Magnet Myths and Misconceptions

[vineet_kiran]

Another typical myth or misconception - is the idea that an iron core "concentrates" the magnetic field lines(!!) of a coil - and thus intensifies the magnetic flux.

Please have a look at this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SN6mFr7veF4&feature=youtu.be

If flux is not concentrated in the iron ball, how it will stick to the steel rod?   The concentration of flux or density of flux depends on lot
of factors like size, shape, length, area, type of magnetic material etc.

Why do you use 'air gaps'  in solid cores?

[Qwert]

Hi,

what a fruitful discussion.
We all got bluffed at a certain point from these iron filing experimenters kits.....
Another typical myth or misconception - is the idea that an iron core "concentrates" the magnetic field lines(!!) of a coil - and thus intensifies the magnetic flux.
The truth is that the field from the coil stays the same - and the resulting flux is a superposition of the magnetized (by induction)field of the core and the coil.
Even if its often not that transparent - the links to the electric domain persist. The embedded charge of a dielectrica gets its orientation by electric induction and the increased flux  is a superposition of the originating flux and the flux of the induced dielectrica.
Both dielectrica and permeabilita are non-homogenous.... which explains why a cap is never empty..... and a coil needs few current to be neutral....

rgds.

The words "concentrate", "intensify" are only more specific of the same conception of the word "superposition". Of course, the field lines are only graphic representation of the field.

[fritz]

The words "concentrate", "intensify" are only more specific of the same conception of the word "superposition". Of course, the field lines are only graphic representation of the field.

What I wanted to point out is the mix up of cause and effect.
"concentrate" is wrong in my opinion - because it would mean that the already existing field is just modified (which is not the case)
"intensified" would be ok for me - because the presence of such permeability intensifies the resulting field. (as long as the ferromagnetic homogenous core has no magnetic bias)
"superposition" would tell me that the resulting observation is always a combination of more than one effect.
If I use a non-homogenous magnetized core - the interaction of coil and core as well as the resulting field cannot be described with "concentration" nor  is it "intensified" in a linear describeable manner.
This is why I think that superposition is the proper concept to explain that - and the resulting field is composed of(=a superposition) of  coil field and core field(as a response of induction from the coil field).

rgds.

[MileHigh]

What I wanted to point out is the mix up of cause and effect.
"concentrate" is wrong in my opinion - because it would mean that the already existing field is just modified (which is not the case)
"intensified" would be ok for me - because the presence of such permeability intensifies the resulting field. (as long as the ferromagnetic homogenous core has no magnetic bias)
"superposition" would tell me that the resulting observation is always a combination of more than one effect.
If I use a non-homogenous magnetized core - the interaction of coil and core as well as the resulting field cannot be described with "concentration" nor  is it "intensified" in a linear describeable manner.
This is why I think that superposition is the proper concept to explain that - and the resulting field is composed of(=a superposition) of  coil field and core field(as a response of induction from the coil field).

rgds.

This discussion is really about trying to understand magnetic permeability and how it relates to magnets and magnetic fields.  Sometimes it is also called magnetic reluctance.

The complimentary concept for electric fields is permittivity.

Anybody that wants to understand magnets and how they work should research theses two topics and master them.  Again, there are probably thousands and thousands of places online to find more information.  If you are doing experiments with magnets and you don't understand these concepts then you are walking around with your eyes blindfolded bumping into walls.

[MileHigh]

Here is an example of myths and misconceptions on a place where there is no surprise that this is the case, PESN:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Free_Energy_Blog:2014:09:25#Magnetic-like-binding_of_nuts_via_Leedskalnin_PMH

Quote, "What makes this "trick" possible is our present lack of sufficient understanding of magnetism and equations/laws to describe it."

There is no author cited, but I will assume that it is Sterling Allen, the man that believed the spoof CGI clip was real where a guy was demonstrating a "Back to the Future" anti-gravity levitating skateboard.  This process is understood right down to the atomic level.

Even this concept, "Directory:Leedskalnin "Perpetual Motion Holder" (PMH) Bond Effect" is silly.  In real life nobody calls this a "perpetual motion holder" and nobody makes claim to it.  Thee is nothing to make claim to at all.  In real life nobody even bats an eyelash about this.