Measuring The Magnetization of A Permanent Magnet: American Journal of Physics April 2019
Measuring The Magnetization of A Permanent Magnet: American Journal of Physics April 2019
Measuring The Magnetization of A Permanent Magnet: American Journal of Physics April 2019
net/publication/331887015
CITATIONS READS
2 1,017
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Single layerTMDs and their interaction with magnetic substrates View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Athos Petrou on 05 April 2019.
II. THEORY
A. Magnetic moment
It is well known that in a wire loop with area A, in which a
current i is flowing, we define a vector known as the Fig. 1. (a) Magnetic moment of a current carrying loop at an angle h with
“magnetic moment” (symbol ~ l ), perpendicular to the plane ~ and (b) ~
respect to B ~
l k B.
275 Am. J. Phys. 87 (4), April 2019 http://aapt.org/ajp C 2019 American Association of Physics Teachers
V 275
Fig. 2. Cylindrical permanent magnet of radius R and height l.
V ¼ pR2 l: (4)
Fig. 6. Pictorial representation of the experimental set-up. (a) Schematic and (b) actual working rendition.
276 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 87, No. 4, April 2019 B. Barman and A. Petrou 276
north-south direction. The magnetic field B~ generated by the Table I. Summary of the experimental parameters as well as the calculated
Helmholtz coils is in the same direction such that the Earth’s value of M.
magnetic field does not influence our measurement of mag-
m (kg) R (m) l (m) l (kg m2) lðA m2 Þ MðA m1 Þ
netization. This is an important criterion which has to be
kept in consideration while performing this experiment. If 0.0511 0.0046 0.125 6:681 105 3.047 ð3761:2Þ 104
we now consider Fig. 5, which is a top view of Fig. 4, dis-
place the magnet by a small angle /0 from the direction of
~ and release it from rest, the magnet will oscillate around
B, between the centers of the coils. Hence, the choice of length
the equilibrium position as indicated by the curved arrows for the permanent magnet is paramount to determining M
shown in Fig. 5. The time it takes for the magnet to swing precisely. More significantly, the distance between the coils
from left to right and back to the starting position is called should be equal to the radius in order to achieve this unifor-
the period of oscillation (symbol T). By applying Newton’s mity.13,14 The period of 10 oscillations was measured as a
second law of rotational motion, we can write (using the function of the current in the Helmholtz coils; the resulting
small angle approximation) data were linearized using Eq. (9) and plotted. A least-
squares fit was used to plot the data as shown in Fig. 7. In
d2 / order to improve the accuracy of these measurements, it is
s¼I ¼ C/ þ lB sin / ½C þ lB/; (6)
dt2 important that the permanent magnet oscillates in a horizon-
tal plane, keeping the small-angle approximation in mind.
where / is the angle that the magnet axis forms with B ~ at
Any vertical mode of oscillation would introduce a consider-
any instant of time t. Here, C is the torsional constant that able amount of error in the measurement of the magnetiza-
describes the mechanical properties of the supporting strings tion. Vernier calipers were used to measure the radius R and
and l is the magnetic moment of the magnet. I is the moment the length ‘ of the magnet, while a balance was used to mea-
of inertia (in our configuration) of the cylindrical magnet of sure the mass m of the magnet in kilograms.
mass m and is given by the following equation:12
1 2 1 V. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
I¼ ml þ mR2 : (7)
12 4 The experimental data were plotted with B on the x-axis
and ð2p=T Þ2 on the y-axis as shown in Fig. 7 followed by
The solution to the 2nd order differential equation in / is modeling using Eq. (9) to calculate the magnetic moment l.
given by Having determined the slope (and the corresponding mag-
netic moment l), together with volume V, we were able to
2p determine the magnetization M of the magnet. We have sum-
/ ¼ /0 cos t : (8)
T marized our experimental parameters as well as the calcu-
lated value of M in Table I. While the slope accounted for an
The quantity 2p=T is given by the following equation, which uncertainty of 3%, the measurement of the moment of inertia
follows from Eqs. (6) and (8): carried an uncertainty of 0.25%. Thus, the overall uncer-
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi tainty (3%) in M is attributed approximately to the uncer-
2p C þ lB tainty in the slope (3%), resulting from the non-uniformity of
¼ : (9)
T I the magnetic field produced by the pair of Helmholtz coils
over the physical dimensions of the permanent magnet.
Upon knowing the composition (if it is an alloy) of the per-
IV. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE manent magnet, one could compare it with certain known
values of M reported in numerous textbooks as well as hand-
A pictorial (schematic and actual) representation of the books of physical parameters.7,15 Our experimentally deter-
experimental set-up is shown in Fig. 6. The permanent mag- mined value of M indicates it to be a Mn ferrite alloy
net shown in Fig. 4 has been exaggerated to show the details (saturation magnetization 39 104 A:m1 ) as reported in
of the experimental arrangement, while it is well known that Ref. 7.
the magnetic field is uniform only within a very small region
VI. CONCLUSION
We described a simple and cost-effective way of measur-
ing the magnetization of a permanent magnet in an under-
graduate laboratory setting suitable for both introductory
classes and undergraduate physics majors. We used
Newton’s second law for rotational motion and verified the
validity of our equations by performing an experiment using
a cylindrical magnet suspended between a pair of Helmholtz
coils. We also showed the data analysis technique, via graph-
ical representation, required to calculate the value of the
magnetization for a particular specimen.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Fig. 7. Plot of ð2p=T Þ2 as a function of B. This work was supported by NSF DMR-1305770.
277 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 87, No. 4, April 2019 B. Barman and A. Petrou 277
1 8
J. M. D. Coey, Magnetism and Magnetic Materials, 1st ed. (Cambridge Corb o Guido, “Forces on a current loop and magnetic moment,” Eur. J.
U.P., Cambridge, 2010). Phys. 31(3), L55–L57 (2010).
2 9
Hans Christian Ørsted, Karen Jelved, A. D. Jackson, and Ole Knudsen, David J. Griffiths, Introduction to Electrodynamics, 4th ed. (Cambridge U.
Selected Scientific Works of Hans Christian Ørsted (Princeton U.P., P., Cambridge/New York, 2018).
10
Princeton, N.J., 1998). See <https://www.didaktik.physik.uni-muenchen.de/elektronenbahnen/en/
3
Jeen Hur and Sung-Chul Shin, “New measurement techniques to deter- b-feld/B-Feld/Helmholtzspulenpaar.php> for magnetic field produced by
mine magnetization and coercivity using a torque magnetometer,” Appl. a pair of Helmholtz coils.
11
Phys. Lett. 62(17), 2140–2142 (1993). See <http://www.mcm.edu/bykov.tikhon/phys3270/notes/appendixc.pdf>
4
K. Koyama, S. Hane, K. Kamishima, and T. Goto, “Instrument for high for magnetic field produced by a pair of Helmholtz coils.
12
resolution magnetization measurements at high pressures, high magnetic Jearl Walker, Robert Resnick, and David Halliday, Halliday and Resnick
fields and low temperatures,” Rev. Sci. Instrum. 69(8), 3009–3014 Fundamentals of Physics, 10th ed. (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2014).
13
(1998). M. S. Crosser, Steven Scott, Adam Clark, and P. M. Wilt, “On the magnetic
5
Walter Greiner, Classical Electrodynamics (Springer, New York, field near the center of Helmholtz coils,” Rev. Sci. Instrum. 81(8), 084701
1998). (2010).
6 14
R. D. Knight, Physics for Scientists and Engineers: A Strategic Approach See <http://physicsx.pr.erau.edu/HelmholtzCoils/> for variation of mag-
with Modern Physics, 4th ed. (Pearson, Boston, 2016). netic field within a pair of Helmholtz coils.
7 15
John R. Reitz, Frederick J. Milford, and Robert W. Christy, Foundations of American Institute of Physics Handbook, edited by Dwight E. Gray
Electromagnetic Theory, 3rd ed. (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1979). (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1957).
278 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 87, No. 4, April 2019 B. Barman and A. Petrou 278