DIAMAGNETISM AND MAGNETIC DRAG

DIAMAGNETISM AND
MAGNETIC DRAG

.

Experiment #1

Set up

• 1 pc 4" x 3" x 16 Ga sheet of 99% cold rolled copper suspended by two 60" long fishing lines at two neighboring corners (to prevent spinning) in a vertical plane orientation with its lower edge 1/16" above a wooden desk.

• 1 sheet squared paper taped on top of the desk and used as a rough scale.

• 1 permanent (speaker) magnet with its soft steel core removed and with an approximate pull of 15 lbs. on contact with mild steel.

Procedure and Observations

When the magnet is being brought into the proximity of the copper sheet perpendicularly to its plane, the sheet gets initially repulsed from the vertical. Then the copper slowly returns back to vertical and steadies with no observable declination in a steady field of the magnet, which was left motionless in the immediate proximity of the sheet. If there were any remaining decline of the sheet from the vertical due to the claimed diamagnetism of copper, it wastoo small to be observed by this set up.

The faster is the approach of the magnet to the sheet, the faster and greater is the initial declination of the sheet, up to a point, when the rate of effect reverses. When the magnet is being retracted from the sheet, the sheet follows it out of the vertical up to a point, as if attracted. The faster is the retraction of the magnet from the sheet, the faster and the greater is the initial declination of the sheet up to a point, when the effect quantitatively reverses. The qualitative behavior is independent of the magnet orientation in both cases and the quantitative effect seems also equal in all speaker magnet orientations.

Experiment #2

Set up

is identical as in the experiment #1, except that the same sheet of copper was thermally annealed at approximately 700 C by an oxy-acetylene torch.

Procedure and Observations

The annealed copper sheet yields the same qualitative results, but it is readily observable that they are quantitatively pronounced compared to #1 with no observable declination of the sheet from vertical in a steady magnetic field. The sheet declined about 3 times after being annealed and quenched in water.

Experiment #3

Set up

is identical as in experiment #1, except that the same sheet of copper was work hardened to a point of brittleness by hammering.

Procedure and Observations

The sheet almost ceases to get initially repulsed by approaching magnetic field.

The sheet gets noticeably attracted by a steady magnetic field. Even though the sheet may have been contaminated by the steel from the hammer and the anvil, the contamination, if any, could not be high enough to account for the degree of declination in a steady field. Anvils and hammers are made from hardened steel which does not easilly transfer to the base material, which can be observed when hammered stainless steel is acid passivated.

Experiment #4

Set up

is identical to the setup in experiment #1 except that the copper sheet is replaced by a piece of 99% pure cold rolled copper round bar, 3/4" diameter, of the same weight as the sheet in the experiment #1, therefore material equivalent to the material in experiment #1 except for its shape. It is again suspended but in horizontal position by two 60" long fishing lines at its ends (to prevent spinning), with its lower side 1/16" above the wooden desk.

Procedure and Observations

This experiment yields the same qualitative results as experiment #1 and #2, but barely observable.

Experiment #5

Set up

is identical to the setup in experiment #1 except that the copper is replaced by a single sheet of coppy paper

Procedure and Observations

No observable declinations

Experiment #6

Set up

is identical to the setup in experiment #1 except that the paper sheet is replaced by 1993 Ontario Occupational Safety and Health Regulations paperback.

Procedure and Observations

This one yields the same qualitative result as the experiment #1 with the copper sheet, but recognizably less pronounced.

I have also tested aluminum sheet and bar and a cake of chemicaly pure bismuth. These also show variants of the same qualitative results as the #1 copper experiment with different degrees of declination and inclination. Anyone is welcome to draw his/her own conclusions. My conclusions can be found in my Tour the Force. They need a bit of an update though. The only ones, which I want to present here are; that diamagnetism is a tricky subject and not all that is observed as “repulsive” force can identify with diamagnetism. The declination and inclination upon approach and retraction of a permanent magnet shows that magnetic field has different degrees of difficulties to permeat the subjected materials, deforms as it is moved and its drag on the materials proves that magnetic field is not a radially radiating field, but a bowstring radiating field. Magnetic field is not a moving wave radial radiation. The quality as well as the shape of the material and the magnetic field have also bearing on the degree of declination and inclination.