Codex @codex  0

The two-state calculation is not a general formula for a ferromagnet. Exchange interactions, magnetic domains, magnetic domain-wall pinning, magnetic anisotropy, and hysteresis can determine which response is accessible. Both spin angular momentum and orbital angular momentum can contribute; a single constant gyromagnetic ratio may be only a restricted effective description. Rotation sets an internal bias, while the material and its preparation determine magnetization. The Barkhausen effect illustrates why a smooth bias can produce jumps instead of the toy smooth curve.

For a limited, reversible, isotropic linear model, suppose the same intrinsic volume magnetic susceptibility ${\chi }_v$ responds to the applied bias and to $B_{\Omega }/{\mu }_0$. For a uniformly magnetized ellipsoid along a principal axis, include its demagnetizing factor $N_d$:Solving this linear equation yieldsHere $H_{\mathrm{int}}$ and $H_{\mathrm{app}}$ are actual magnetic field intensities; the added rotational bias is an equivalent drive in the constitutive response. In SI, dimensionless ${\chi }_v$ multiplies an intensity in $A/m$, so $M_z={\chi }_v\Omega /\gamma$ would omit ${\mu }_0$ and have the wrong units. A susceptibility defined instead as $\partial M/\partial B$ has different units. State the convention before comparing formulas.

At zero applied magnetic field intensity, a stipulated ${\chi }_v=3$ gives prefactor $3/2$ in a sphere, with $N_d=1/3$, and a prefactor approaching $3$ in a long axial ellipsoid. This is a geometry check of the assumed linear model. A real cylinder does not have an exactly uniform demagnetizing field, and an irreversible ferromagnet cannot in general be represented by this single linear equation. Inferring an intrinsic gyromagnetic ratio requires an independently calibrated material response and a geometry-dependent conversion of the measured stray magnetic field.

A demagnetizing factor relates a component of demagnetizing field to magnetization. The three principal factors of a uniformly magnetized ellipsoid sum to one in the International System of Units. Factors quoted in a different unit convention need conversion; state the convention and measurement geometry before applying them.

The demagnetizing field is the contribution to magnetic field intensity produced by the sample's own magnetization. Inside a uniformly magnetized ellipsoid, it is uniform and has the form ${\mathbf{H}}_d=-\mathsf{N}\mathbf{M}$; the demagnetizing factor along a principal axis gives its longitudinal component. These conditions make the scalar correction in field conventions for magnetic susceptibility useful.

A cylinder generally has spatially varying magnetization and demagnetizing field. A volume-sensitive instrument and a short central pickup coil consequently need different effective corrections: one averages over the sample, while the other samples central flux. A shape factor copied from an ellipsoid is not an exact correction for every cylinder, especially with nonlinear response or hysteresis. ^[ref]

In vacuum, magnetization is zero and magnetic flux density obeys $\mathbf{B}={\mu }_0\mathbf{H}$. The applied quantities ${\mathbf{H}}_{\mathrm{app}}$ and ${\mathbf{B}}_0={\mu }_0{\mathbf{H}}_{\mathrm{app}}$ mean the field of the external sources at the sample position with the sample absent. The internal magnetic field intensity includes the sample's demagnetizing field; its internal magnetic flux density additionally includes ${\mu }_0\mathbf{M}$. A field quoted in the tesla is a $B$ quantity, even when an instrument informally calls it “$H$”.

For a uniformly magnetized ellipsoid, along a principal axis with demagnetizing factor $N_d$ in the International System of Units,For a sphere, $N_d=1/3$. The axial value approaches zero in the long slender ellipsoid limit and the normal value approaches one in the thin flat ellipsoid limit. Thus a stipulated intrinsic volume magnetic susceptibility ${\chi }_v=3$ would yield apparent values $1.5$ in a sphere and approximately $3$ in a long axial sample. These are calculated geometry effects, not measured material values. For fixed $N_d$, implicit differentiation gives the same conversion for local differential magnetic susceptibility, $dM/d{H}_{\mathrm{app}}={\chi }_{\mathrm{diff}}/(1+N_d{\chi }_{\mathrm{diff}})$.

For constant scalar response $\mathbf{m}={\alpha }_B{\mathbf{B}}_0$ and a body small compared with the applied field's spatial variation scale, the gradient of the induced magnetic dipole energy gives $\mathbf{F}={\alpha }_B\nabla B_0^2/2$. Along an axis this is $F_z=md{B}_0/dz$. For an ellipsoidal body, put ${\chi }_{\mathrm{eff}}=\chi /(1+N_d\chi )$ to obtain $F_z={\mu }_{0}V{\chi }_{\mathrm{eff}}{H}_0{H}_0^{\prime }$. Positive effective magnetic susceptibility attracts the body towards stronger field; a negative response repels it. Reversing the source current leaves the force unchanged because both the induced moment and the field gradient reverse. Shape and orientation enter through the demagnetizing factor, not merely through volume.

The printed formula has a physical problem for the specified geometry. Let $\chi =\mu -1$ be the linear magnetic susceptibility, where $\mu$ is the source's relative magnetic permeability. The constitutive equation is $M=\chi H_{\mathrm{in}}$, not in general $\chi H_0/\mu$.

For a small uniformly magnetized ellipsoid with its principal axis along the applied field, include its demagnetizing field through the SI demagnetizing factor $N_d$:Solving givesA slender rod aligned along the field has $N_d\to 0$ as its aspect ratio grows. Its ideal slender-rod limit at fixed $\mu$ is thereforeprovided $N_d|\mu -1|\ll 1$. A finite cylinder generally has nonuniform magnetization, so an ellipsoidal shape factor is an approximation, and its aspect ratio is needed for a more precise correction. Small sample length compared with the field-variation scale makes $H_0$ approximately uniform across it; that condition does not set the demagnetizing factor to one.

The source's displayed $M=(\mu -1)H_0/\mu$ instead follows from $N_d=1$, the thin-plate limit with field normal to the plate. It can also be obtained by imposing $B_{\mathrm{in}}=B_0$, but that identification is not justified for a thin rod parallel to the field. Consequently the requested extra $1/\mu$ cannot honestly be derived from the stated rod geometry. The next part gives both the shape-consistent result and the force conditional on using the printed magnetisation.

Changing shape changes the demagnetizing field, and hence the magnetization induced by the same applied magnetic field intensity. For a small linear sample in the ellipsoid approximation, the force magnitude scales withFor $\mu >1$, a more elongated body aligned with the field has smaller $N_d$ and a stronger response. A sphere has $N_d=1/3$, giving ${\chi }_{\mathrm{eff}}=3(\mu -1)/(\mu +2)$; a very thin plate with field normal to it has $N_d\to 1$, giving $(\mu -1)/\mu$. Thus an axially slender rod generally experiences a stronger attraction than a sphere or a transverse thin plate of the same material and volume, within the linear uniform-applied-field approximation.

The shape response is precisely why the $1/\mu$ factor in part (c) cannot apply universally to every small magnetic body. Orientation also matters through the appropriate principal demagnetizing factor; for general nonellipsoidal bodies the internal field is not uniform and a single scalar correction need not be exact.

A researcher in magnetic measurement whose account of demagnetizing factors distinguishes the field applied to a specimen from the field produced by the specimen’s own magnetization. For a cylinder, that internal field is generally nonuniform, so an instrument sampling the central region and one averaging the entire specimen need not require the same correction. This explains why specimen shape and measurement geometry matter when inferring a material’s magnetic susceptibility.^[ref]

For an ellipsoidal sample in a uniform applied magnetic field intensity $H_0$ along a principal axis, its uniform demagnetizing field is $-N_{d}M$. The SI demagnetizing factor obeys $0\le N_d\le 1$. Linear magnetic susceptibility $\chi ={\mu }_r-1$ gives $M=\chi (H_0-N_{d}M)$, hence $M=\chi H_0/(1+N_d\chi )$. An axially slender prolate limit has $N_d\to 0$, a sphere has $N_d=1/3$, and a thin plate with field normal to it has $N_d\to 1$. Thus $M=({\mu }_r-1)H_0/{\mu }_r$ belongs to the plate limit, not the slender axial-rod limit. A finite cylinder generally has nonuniform magnetization; an effective ellipsoidal factor is an approximation rather than an exact universal correction.