 hours ago
@Lambda if you look at the designs ,no. they are designed for electrif fields
– anna v
5 hours ago
there are "non contact voltage testers" on the market.amazon.com/Voltage-Detector-Non-Contact-Electric-12~220V/dp/… . Here is a report on DC testers e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/374701.pdf
– anna v
13 hours ago
there are "non contact voltage testers" on the market.amazon.com/Voltage-Detector-Non-Contact-Electric-12~220V/dp/… . Here is a report on DC testers e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/374701.pdf
– anna v
13 hours ago
@annav Thank you, I have it.
– Alex Trounev
13 hours ago
@annav Thank you, I have it.
– Alex Trounev
13 hours ago
@annav Thanks for posting the links. I am wondering if the probes wouldn’t also measure the magnetic field.
– Lambda
10 hours ago
@annav Thanks for posting the links. I am wondering if the probes wouldn’t also measure the magnetic field.
– Lambda
10 hours ago
@Lambda if you look at the designs ,no. they are designed for electrif fields
– anna v
5 hours ago
@Lambda if you look at the designs ,no. they are designed for electrif fields
– anna v
5 hours ago
add a comment |
Warm it up near or beyond the Curie temperature, it will make no difference to the coil but the "permanent" becomes "impermanent".
add a comment |
Warm it up near or beyond the Curie temperature, it will make no difference to the coil but the "permanent" becomes "impermanent".
add a comment |
Warm it up near or beyond the Curie temperature, it will make no difference to the coil but the "permanent" becomes "impermanent".
Warm it up near or beyond the Curie temperature, it will make no difference to the coil but the "permanent" becomes "impermanent".
answered 14 hours ago
hyportnexhyportnex
4,3171824
4,3171824
add a comment |
add a comment |
If the permanent magnet and the electromagnet are shaped so that the field in the box has precisely the same shape, there is no way to know which box covers which magnet, simply by measuring the field using a tiny probe magnet or tiny probe coil with very small current.
However, it may be possible to distinguish between the two cases by a more "intrusive" measurement: A metal detector, for example, would very likely respond slightly differently for one than the other. The electromagnet coil would act as a transformer secondary if driven by an electromagnet above the box, and should behave in a slightly different way than the permanent magnet.
Edited for clarity: "Driven" means, in this context, that the electromagnet above the box is energized by a time-varying current, which will produce a time-varying field, which in turn will "drive" a time-varying additional EMF in the coil below the box.
Transformers do not work for DC.
– my2cts
14 hours ago
I guess "driven" needs to be clarified.
– S. McGrew
14 hours ago
add a comment |
If the permanent magnet and the electromagnet are shaped so that the field in the box has precisely the same shape, there is no way to know which box covers which magnet, simply by measuring the field using a tiny probe magnet or tiny probe coil with very small current.
However, it may be possible to distinguish between the two cases by a more "intrusive" measurement: A metal detector, for example, would very likely respond slightly differently for one than the other. The electromagnet coil would act as a transformer secondary if driven by an electromagnet above the box, and should behave in a slightly different way than the permanent magnet.
Edited for clarity: "Driven" means, in this context, that the electromagnet above the box is energized by a time-varying current, which will produce a time-varying field, which in turn will "drive" a time-varying additional EMF in the coil below the box.
Transformers do not work for DC.
– my2cts
14 hours ago
I guess "driven" needs to be clarified.
– S. McGrew
14 hours ago
add a comment |
If the permanent magnet and the electromagnet are shaped so that the field in the box has precisely the same shape, there is no way to know which box covers which magnet, simply by measuring the field using a tiny probe magnet or tiny probe coil with very small current.
However, it may be possible to distinguish between the two cases by a more "intrusive" measurement: A metal detector, for example, would very likely respond slightly differently for one than the other. The electromagnet coil would act as a transformer secondary if driven by an electromagnet above the box, and should behave in a slightly different way than the permanent magnet.
Edited for clarity: "Driven" means, in this context, that the electromagnet above the box is energized by a time-varying current, which will produce a time-varying field, which in turn will "drive" a time-varying additional EMF in the coil below the box.
If the permanent magnet and the electromagnet are shaped so that the field in the box has precisely the same shape, there is no way to know which box covers which magnet, simply by measuring the field using a tiny probe magnet or tiny probe coil with very small current.
However, it may be possible to distinguish between the two cases by a more "intrusive" measurement: A metal detector, for example, would very likely respond slightly differently for one than the other. The electromagnet coil would act as a transformer secondary if driven by an electromagnet above the box, and should behave in a slightly different way than the permanent magnet.
Edited for clarity: "Driven" means, in this context, that the electromagnet above the box is energized by a time-varying current, which will produce a time-varying field, which in turn will "drive" a time-varying additional EMF in the coil below the box.
edited 14 hours ago
answered 14 hours ago
S. McGrewS. McGrew
7,08721130
7,08721130
Transformers do not work for DC.
– my2cts
14 hours ago
I guess "driven" needs to be clarified.
– S. McGrew
14 hours ago
add a comment |
Transformers do not work for DC.
– my2cts
14 hours ago
I guess "driven" needs to be clarified.
– S. McGrew
14 hours ago
Transformers do not work for DC.
– my2cts
14 hours ago
Transformers do not work for DC.
– my2cts
14 hours ago
I guess "driven" needs to be clarified.
– S. McGrew
14 hours ago
I guess "driven" needs to be clarified.
– S. McGrew
14 hours ago
add a comment |
With an x-ray snapshot you should be able to see the difference :). However the magnetic fields can be made to be indistinguishable within certain intensity limits. There is a limit to what a permanent magnet can achieve in a certain volume. An electromagnet can produce a much stronger field.
See https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/AnnaWoo.shtml .
That answer is wrong. Electromagnets can produce a stronger pulsed field, but not a study state field as the windings would burn up fast.
– Sparky256
10 hours ago
Are you saying that the information in th elink is wrong? It states that the strongest permanent field is 0.1 T, much less that that of a steady state electromagnet. Do you have a reference for your statement?
– my2cts
9 hours ago
@Sparky256 Btw: some electromagnets can exceed 10T. Obviously continuously, as they are superconducting. Here is a link: home.cern/news/news/engineering/…
– cmaster
8 hours ago
@Sparky256 You claim my answer is wrong. Do you have a reference to show for it ?
– my2cts
7 mins ago
add a comment |
With an x-ray snapshot you should be able to see the difference :). However the magnetic fields can be made to be indistinguishable within certain intensity limits. There is a limit to what a permanent magnet can achieve in a certain volume. An electromagnet can produce a much stronger field.
See https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/AnnaWoo.shtml .
That answer is wrong. Electromagnets can produce a stronger pulsed field, but not a study state field as the windings would burn up fast.
– Sparky256
10 hours ago
Are you saying that the information in th elink is wrong? It states that the strongest permanent field is 0.1 T, much less that that of a steady state electromagnet. Do you have a reference for your statement?
– my2cts
9 hours ago
@Sparky256 Btw: some electromagnets can exceed 10T. Obviously continuously, as they are superconducting. Here is a link: home.cern/news/news/engineering/…
– cmaster
8 hours ago
@Sparky256 You claim my answer is wrong. Do you have a reference to show for it ?
– my2cts
7 mins ago
add a comment |
With an x-ray snapshot you should be able to see the difference :). However the magnetic fields can be made to be indistinguishable within certain intensity limits. There is a limit to what a permanent magnet can achieve in a certain volume. An electromagnet can produce a much stronger field.
See https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/AnnaWoo.shtml .
With an x-ray snapshot you should be able to see the difference :). However the magnetic fields can be made to be indistinguishable within certain intensity limits. There is a limit to what a permanent magnet can achieve in a certain volume. An electromagnet can produce a much stronger field.
See https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/AnnaWoo.shtml .
edited 14 hours ago
answered 14 hours ago
my2ctsmy2cts
4,7162618
4,7162618
That answer is wrong. Electromagnets can produce a stronger pulsed field, but not a study state field as the windings would burn up fast.
– Sparky256
10 hours ago
Are you saying that the information in th elink is wrong? It states that the strongest permanent field is 0.1 T, much less that that of a steady state electromagnet. Do you have a reference for your statement?
– my2cts
9 hours ago
@Sparky256 Btw: some electromagnets can exceed 10T. Obviously continuously, as they are superconducting. Here is a link: home.cern/news/news/engineering/…
– cmaster
8 hours ago
@Sparky256 You claim my answer is wrong. Do you have a reference to show for it ?
– my2cts
7 mins ago
add a comment |
That answer is wrong. Electromagnets can produce a stronger pulsed field, but not a study state field as the windings would burn up fast.
– Sparky256
10 hours ago
Are you saying that the information in th elink is wrong? It states that the strongest permanent field is 0.1 T, much less that that of a steady state electromagnet. Do you have a reference for your statement?
– my2cts
9 hours ago
@Sparky256 Btw: some electromagnets can exceed 10T. Obviously continuously, as they are superconducting. Here is a link: home.cern/news/news/engineering/…
– cmaster
8 hours ago
@Sparky256 You claim my answer is wrong. Do you have a reference to show for it ?
– my2cts
7 mins ago
That answer is wrong. Electromagnets can produce a stronger pulsed field, but not a study state field as the windings would burn up fast.
– Sparky256
10 hours ago
That answer is wrong. Electromagnets can produce a stronger pulsed field, but not a study state field as the windings would burn up fast.
– Sparky256
10 hours ago
Are you saying that the information in th elink is wrong? It states that the strongest permanent field is 0.1 T, much less that that of a steady state electromagnet. Do you have a reference for your statement?
– my2cts
9 hours ago
Are you saying that the information in th elink is wrong? It states that the strongest permanent field is 0.1 T, much less that that of a steady state electromagnet. Do you have a reference for your statement?
– my2cts
9 hours ago
@Sparky256 Btw: some electromagnets can exceed 10T. Obviously continuously, as they are superconducting. Here is a link: home.cern/news/news/engineering/…
– cmaster
8 hours ago
@Sparky256 Btw: some electromagnets can exceed 10T. Obviously continuously, as they are superconducting. Here is a link: home.cern/news/news/engineering/…
– cmaster
8 hours ago
@Sparky256 You claim my answer is wrong. Do you have a reference to show for it ?
– my2cts
7 mins ago
@Sparky256 You claim my answer is wrong. Do you have a reference to show for it ?
– my2cts
7 mins ago
add a comment |
Electromagnets can produce a stronger pulsed field, but not a steady-state field as the windings would burn up fast. Oddly enough the same intense magnetic pulse is used to magnetize neodymium-iron-born (NIB) magnets.
For a steady-state magnetic field (not superconducting) NIB alloys have the strongest field for now. Some NIB alloys will tolerate intense heat at the cost of total field strength.
New contributor
This heavily depends on the coil material, and, perchance, the cooling. Superconducting magnets don't have any issue delivering extremely strong magnetic fields continuously, and they obviously classify as electromagnets...
– cmaster
8 hours ago
@cmaster. I am aware of superconducting magnets, which can also transfer DC power as a superconducting transformer. Superconducting was not part of the OP's question, so it is not part of any answers. It would have to be posted as a separate question.
– Sparky256
8 hours ago
The record for the strongest steady state field is 45T ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(magnetic_field) ). I don't believe that permanent magnets reach fields anywhere near this value. Please show me the paper.
– my2cts
9 mins ago
@Sparky256 NIB magnets reach about 1T ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium_magnet#Magnetic_properties ).
– my2cts
4 mins ago
add a comment |
Electromagnets can produce a stronger pulsed field, but not a steady-state field as the windings would burn up fast. Oddly enough the same intense magnetic pulse is used to magnetize neodymium-iron-born (NIB) magnets.
For a steady-state magnetic field (not superconducting) NIB alloys have the strongest field for now. Some NIB alloys will tolerate intense heat at the cost of total field strength.
New contributor
This heavily depends on the coil material, and, perchance, the cooling. Superconducting magnets don't have any issue delivering extremely strong magnetic fields continuously, and they obviously classify as electromagnets...
– cmaster
8 hours ago
@cmaster. I am aware of superconducting magnets, which can also transfer DC power as a superconducting transformer. Superconducting was not part of the OP's question, so it is not part of any answers. It would have to be posted as a separate question.
– Sparky256
8 hours ago
The record for the strongest steady state field is 45T ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(magnetic_field) ). I don't believe that permanent magnets reach fields anywhere near this value. Please show me the paper.
– my2cts
9 mins ago
@Sparky256 NIB magnets reach about 1T ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium_magnet#Magnetic_properties ).
– my2cts
4 mins ago
add a comment |
Electromagnets can produce a stronger pulsed field, but not a steady-state field as the windings would burn up fast. Oddly enough the same intense magnetic pulse is used to magnetize neodymium-iron-born (NIB) magnets.
For a steady-state magnetic field (not superconducting) NIB alloys have the strongest field for now. Some NIB alloys will tolerate intense heat at the cost of total field strength.
New contributor
Electromagnets can produce a stronger pulsed field, but not a steady-state field as the windings would burn up fast. Oddly enough the same intense magnetic pulse is used to magnetize neodymium-iron-born (NIB) magnets.
For a steady-state magnetic field (not superconducting) NIB alloys have the strongest field for now. Some NIB alloys will tolerate intense heat at the cost of total field strength.
New contributor
edited 6 hours ago
Peter Mortensen
1,93011323
1,93011323
New contributor
answered 10 hours ago
Sparky256Sparky256
1092
1092
New contributor
New contributor
This heavily depends on the coil material, and, perchance, the cooling. Superconducting magnets don't have any issue delivering extremely strong magnetic fields continuously, and they obviously classify as electromagnets...
– cmaster
8 hours ago
@cmaster. I am aware of superconducting magnets, which can also transfer DC power as a superconducting transformer. Superconducting was not part of the OP's question, so it is not part of any answers. It would have to be posted as a separate question.
– Sparky256
8 hours ago
The record for the strongest steady state field is 45T ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(magnetic_field) ). I don't believe that permanent magnets reach fields anywhere near this value. Please show me the paper.
– my2cts
9 mins ago
@Sparky256 NIB magnets reach about 1T ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium_magnet#Magnetic_properties ).
– my2cts
4 mins ago
add a comment |
This heavily depends on the coil material, and, perchance, the cooling. Superconducting magnets don't have any issue delivering extremely strong magnetic fields continuously, and they obviously classify as electromagnets...
– cmaster
8 hours ago
@cmaster. I am aware of superconducting magnets, which can also transfer DC power as a superconducting transformer. Superconducting was not part of the OP's question, so it is not part of any answers. It would have to be posted as a separate question.
– Sparky256
8 hours ago
The record for the strongest steady state field is 45T ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(magnetic_field) ). I don't believe that permanent magnets reach fields anywhere near this value. Please show me the paper.
– my2cts
9 mins ago
@Sparky256 NIB magnets reach about 1T ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium_magnet#Magnetic_properties ).
– my2cts
4 mins ago
This heavily depends on the coil material, and, perchance, the cooling. Superconducting magnets don't have any issue delivering extremely strong magnetic fields continuously, and they obviously classify as electromagnets...
– cmaster
8 hours ago
This heavily depends on the coil material, and, perchance, the cooling. Superconducting magnets don't have any issue delivering extremely strong magnetic fields continuously, and they obviously classify as electromagnets...
– cmaster
8 hours ago
@cmaster. I am aware of superconducting magnets, which can also transfer DC power as a superconducting transformer. Superconducting was not part of the OP's question, so it is not part of any answers. It would have to be posted as a separate question.
– Sparky256
8 hours ago
@cmaster. I am aware of superconducting magnets, which can also transfer DC power as a superconducting transformer. Superconducting was not part of the OP's question, so it is not part of any answers. It would have to be posted as a separate question.
– Sparky256
8 hours ago
The record for the strongest steady state field is 45T ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(magnetic_field) ). I don't believe that permanent magnets reach fields anywhere near this value. Please show me the paper.
– my2cts
9 mins ago
The record for the strongest steady state field is 45T ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(magnetic_field) ). I don't believe that permanent magnets reach fields anywhere near this value. Please show me the paper.
– my2cts
9 mins ago
@Sparky256 NIB magnets reach about 1T ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium_magnet#Magnetic_properties ).
– my2cts
4 mins ago
@Sparky256 NIB magnets reach about 1T ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium_magnet#Magnetic_properties ).
– my2cts
4 mins ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f452932%2fpermanent-magnetic-field-vs-electromagnetic-field%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Is the supply current assumed to be essentially unlimited? Because if not, it will eventually deplete.
– Alex S
3 hours ago
@AlexS Yes, a continuous supply.
– Lambda
2 hours ago