- #1
fayled
- 177
- 0
This is defined by M=XmH.
Using H=(B/u0)-M to eliminate M gives us M=1/u0(Xm/1+Xm)B, where B is the total magnetic field.
Now my problem is, my book states that for paramagnetic media, Xm is positive, and for diamagnetic media Xm is negative. Now for paramagnetism, we expect M and B to have the same directions, i.e the constant of proportionality above should be positive - Xm>0 achieves this so it is fine. For diamagnetism however, where M and B have opposite directions, we expect the constant to be negative. If we write the constant as 1/1+1/(Xm) (ignoring the positive u0), we see that Xm<0 achieves this, but only for Xm between 0 and -1. So what the book is saying doesn't seem to be true all the time. The only thing I can see that could save this is that apparently Xm values are typically of the order of around 10-5 so this would be correct - but I don't like how the book doesn't mention something that could theoretically happen so would be grateful if somebody could tell me if I'm right or not, thankyou :)
Using H=(B/u0)-M to eliminate M gives us M=1/u0(Xm/1+Xm)B, where B is the total magnetic field.
Now my problem is, my book states that for paramagnetic media, Xm is positive, and for diamagnetic media Xm is negative. Now for paramagnetism, we expect M and B to have the same directions, i.e the constant of proportionality above should be positive - Xm>0 achieves this so it is fine. For diamagnetism however, where M and B have opposite directions, we expect the constant to be negative. If we write the constant as 1/1+1/(Xm) (ignoring the positive u0), we see that Xm<0 achieves this, but only for Xm between 0 and -1. So what the book is saying doesn't seem to be true all the time. The only thing I can see that could save this is that apparently Xm values are typically of the order of around 10-5 so this would be correct - but I don't like how the book doesn't mention something that could theoretically happen so would be grateful if somebody could tell me if I'm right or not, thankyou :)