1
\$\begingroup\$

I am a chemistry intern currently running a project that involves both chemistry and electromagnetism. Bottom line, I'm a little out of my depth and have much to learn, and I'm having a bit of trouble with the coils I constructed.

My setup will consist of four coils positioned horizontally around a microscope objective, and one underneath, such that the coils opposite eachother will create a homogenous field in the center, with a downwards gradient from the lower magnet. distance between opposite coils will be approximately 3 inches, so that's why I believed an iron core would be needed to achieve 15mT at the center.

I machined aluminum bobbins to act as a heat sink for the coil, as I'm fairly certain the aluminum shouldn't affect the field at all, although I do have delrin that I could use instead. For the cores, I bought some VIM VAR core iron (99.85-99.9% Fe, less than 0.01% C), machined them to press fit in the bobbins, and had the magnetically annealed in wet hydrogen to homogenize and maximize the relative permeability.

The relative permeability is supposed to reach as high as 15000 with the heat treating, imagine my surprise when the flux density was only 2.5x stronger with the core inserted. A current of 1.4A yields a flux density of 40 gauss at the mouth of the bobbin with air core, and 100 gauss with the iron core inserted.

My own calculations, as well as an online calculator I used from the company I bought the current amplifiers from, told me I should be easily able to achieve my desired field strengths, so this leads me to believe I either built something wrong, or was sold the wrong material.

Is this something that you guys would be able to help with, or is there a better forum for this?

EDIT: I did test several lower field strengths and a couple higher ones, the core isn't saturated, it is still in the linear region.

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ It might help if you draw a diagram of your setup and post your calculations \$\endgroup\$
    – Drew
    Commented Mar 4 at 22:36
  • \$\begingroup\$ With that high permeability the flux density (B) will be dominantly determined by the length of the remaining air gap. Given that you report an increase in B by a factor 2.5 tells me that the effective air gap has decreased by that same factor. So I guess the following holds: \$ \frac{Length_{magnetic circuit} }{ Length_{magnetic circuit} - Length_{core inserted} } = 2.5 \$ \$\endgroup\$
    – HarryH
    Commented Mar 5 at 1:00
  • \$\begingroup\$ I fail to imagine the shape of field you try to generate using four coils positioned horizontally around a [volume of interest, + 1] underneath: can you elaborate on that? Is it to be static, or shall it change over time? \$\endgroup\$
    – greybeard
    Commented Mar 5 at 9:22

2 Answers 2

1
\$\begingroup\$

Keep the gaps around the objective to a minimum and link the outer ends of all the coils with your high permeability material.

You have to think of the magnetics as a circuit like an electrical circuit and to maximize the flux provide it with a low reluctance path as far as possible. As an example look at how a motor stator is constructed. enter image description here

\$\endgroup\$
0
\$\begingroup\$

imagine my surprise when the flux density was only 2.5x stronger with the core inserted.

It's not a big surprise to me at all.

Any magnetic core material will barely concentrate flux in the presence of air gaps. The air gap will be the massively dominant factor in determining magnetic reluctance.

Yes, I can see your reasoning that adding a high permeability core material must significantly raise the flux by big amounts but, I'm sorry to disappoint you that this will not be the case.

EDIT: I did test several lower field strengths and a couple higher ones, the core isn't saturated, it is still in the linear region.

It will be nowhere near saturation in the presence of a big/significant air gap. The air gap is the weakest link of the chain when it comes to producing magnetic flux density.

\$\endgroup\$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.