A magnet of pole strength m and length l is broken into two pieces. The pole strength of each piece is _________

- anonymous

- Stacey Warren - Expert brainly.com

Hey! We 've verified this expert answer for you, click below to unlock the details :)

- schrodinger

I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!

- anonymous

@experimentX

- anonymous

Options
a) m
b)m/2
c) 2m
d)m/4

- experimentX

I don't know the answer to be exact.
let's try to think it in terms of current.|dw:1336268902939:dw|

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.

## More answers

- anonymous

LOL. I have the answer with me. It is m/2 . But I don't know why. Is there any formula for magnetic pole strength. Because I don't seem to find one. Moreover I have only 20 minutes to leave for my exam centre and this is one of the sample questions

- anonymous

Any logic you would apply. I found only One formula which is
m = pl
m-->magnetic moment
p-->pole strength
l--->separation of charges.
According to this I should get 2m but don't know why answer is given as m/2

- experimentX

I was guessing the same. If we remove the two loops above ... the field would reduce by 2

- anonymous

How about the above formula
Because
m = NIA
A--->area of cross-section
I--->current
Can you clarify how N would be affected on cutting the loop into 2

- experimentX

seriously i dont know the formula ... to be honest i don't know anything about magnetism. My prediction is solely on addition of vector fields.
Perhaps N = N/2 .... since current in the loop will not change and A is also same.

- anonymous

Ok. I found it.
http://www.whatitequals.com/content/magnetic-moment-solenoid-magnetic-moment-loop
N = Number of turns
It would become N/2. Now applying this in the first formula I would get
m/2 = p (l/2)
So p_1 = p_2 ??
p-->pole strength
Am I going wrong anywhere??

- experimentX

new m = N/2 IA = old m/2

- anonymous

@experimentX , Can you make it little more clear what you are trying to convey ?

- experimentX

since the no of turns are halved, the magnetic moment will also be halvened.
and we have pl = m => which makes pole strength half it's original value.

- anonymous

@experimentX , I found this too http://www.pmtprep.com/posts/list/magnetism-a-magnet-of-pole-strength-m-and-magnetic-moment-m-1007572.htm;jsessionid=8B8406110F8322A5B9694123C241B5AE.node1#1234418
which says magnetic pole strength remains constant irrespective of separation between the poles

- anonymous

@experimentX L also becomes l/2

- anonymous

then the strength is half.

- experimentX

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_moment#Magnetic_moment_of_a_solenoid
consider solenoid instead of magnet.

- anonymous

@experimentX , I considered the same bro

- anonymous

permanent magnet right?

- anonymous

yes

- anonymous

maybe your formula is wrong. Check your book. But I remember that the strength was relative to the length.

- anonymous

And you can physically show that. When you break a big magnet the total B has to add up the same for both magnets.

- anonymous

So if it was cut in half then both have an equal B that add up to the B of the original magnet

- anonymous

Which one @Romero . my source for
m =NIA
p=mL
is wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_moment#Magnetic_moment_of_a_solenoid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_moment#Magnetic_pole_definition
Ok. Thanks @experimentX and @Romero . The answer is http://www.pmtprep.com/posts/list/magnetism-a-magnet-of-pole-strength-m-and-magnetic-moment-m-1007572.htm which says magnetic pole strength doesnot change with change in length. It is only dependent on the area of the crossection of magnet. :) Looks like the sample paper answer key is wrong. Thanks for taking your time

- anonymous

But when you cut them in half you actually have more surface than before cutting it.

- anonymous

@Romero ,In the formula it is area of crossection. See the diagram
|dw:1336270957783:dw|

- experimentX

yea ... it seems plausible. LOL, there was L (length) ... i was thinking it current. lol

- anonymous

But the answer given in the website refers to just surface area in general. You're right just pointing out that you take note on how you write things and word it correctly.

- anonymous

@Romero , yes they mentioned "surface area of poles" which should imply the "crossectional area" and their answer seems to match with that implication. Anyways. Thanks for all your help @Romero . I got to leave for my exam now :D

- experimentX

best of luck!!!

- anonymous

Thanks @experimentX

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.