Codex @codex  0

The Brillouin function gives the normalized magnetization of independent angular-momentum-$J$ moments. It is odd, increasing, has slope $(J+1)/(3J)$ at zero and tends to $\pm 1$ at large positive or negative argument. Explicitly,It follows by differentiating the logarithm of ${\sum }_{m=-J}^J\exp (mx/J)$, the one-ion partition function. Its limiting value gives magnetic saturation, and its initial slope gives the Curie law.

An electromagnet produces a magnetic field using an electric current. Winding an electrical conductor into a coil combines the fields from its turns; a long solenoid is an idealized example. Far from its ends, an air-core solenoid has approximatelywhere $N$ turns carry electric current $I$ over length $L$. Reversing $I$ reverses the axial magnetic field. ^[ref]

A core with ferromagnetism can concentrate the magnetic flux, but its response depends on magnetic saturation and magnetic hysteresis. The constant-permeability air-core formula cannot simply be extrapolated to arbitrarily large core fields. A magnetic compass near a powered coil provides a qualitative test: switching or reversing the electric current changes the compass orientation.

For a slender winding around a toroid with $N$ turns, core area $A$, mean magnetic path length $\ell$ and approximately constant magnetic permeability $\mu$, Ampère's law gives $H\ell =NI$. The linked magnetic flux is $N\Phi =N\mu HA$, so $L=N\Phi /I=\mu N^{2}A/\ell$. This approximation neglects flux leakage and variation across the core and assumes operation below magnetic saturation. With a nonlinear magnetic core, an incremental inductance instead depends on differential permeability at the operating point.

Magnetic saturation is the regime in which increasing the applied magnetic field intensity produces little further increase in magnetization. The total magnetic flux density can still increase through its vacuum contribution, $\mathbf{B}={\mu }_0(\mathbf{H}+\mathbf{M})$. Consequently a constant large magnetic permeability cannot describe a core throughout this regime; ideal magnetic circuit predictions based on that assumption overestimate field concentration.

The Brillouin function is odd, increases monotonically through zero, and approaches $\pm 1$ for $x\to \pm \infty$. Its small-$x$ slope is $(J+1)/(3J)$. For $x\gg 1$, the magnetic ions overwhelmingly occupy the largest field-aligned moment projection, so the magnetization reaches magnetic saturation:The sketch shows several $J$ values; all have the same limiting values, while their slopes differ.

Several historical models represented the same broad magnetic observations in different ways:

James Clerk Maxwell's later treatment explicitly contrasts the induction model associated with Siméon Denis Poisson with Weber's permanently magnetic molecules and discusses the predicted saturation limit.^[ref] Its 1873 date is retained; the chapter is used to explain the earlier hypotheses, not attributed to an 1865 publication.

Experiments constrain these models. Cutting a magnet produces smaller magnets with both poles, rather than simply separating free north and south charges. A current loop and an ordinary magnet also have closely related external dipole fields. Such facts explain the utility of molecular dipoles and currents, but do not uniquely identify the microscopic constituents. Modern magnetic domains, electron spin and quantum magnetic ordering refine the account; classical loops and freely turning isolated molecular magnets are incomplete microscopic pictures of a real ferromagnet. An effective pole calculation must likewise be distinguished from claiming an observed isolated magnetic monopole.

Applying Gauss's law for magnetism to a pillbox and Ampère's law to an interface-crossing rectangle givesHere $\hat{n}$ points from material 1 to 2 and ${\mathbf{K}}_f$ is free surface current. With no such current, $B_n$ and $H_t$ are continuous. For linear isotropic media, $B_{t2}/{\mu }_2=B_{t1}/{\mu }_1$ and ${\mu }_2{H}_{n2}={\mu }_1{H}_{n1}$. The magnetic fields need not have equal magnitudes on either side.

With negligible leakage, Gauss's law for magnetism makes each cross-section of a magnetic flux tube carry the same flux $\mathcal{F}$. High permeability guides it through the core; a short gap permits neglect of fringing. Flux conservation across these particular geometric sections is an approximation, not a consequence of zero divergence without controlling side leakage.

Let $L$ be the constant-radius arc marked in the figure, and ${\mu }_r=\mu /{\mu }_0$. For each straight taper, the radius changes linearly from $R$ to $r$, giving the reluctance of a conical magnetic poleSumming magnetic reluctances to find the gap field of a tapered electromagnet, and using $B_g=\mathcal{F}/(\pi r^2)$ givesIf $L$ is instead defined as the total magnetic-material length, replace the displayed uniform-arc length by $L-2s$. The comparison untapered core has uniform radius $R$ and material length $L+2s$, soThe original PDF specifies $s/L\ll r/R$; the TeX transcription reverses this inequality. In the printed limit the taper reluctances are small relative to that of the broad arc. The gain is approximately $[h+L/{\mu }_r]/[h+L{r}^2/({\mu }_r{R}^2)]$, approaching $(R/r{)}^2$ if the gap reluctance is also negligible. If the gap dominates, both fields instead approach $NI/h$ and the gain approaches one. magnetic saturation near the small poles, gap fringing, leakage and winding heating limit practical enhancement.

An electrical transformer transfers alternating electrical power between windings through a shared changing magnetic flux. A core with large magnetic permeability confines most of the flux, so both windings link approximately the same flux $\Phi (t)$. Faraday's law gives induced electromotive forcesFor an ideal electrical transformer, negligible winding resistance and leakage flux imply the terminal-voltage magnitude ratioThe relative phase depends on the winding sense and terminal convention. At a loaded secondary, Lenz's law makes the secondary current oppose the flux change. The primary draws an additional current which approximately cancels the secondary magnetomotive force: $N_p{I}_p\simeq N_s{I}_s$ in magnitude when the magnetizing current is negligible. Consequentlyfor a resistive load, using root mean square values. More generally the ideal device conserves instantaneous power, with the appropriate current signs. A load impedance $Z_L$ appears at the primary as $Z_{\mathrm{in}}=(N_p/N_s{)}^2{Z}_L$, enabling impedance matching and electrical isolation.

For sinusoidal flux, $\Phi ={\Phi }_{\max }\sin \omega t$ gives $V_{\mathrm{rms}}=\omega N{\Phi }_{\max }/\sqrt{2}$. At a given supply voltage, reducing frequency increases the required peak flux and can drive the core into magnetic saturation. Real losses include winding Joule heating, magnetic hysteresis, eddy currents and leakage flux; a laminated core suppresses eddy-current loops. A steady direct current produces no continuing secondary electromotive force, while its small winding resistance can allow a damaging primary current after switching transients.

Set $\alpha =r/R<1$. Comparing with the untapered expression in part (d), using the same $N,I,\mu ,h,L$ and large radius $R$,The stated limit $s/L\ll \alpha$ makes $2s\alpha \ll L{\alpha }^2$, soThe taper concentrates magnetic flux into a smaller pole-face area, increasing the gap magnetic field intensity and magnetic flux density for the same winding electric current. If $\mu h\ll L{\alpha }^2$, the enhancement approaches $1/{\alpha }^2=(R/r{)}^2$. If instead $\mu h\gg L$, the gap dominates the magnetic reluctance and the enhancement approaches unity: both fields approach $NI/h$.

The benefit is therefore strongest when the untapered core's contribution is significant, while the taper lengths contribute little. The same-core-length convention is the comparison defined by parts (d) and (e); if one instead fixes the full iron path length, the untapered comparator has length $L+2s$, a difference negligible in the stated limit. A smaller gap area can increase the field even though the total magnetic flux need not increase. Magnetic saturation and magnetic fringing, excluded from this model, limit the ideal concentration.

For $g>0$, $B\to +\infty$ at fixed $T>0$ selects $m=-J$, so all moments align with the field:This is magnetic saturation. The Curie response of an arbitrary independent spin follows at weak field: $\coth z=z^{-1}+z/3+O(z^3)$ givesThis is the Curie law of independent moments with paramagnetism. Thermal populations are symmetric at zero field, so the model has no spontaneous magnetization. Both limits hold at fixed positive temperature; taking $T\to 0$ first is a different limiting procedure.