3
$\begingroup$

I'm quite lost what $B$ and $H$ is. It seams to me that most of the texts I read do quite poor job in explaining them properly. They are explained only in cases when magnetic susceptibility is constant in the space.

First law says that $M = \chi H$, $M$ is magnetization and to my understanding $H$ is something like external magnetic field (for example Earth magnetic field when I do experiment in some lab).

Next law says that magnetic field is $B = \mu_0(M+H) = \mu H$. This has to be wrong when $\chi$ is not constant because than we are not guarantied that divergence of $B$ is zero. $$ \nabla \cdot B = \nabla \cdot (\mu H ) \neq \mu \nabla \cdot H = 0 $$

Can you please direct me to some book when this is explained properly?

My aim: I want to calculate magnetic field around paramagnetic material. I cannot use formula $B = \mu H$ because outside paramagnet is $\mu = \mu_0$ so magnetic field would be unchanged.

$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

2
$\begingroup$

Hopefully this should dispel some of your confusion. In general, the fields $\textbf{B}$ and $\textbf{H}$ are related by

$$ \textbf{H} \equiv \frac{1}{\mu_0}(\textbf{B} - \textbf{M}) $$

This is always true, regardless of the materials involved. We define linear media as materials whose fields satisfy

$$ \textbf{B} = \frac{1}{\chi}\textbf{M}. $$

In this case, for relative permeability $\mu = \mu_0(1+\chi)$, the relation $\textbf{B} = \mu\textbf{H}$ also holds. For nonlinear media, as you describe, it does not. Also, taking the divergence of both sides of the first equation yields

$$ \nabla \cdot \textbf{H} = -\frac{1}{\mu_0}\nabla \cdot \textbf{M}. $$

Thus, the divergence of $\textbf{H}$ is not always 0. To help you with your "aim," it might be useful to note that most paramagnetic materials, for low magnetism, can be approximated as linear media ($\mu$ is constant).

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

The concept of magnetic field H and magnetic flux density B could be confusing. These are the names commonly known in textbooks. Obviously the naming is not unique either. At least these are the case I see in most books. Although H is called magnetic field, it is B that directly determines Lorentz force. So in many experiments B is measured. It then makes more sense to call B magnetic field. Nonexistence of magnetic charge leads to the divergence free property of B. And H is determined by both B and the magnetic properties of materials. In this sense B corresponds to E and H corresponds to D: D = \epsilon E, H = (1 / \mu) B.

Hope it helps somewhat instead of causing more confusion...

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Thx, but sorry to say, there is nothing new for me in your answer. $\endgroup$
    – Tom
    May 30, 2014 at 15:44

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.