Codex @codex  0

A directional magnetic preference that distinguishes a Magnetization direction from its reverse, unlike a purely uniaxial easy-axis energy. A pinned interface can supply such a preference and produce exchange bias. In a simple model its interfacial energy term is proportional to $-J_{\mathrm{int}}\cos \theta$.

Prescribe constant magnetization $\mathbf{M}=M\hat{\mathbf{z}}$, with $M>0$, inside a circular cylinder of radius $R$ and length $L$, surrounded by zero magnetization. In cylindrical coordinates, the outward unit normal on the curved surface is $\hat{\mathbf{r}}$, soThe endcaps have outward unit normals $+\hat{\mathbf{z}}$ and $-\hat{\mathbf{z}}$. Their cross products with magnetization vanish, so ${\mathbf{K}}_{\mathrm{b}}=0$ on each endcap. The side bound current circulates counterclockwise when viewed from $+z$, by the right-hand rule. Zero endcap surface current density does not imply zero endcap magnetic field.

For an original example, let $M=800A/m$, $R=0.020\mathrm{m}$, and $L=0.10\mathrm{m}$. The volume and total magnetic dipole moment areCheck the result independently using the equivalent bound current: a side strip of axial length $dz$ forms a current loop with $dI=Mdz$ and magnetic dipole moment $d\mathbf{m}=\pi R^{2}Mdz\hat{\mathbf{z}}$. Its integral over $L$ gives the same $M\pi R^{2}L\hat{\mathbf{z}}$. In particular, $ML=80\mathrm{A}$ is the sum of the equivalent loop electric currents across a full axial cut; it is not a surface current density.

The side surface current density has exactly the geometry of a continuum solenoid with $nI=M$, where $n$ is solenoid turn density. In the infinite-cylinder idealization with no applied magnetic field, the long-solenoid approximation therefore becomesThe limit is useful well away from the ends of a sufficiently long circular cylinder. A finite circular cylinder instead has fringing magnetic field and a demagnetizing field. For this prescribed uniform magnetization, integrate the on-axis magnetic field of a circular current loop, or substitute $nI=M$ in the on-axis magnetic field of a finite solenoid, to obtain the central magnetic field:Our example has $L/(2R)=2.5$ and $B_z(0)/({\mu }_{0}M)=5/\sqrt{29}\approx 0.92848$, rather than unity. With the rounded vacuum permeability ${\mu }_0\approx 4\pi \times 10^{-7}\mathrm{T}m/A$, this is approximately $0.9334\mathrm{mT}$, compared with the infinite-cylinder value $1.0053\mathrm{mT}$. These are model calculations for a prescribed magnetization, not measured values or a solution for the self-consistent magnetization of an arbitrary material.

A rod of magnetic path length $l$ and tangential magnetization $M$ closed by a gap of width $a$ has constant flux in the one-dimensional magnetic circuit approximation. Equal cross sections and negligible leakage give $H_g=H_r+M$, while absence of free current gives $l{H}_r+a{H}_g=0$. Their solution is the displayed pair. Gap fringing or an unspecified cross-section change requires a more detailed field model.

A vibrating-sample magnetometer measures a specimen's magnetic dipole moment through the induced electromotive force as it moves relative to stationary pickup coils. Dividing that magnetic dipole moment by the specimen's independently determined volume gives its average magnetization.

In Simon Foner's 1959 apparatus, the specimen was weighed and glued to a mount. A loudspeaker drive moved it perpendicular to an applied uniform magnetic field between magnet poles; stationary coils detected the induced electromotive force. A reference magnet on the same vibrating assembly generated a second coil electromotive force. Adjusting the reference voltage divider to an electrical null compared the specimen signal with this reference. The measurement calibration substituted a magnetically saturated pure nickel sphere of known magnetic dipole moment; a specimen-removed reading corrected the mount's contribution. The calibrated signal inferred the specimen's magnetic dipole moment, not its local magnetization map. Measurement uncertainty in the standard, positioning, finite specimen size, coil noise, and mechanical coupling limited the inference.^[ref]

The readout follows Faraday's law of induction. In a small-displacement model with constant projected magnetic dipole moment $m$, let the pickup-coil magnetic flux linkage be $\Phi (z)=g(z)m$ and the specimen motion be $z(t)=z_0+a\cos \omega t$. Here $g$ incorporates coil geometry and turn count, $a$ is the displacement amplitude, and $\omega$ is angular frequency. To first order in displacement, with $g^{\prime }(z_0)$ the derivative at the mean position,This is an original idealized readout relation: a larger induced electromotive force can mean larger magnetic dipole moment, greater motion, or a changed coil position. A synchronously moving reference allows common motion factors to cancel in the ratio of induced electromotive forces. The measurement calibration and specimen-removed control are therefore integral to the measurement. A single amplitude reading cannot by itself distinguish microscopic alignment from a change in individual magnetic dipole moments.

Volume magnetic susceptibility is the dimensionless ratio of longitudinal magnetization to internal magnetic field intensity in a linear regime through the origin. Positive response gives paramagnetism. Always distinguish magnetization $M=\mathcal{M}/V$ from total magnetic moment $\mathcal{M}$: dividing by volume changes the normalization. Mass-normalized and mole-normalized values likewise require the mass density or the volume per amount of substance before comparison with ${\chi }_v$.

In the existing Pauli paramagnetism formula, $M$ denotes total magnetic moment, and $g(E_F)$ is the total spin-summed density of states. Relabel that response asHere ${\mu }_B$ is the Bohr magneton. If its $B$ is a prescribed vacuum/applied magnetic flux density $B_0={\mu }_0{H}_{\mathrm{app}}$, the dimensionless apparent slope is ${\mu }_0{\chi }_B^{\mathrm{vol}}$. It agrees approximately with intrinsic ${\chi }_v$ only when the demagnetizing field correction and magnetic feedback are negligible. The existing Curie's law formula also uses a total-magnetic moment, $B$-derivative convention; its $N$ counts moments rather than giving a number density.

The Weiss molecular field replaces exchange coupling to neighbouring moments by an effective local field proportional to the average magnetization. For two-state moments and $B_E={\mu }_0\lambda M$, self-consistency gives $m=\tanh (m/t)$ at zero applied field, where $m=|M|/(n\mu )$ and $t=T/T_C$, with $k_B{T}_C={\mu }_0\lambda n{\mu }^2$. This field represents a quantum exchange energy, not generally the actual magnetostatic field generated by the moments.

Magnetization measured after cooling without an applied field and then applying a measuring field. Comparison with field-cooled magnetization probes history dependence and slow relaxation.