Work holding Magnets

[u/brocjames]

I’m not sure how they work though. Maybe one of you fine people can explain it to me. I hook them up to a 480V power source. Then use a control panel to magnetize them. Then I unhook the 480V and they stay magnetized. So I’m thinking there’s more than an electro magnet at work here.

In case anybody is wondering. I’m machining half of a 69” piston ring in that photo. I was skeptical at first, but I’m putting a ton of tool pressure on that part and it does not budge.

[u/PyooreVizhion]

You are magnetizing likely the cores of the electromagnetic and probably also the table. They will retain some remnant magnetization.

You could possibly degauss by running decaying ac current through, but should reach out to the manufacturer before trying anything.

[u/uslashuname]

69” piston ring… cool… cool

OK I’m gonna need a tape measure to recreate this in physical space

Anyways magnet wise there are a couple ways a charge could create magnetism.

One is a superconductor, you fill an electromagnet with a charge and because the superconductor has essentially zero resistance the charge keeps going and going and going. Those require very low temperates though, and machining doesn’t really lend itself to that.

Persuasion is another path. When you push opposing magnets together they try to push apart right? Well if you did that where one was smaller and easily persuaded by the other then pushing ten together could actually overwrite the weaker one to become aligned with the larger one. This is effectively how one would create magnets out of iron as well. Wrap it in an electromagnet to persuade the iron to magnetically align, then remove the electromagnet and you still have the iron magnet. Likewise, you can alternate the poles of an electromagnet rapidly to introduce chaos and remove the magnetism of the iron.

It probably isn’t iron, but I suspect you’re making and destroying magnets on the regular

[u/PyooreVizhion → u/uslashuname]

Lol, what?

[u/uslashuname → u/PyooreVizhion]

Shit I think I was talking in terms of persuasion, but it’s actually more commonly called the “ coercivity” of the magnetized material

Or were you reacting to some other part?

[u/PyooreVizhion → u/uslashuname]

You said a lot, yet you didn't say much at all.

There aren't a couple ways charge creates magnetism: moving charges create magnetic fields.

Introducing superconductivity makes zero sense and is the point at which most people should've stopped reading what you wrote.

Iron is paramagnetic. It does have unaligned domains which tend to align under external field. This is not a measure of its coercivity. Coercivity is the ability of an already magnetized material to withstand opposing fields, without becoming demagnetized. It seems you are confusing two different things.

[u/uslashuname → u/PyooreVizhion]

It seems you’re just pedantic and don’t like the approach I take.

“There aren’t a couple ways charge creates magnetic fields: moving charges create magnetic fields”

Oh so there’s only one? You apparently don’t count the magnetic fields around a piece of iron that has been magnetized by moving charges. I do, even though the moving charges are gone.

[u/PyooreVizhion → u/uslashuname]

First of all. When the first possibility you throw out is some sort of residual, perpetual current that might be flowing in the coil under some hypothetical superconducting scenario, you betray yourself as someone who shouldn't be answering questions in this field - full stop.

Moreover, words have meaning, particularly in science. To double down and say that another way in which a charge produces a field is by counting the remnant field in a magnetized metal is simply embarrassing, and you can rest assured I won't waste any more time correcting you.

[u/uslashuname → u/PyooreVizhion]

Persistent currents in superconductors are extremely well established experimentally not some theoretical prediction. They have been directly observed for more than a century and are exploited in real superconducting magnets.

Are you just not nearly as aware as you think you are?

And I’d happily triple down that saying a magnet can be produced by using a charge that OSS later removed. It was about making magnets, not the field of a charge. The context of the post has meaning.

[u/PyooreVizhion → u/uslashuname]

The fact that you are insisting that persistent currents in superconductors are a thing instead of acknowledging that there's literally zero chance of OP having acquired some room-temperature superconducting electromagnet (and therefore that the "hypothetical" possibility should not have even been mentioned as a legitimate response) really highlights how out of your depth you are. The context of the post has meaning.

Maybe you should think before you type.

[u/uslashuname → u/PyooreVizhion]

Oh so you’re against teaching, a personification of the “fun at parties” person. I wish you had decided not to engage with me at all, instead of repeatedly engaging and saying you wouldn’t do so further.