Scientific American Supplement, No. 787, January 31, 1891 — John Shaqi
Scientific American Supplement, No. 787, January 31, 1891Various
Science
Scientific American Supplement, No. 787, January 31, 1891
Various
Science -- Periodicals
Another of Du Moncel's researches[2] relates to the effect of polar
projections or shoes--movable pole pieces, if you like--upon a
horseshoe electromagnet. The core of this magnet was of round iron 4
centimeters in diameter, and the parallel limbs were 10 centimeters
long and 6 centimeters apart. The shoes consisted of two flat pieces
of iron slotted out at one end, so that they could be slid along over
the poles and brought nearer together. The attraction exerted on a
flat armature across air gaps 2 millimeters thick was measured by
counterpoising. Exciting this electromagnet with a certain battery, it
was found that the attraction was greatest when the shoes were pushed
to about 15 millimeters, or about one-quarter of the interpolar
distance, apart. The numbers were as follows:
Distance between
shoes. Attraction,
Millimeters. in grammes.
2 900
10 1,012
15 1,025
25 965
40 890
60 550
[Footnote 2: "La Lumiere Electrique," vol. iv., p. 129.]
With a stronger battery the magnet without shoes had an attraction of
885 grammes, but with the shoes 15 millimeters apart, 1,195 grammes.
When one pole only was employed, the attraction, which was 88 grammes
without a shoe, was _diminished_ by adding a shoe to 39 grammes!
CONTRAST BETWEEN ELECTROMAGNETS AND PERMANENT MAGNETS.
Now I want particularly to ask you to guard against the idea that all
these results obtained from electromagnets are equally applicable to
permanent magnets of steel; they are not, for this simple reason. With
an electromagnet, when you put the armature near, and make the
magnetic circuit better, you not only get more magnetic lines going
through that armature, but you get more magnetic lines going through
the whole of the iron. You get more magnetic lines round the bend when
you put an armature on to the poles, because you have a magnetic
circuit of less reluctance with the same external magnetizing power in
the coils acting around it. Therefore, in that case, you will have a
greater magnetic flux all the way round. The data obtained with the
electromagnet (Fig. 42), with the exploring coil, C, on the bend of
the core, where the armature was in contact, and when it was removed
are most significant. When the armature was present it multiplied the
total magnetic flow tenfold for weak currents and nearly threefold for
strong currents. But with a steel horseshoe, magnetized once for all,
the magnetic lines that flow around the bend of the steel are a fixed
quantity, and, however much you diminish the reluctance of the
magnetic circuit, you do not create or evoke any more. When the
armature is away the magnetic lines arch across, not at the ends of
the horseshoe only, but from its flanks; the whole of the magnetic
lines leaking somehow across the space. Where you have put the
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account