A Image Method for B-Field Calculation on Iron Plate

AI Thread Summary
Calculating the B-field of a conductor above an iron plate using the complex image method is feasible under certain conditions, particularly when considering an infinitely deep and wide metal plate with perfect conductivity. For materials with a relative permeability greater than one, such as ferrite, the image method works well, but applying it to iron presents challenges due to its non-linear hysteresis loop and memory effects. While weak currents can yield linear responses, the complexities of iron's properties necessitate the use of computer simulations for accurate modeling. The discussion highlights that while the image method provides good results in some scenarios, the unique characteristics of iron complicate its application. Overall, further exploration and resources are needed to address the limitations of the image method for iron in B-field calculations.
glj6
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I am wondering if it is possible to calculate the B-field of a conductor above an iron plate just using the complex image method. To keep it simple let’s consider a 2D calculation, the metal plate is infinitely deep and wide and the conductor is infinitely long and thin. If the metal plate has perfect conductivity, then it is sufficient to reflect the current only at the surface of the metal plate. If µr = 1 and the conductivity is not perfect, then the image current must be shifted by twice the distance of the complex skin depth. The approach gives very good results in comparison with Comsol results.

Now I ask myself how can a µr > 1 still be introduced there? A ferrite, on the other hand, can be calculated without problems using the image method, but the mixed form, e.g. iron, is problematic.
I hope someone can help me, at least with a source where someone has done something like this. Or someone can explain to me why such a calculation is not possible.

Thanks in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The problem with any magnetic calculation involving iron is it’s hysteresis loop. For very weak currents/fields, the response is approximately linear, but in general the material properties are non-linear and involve memory effects so computer codes are the way to go.
 
marcusl said:
The problem with any magnetic calculation involving iron is it’s hysteresis loop. For very weak currents/fields, the response is approximately linear, but in general the material properties are non-linear and involve memory effects so computer codes are the way to go.
Thank you very much for your answer. The hysteresis loop is only a problem near saturation, I would consider a linear behavior in my calculation. The same is true for my Comsol model.
 
Susskind (in The Theoretical Minimum, volume 1, pages 203-205) writes the Lagrangian for the magnetic field as ##L=\frac m 2(\dot x^2+\dot y^2 + \dot z^2)+ \frac e c (\dot x A_x +\dot y A_y +\dot z A_z)## and then calculates ##\dot p_x =ma_x + \frac e c \frac d {dt} A_x=ma_x + \frac e c(\frac {\partial A_x} {\partial x}\dot x + \frac {\partial A_x} {\partial y}\dot y + \frac {\partial A_x} {\partial z}\dot z)##. I have problems with the last step. I might have written ##\frac {dA_x} {dt}...
Thread 'Griffith, Electrodynamics, 4th Edition, Example 4.8. (Second part)'
I am reading the Griffith, Electrodynamics book, 4th edition, Example 4.8. I want to understand some issues more correctly. It's a little bit difficult to understand now. > Example 4.8. Suppose the entire region below the plane ##z=0## in Fig. 4.28 is filled with uniform linear dielectric material of susceptibility ##\chi_e##. Calculate the force on a point charge ##q## situated a distance ##d## above the origin. In the page 196, in the first paragraph, the author argues as follows ...
Back
Top