At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
Options a) m b)m/2 c) 2m d)m/4
I don't know the answer to be exact. let's try to think it in terms of current.|dw:1336268902939:dw|
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
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
I was guessing the same. If we remove the two loops above ... the field would reduce by 2
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
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.
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??
new m = N/2 IA = old m/2
@experimentX , Can you make it little more clear what you are trying to convey ?
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.
@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
@experimentX L also becomes l/2
then the strength is half.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_moment#Magnetic_moment_of_a_solenoid consider solenoid instead of magnet.
@experimentX , I considered the same bro
permanent magnet right?
maybe your formula is wrong. Check your book. But I remember that the strength was relative to the length.
And you can physically show that. When you break a big magnet the total B has to add up the same for both magnets.
So if it was cut in half then both have an equal B that add up to the B of the original magnet
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
But when you cut them in half you actually have more surface than before cutting it.
@Romero ,In the formula it is area of crossection. See the diagram |dw:1336270957783:dw|
yea ... it seems plausible. LOL, there was L (length) ... i was thinking it current. lol
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.
@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
best of luck!!!