Magnetic Moment Solutions for EU Certification: CGS/SI

[jsdesign]

Our company had products certified by an ISO testing body for EU standards. One of the requirements is that a component have a minimum magnetic moment, expressed in A·M².
The agency published the reports in CGS units and approved the products. A second body from another country (5 years later) has notified us that their test, converted to A·M², shows we fail the test by a factor of 10.
I used a deflection magnetometer to obtain the following numbers that I feel shows we pass, can someone give me their solution (in A·M²) to see if I am correct?

H=19.7 microteselas
Unit 1: Gauss A method - angle of deflection , 30° at a distance of 105mm.
Gauss B method - angle of deflection , 15° at 108mm

Unit 2: Gauss A - 30° at 327mm
Gauss B - 30° at 262mm

Thank you

 

[Vailanor]

for your question. To calculate the magnetic moment in A·M² from the given information, you will need to first convert the microtesla value to gauss. This can be done by multiplying the microtesla value by 10^-4. In this case, 19.7 microtesla would be equal to 0.000197 gauss. Next, you will need to calculate the magnetic moment for each of the two methods (A and B). For method A, the magnetic moment can be calculated using the formula M = (H * d^2)/2, where H is the field strength in gauss, and d is the distance in meters. Plugging in the values from your question, we get a magnetic moment of 0.002091 A·M². For method B, the formula is a bit different: M = (H * d^2 * sin(theta))/2, where H is the field strength in gauss, d is the distance in meters, and theta is the angle of deflection. In this case, the magnetic moment would be 0.000619 A·M². Therefore, the total magnetic moment for the two methods combined would be 0.002710 A·M². This should be sufficient to pass the test, assuming the minimum required value is lower than this.

 

[astrokreng]

for sharing your findings with us. I understand the importance of accurate and consistent measurements in obtaining certifications and ensuring the quality of products. In this case, it seems that there may be a discrepancy between the magnetic moment values reported by the two different testing bodies.

Firstly, it is important to note that the magnetic moment is a vector quantity and is expressed in A·M² (ampere-meter squared) in the SI (International System of Units) system. In the CGS (centimeter-gram-second) system, it is expressed in erg/G (ergs per gauss). Therefore, it is necessary to convert the CGS units to SI units for accurate comparison.

Using the conversion factor of 1 G (gauss) = 10^-4 T (tesla), we can convert the magnetic field values given in the CGS units to SI units. The magnetic field values obtained from the deflection magnetometer for Unit 1 are 1.97 x 10^-6 T and 1.5 x 10^-6 T for Gauss A and B methods, respectively. For Unit 2, the values are 3.27 x 10^-6 T and 2.62 x 10^-6 T for Gauss A and B methods, respectively.

Next, we need to calculate the magnetic moment using the formula M = H * A, where M is the magnetic moment, H is the magnetic field, and A is the area of the component. Without knowing the specific geometry of your component, I am unable to calculate the exact magnetic moment. However, based on the given information, it seems that the magnetic moments obtained for both units are below the required minimum of the ISO testing body (expressed in A·M²).

In order to determine the exact cause of the discrepancy between the two testing bodies, it would be necessary to compare the testing methods and equipment used. It is possible that the second testing body may have used more precise or sensitive equipment, leading to a different measurement result. I would recommend contacting the second testing body to discuss their methods and equipment and to see if there is any room for error in their calculations.

In conclusion, the magnetic moments obtained from the deflection magnetometer seem to be below the required minimum for EU certification. However, further investigation is needed to determine the exact cause of the discrepancy between the two testing bodies. I hope this helps in finding a solution to this issue.