Talk:Magnet

Request for a minor addition, 21 October 2011

In the (protected) "Magnet" article I wish to make a small addition.

From:

Toys: Given their ability to counteract the force of gravity at close range, magnets are often employed in children's toys, such as the Magnet Space Wheel and Levitron, to amusing effect.

To:

Toys: Given their ability to counteract the force of gravity at close range, magnets are often employed in children's toys, such as the Magnet Space Wheel, Magnetic Tower of Hanoi, and Levitron, to amusing effect.

Thanks

Uri-Levy (talk) 05:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

According to the article, the tower does not actually employ magnets - it's just an analogue to magnetism. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

A specific MToH embodiment DOES employ magnets (see picture in the article withe the caption "An illustration of the analogy to magnetism: Disks repel each other if their touching sides have the same color"). Magnetic disks make, I think, an exciting playing effect ("announcing" illegal moves). And if you spin a "hanging" disk, it will rotate quite long (tens of seconds depending on its size of course), around the post. A rather uncommon scene.

(See a short video-clip - http://www.youtube.com/user/uri10levy#p/a/u/2/nUoHHeaJ4eI )

Uri-Levy (talk) 05:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Magnets, how do they work?

I'm not sure how they work. I tried reading the article but i don't understand anything at all. Can someone please explain to me how they work?!?! I have this thing for school but i dont even know how magnets work. I asked someone but they said cant tell if just stupid or trolling but i dont know what that means please help. this website said something about it but i dont understand pleeeez help

http://media3.teenormous.com/items/ih1.redbubble.net/work.6465080.1.fc-550x550-white.v3.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.97.220 (talk) 05:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Magnets work because of magnetism. (Ha ha.) Maybe this will help? Video: The physicist Richard Feynman answers the question, Why do bar magnets attract or repel each other? (from the "External links" section) Good luck! :-) --Steve (talk) 06:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The "Microscopic origin of magnetism" section of our article is the real explanation, and the first sentence of it is fairly straightforward at the level of most school science classes I've worked with. If you "have this thing for school", do you have a textbook or other reference you were instructed to use? Sometimes it's easier to explain the explanation you have (especially so we can see what level you are studying and might need to know) or to know where an existing explanation is confusing than to try to answer without knowing your background. DMacks (talk) 06:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is a piece of wisdom for you:

MAGNET, n. Something acted upon by magnetism.
MAGNETISM, n. Something acting upon a magnet. The two definitions immediately foregoing are condensed from the works of one thousand eminent scientists, who have illuminated the subject with a great white light, to the inexpressible advancement of human knowledge.

— Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

RockMagnetist (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Feynman's discussion is great!! And can't find "Microscopic origin of magnetism". But What we have is a discussion of the microscopic forces holding things together and aligning them. Then there are discussions about the existence of randomly oriented domains or small volume parts of a magnet, and then what is lacking is an admission as to the existence of a spacial substance that is capable of extending these internally generated forces into a larger volume of space than that of the magnet. And so to explain this factual occurrence we resort to mathematics to generate a concept and rationalize the distance requirements appropriately.WFPM (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a pretty good explanation in Ferromagnetism, although it may be at a more technical level than you're looking for, 67.181.97.220 --Chetvorno^TALK 12:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! By technical I think you mean mathematical Because I think Geometry better than I think Mathematics. And when the field of my pendulum magnet bumps against the opposing field under the bottom of the pendulum path and causes it to rebound I wonder what is in that separation space that causes the repulsion impact. I can even feel and hear the click of the repulsion impact! And at that instant in time we have a force acting on my pendulum magnetic and I wonder what entity is causing it. So I read about the internal forces within the magnet and not about how they extend out into space, except that they dissipate into the spacial volume but what are they? Certainly not lines! Maybe we need to revive the vortex concept.WFPM (talk) 05:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Lack of references

There are entire top-level sections without a single citation. This may be the biggest factor preventing this article from meriting a GA rating. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no defination for magnetism . Magnet re used in our daily life . If magnets were not there we would not be able to see television. Magnets guide electrons to the screen . In olden times there were many theory about magnetism . Some say magnets were first found ,When a boy was walking with a metal rod in his hand suddenly it got stuck with a stone then it was named a magnet ,it was named a lodestone .It was found in Magnesia which was in Greek .It was found 2500 years ago . In that time it was mostly found in Greek,China and India . Today magnets are used in our daily life from television to Medical uses . (Hamza52 (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)).

Is this a new comment or a reply to someone else's?RockMagnetist (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I realized that, with so few citations, this article doesn't even meet the first criterion for a B article: "The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary." I added several references after I started this section, but it was hard to find them for all the technological applications. It would really help if the people who put the content there provided the references. RockMagnetist (talk) 04:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Enviromental impact of making magnets

Since magnets are so often used in green energy production and energy conservation I am wondering about the environmental cost of making them.

This is a link I have been shown: [1]

Is it relevant and truthful? Does it belong in criticism section? Stutek (talk) 08:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

While I don't think a "criticism" of magnets section is appropriate, information on manufacturing would be interesting. From a quick skim of that article, it looks like they focus on processing neodymium. What does that page have about manufacturing? (I'm on a train with spotty wifi). —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

there is already section about costs, so expanding it to include environmental cost would be very informative IMHO. Stutek (talk) 06:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Magnetic shielding

is there any way we can shield magnetic effect from attracting other ferrous metal around it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muddasir shaikh (talk • contribs) 13:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

See Electromagnetic shielding#Magnetic shielding, and Mu-metal. --Chetvorno^TALK 21:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Changes to lead section

I recently made some significant changes to the lead of the article to the following ends:

1. Ensuring that terms were not defined more than once (ferromagnetic in particular);
2. Grouping the introduction of similar concepts (introducing permanent magnets and electromagnets at the same time);
3. Leaving less important details (such as the distinction between magnetically "hard" and "soft" materials) until after the more important ones.

These changes were reverted with the rationale "I feel the original wording was clearer for nonscientific readers, emphasizing that ferromagnetic materials both make up magnets and are attracted to them".

I disagree with this: the whole point of these changes was to make the lead more accessible to inexpert readers, and to avoid the common problem whereby our article leads focus on minutiae to the detriment of general concepts. Moreover, it would seem that only minor changes would be required to address the problem mentioned, rather than a wholesale revert.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the edits. I didn't mean to be so abrupt, maybe I should have discussed them here first. My feeling is that this topic is of more than usual interest to nontechnical readers, particularly children. I want to make sure that the intro is at an elementary enough level for them, with a clear concrete progression of ideas. I felt the original text did a better job of that. With respect, these are the issues I had with your edits:

• Your 2nd paragraph introduces a general property, ferromagnetism, and leaves it to the 3rd paragraph to introduce what is the main topic of the article, for most people synonymous with the word "magnet": permanent magnets. I also felt the original was more clearly written.
• I particularly object to beginning the 2nd paragraph with: "All substances respond weakly to a magnetic field, by one of several other types of magnetism, but..." This sentence, referring to paramagnetism and diamagnetism, probably shouldn't have been in the intro at all. To start the second para with it is almost guaranteed to confuse laypeople.
• Ferromagnetism is the property that both allows a material to become a magnet, and also be attracted to magnets. The sentence: "Materials that can be magnetized, which are also the ones that are strongly attracted to a magnet, are called ferromagnetic." is not perfect, but I felt it emphasizes this important idea better.
• I see no need to introduce electromagnets, a more technical device probably of less interest to most readers, with permanent magnets. It makes more sense to introduce it in a later paragraph of the intro so as not to interrupt the explanation of permanent magnets.

--Chetvorno^TALK 10:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

In order:

1. Our articles are supposed to be accessible to inexpert readers. That is quite different from being deliberately simplified in order to better act as a teaching aid to children.
2. I don't mind where ferromagnetism is introduced so long as it is introduced only once. Presently it is introduced twice, once in each of the first two paragraphs. Likewise with "magnetised", which is both defined twice and only wikilinked in the second instance.
3. I don't mind leaving the matter of para/diamagnetism to later in the lead, but it is an important aspect of the subject as covered in the body and thus has to be covered somewhere in the lead. Doing otherwise would simplify the lead to the point of falsehood.
4. Electromagnets are not some obscure technical device: they are fundamental to modern technology and one of the most basic forms of machine. They are at least as important in the real world as permanent magnets. This article is titled "magnet" and not "permanent magnet" and thus must address both concepts. Moreover, "permanent magnet" only makes sense when placed in opposition to some other form of magnet anyway, and this is the most common distinction to make.

I'll see if I can come up with a compromse edit which addresses the above without reducing the lead's usefulness as a summary of the article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The intro can definitely be improved. I don't have much time so I'll probably leave you to it. I don't think ferromagnetism is defined twice, it is just used in the first para before it is defined in the second. It seems to me this is better than using the awkward construction "magnetically-attracted materials". If para/diamagnetism is included in the lead, it should be emphasized that these are effects which aren't seen outside the laboratory, as the original text did. I'm not suggesting eliminating electromagnets from the intro, just introducing them in a separate para.

I hope, when you're done with the intro, you'll look at the rest of the article; that's where rewriting is really needed. It desperately needs a lot of "Wikipedia bloat" cut, a coherent description of the different families of permanent magnets and their properties, and the process of making magnets. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Something missing

My wife and I came here because she wondered about the history of magnets. I had explained the compass needle thing, which she didn't know. So, this talks about early compasses but it says nothing about the manufacture of magnets, when the first "synthetic" magnets were devised, and through the newer types of magnets. I don't know this, I just think it would be useful and even more useful than some of the things that ARE there. Just a thought. Jjdon (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I think that would be a good addition. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

This has very little about unpaired electrons (what makes something a magnet). i searched the page for 'electron' and the browser found Electron configuration but nothing there either. I googled and found the unlinked wiki page Unpaired electron (i cannot link it in the Magnet page as it is locked), but it does need a little improvment. Are there fewer unpaired electrons once iron atoms are in a lattice? From my own research Fe2O3 is quite magnetic but when that was put in water the now FeO(OH) is not. Charlieb000 (talk) 04:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

/* Magnetization */ Reference 10

The reference to http://www.magneticmicrosphere.com/resources/Units_for_Magnetic_Properties.pdf appears to be broken. In google chrome I get "Failed to load PDF document" and when I download it directly Adobe cannot open the file. Myfriendebin (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Correction or clarification needed: Pull force of a single magnet

Surely, the pull force of a single magnet depends on the material that it is pulling. Why then is the force as given in the section "Pull force of a single magnet" not dependent on its counterpart? Milkyglas (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

There's definitely something wrong there. I'm not familiar with the term - it's probably used in engineering. I'll try to track down some sources. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Magnesia link is wrong

It should be Magnesia in Asia Minor (Manisa, Turkey) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnesia_ad_Sipylum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Sipylus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pimp83 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I looked at Magnesia ad Sipylum and learned that the location is controversial, so I removed the existing link and added a footnote. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Science projects

Science projects: Many topic questions are based on magnets. For example: how is the strength of a magnet affected by glass, plastic, and cardboard? This sentence seems a little off, and theres no source either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:6B0:17:F13F:E97E:5295:ACFB:C401 (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You think that's bad? The Science project article has no references. Thanks for noting the problem - I have improved the wording and added a citation. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Location of North Magnetic Pole

As of 2012, the pole is projected to have moved beyond the Canadian Arctic territorial claim to 85.9N 147.0W. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.72.120 (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I was going to say the same. In the section "Pole naming conventions" first sentence is wrong: «The north pole of a magnet is the pole that, when the magnet is freely suspended, points towards the Earth's North Magnetic Pole which is located in northern Canada.» as the North Magnetic Pole is in the Arctic, not in northern Canada. --95.120.71.215 (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I corrected the statement and cleaned up the stilted writing. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 September 2013

In response to user request " Jjdon (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)" Proposed external link to history of electricity and magnetism. proposed link cites source of content.

Proposed Edit: Add the following link to the External links:

• A brief history of electricity & magnetism (PDF)

ZodTron (talk) 08:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

This was a very confusing request, so I edited it for clarity. I have added the link. If you make enough edits to unprotected pages, you can become an autoconfirmed user and make your own edits. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification and creation of an article about Ampere's model

What is Ampere's model? It is referenced in multiple places on Wikipedia, but a quick Google search shows that no where else in the world does anyone say Ampere's model. So what is it? There is only a brief explanation, but other than that, it doesn't seem to exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.65.20 (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

New threads on a Talk page are customarily added at the end. I moved your question; I hope you don't mind.

This is covered in the section Modelling magnets. The "Amperian model" is one of two mathematical models used to represent permanent magnets, invented by André-Marie Ampère around 1820, which assumes that the magnetic field of a magnet is created by tiny loops of electric current in atoms; the other being the "Gilbertian model" (after William Gilbert), in which the source of the magnetic field is fictitious "magnetic charges" on the poles. The basic idea is that mathematically it can be shown that the tiny current loops inside a piece of magnetized material all cancel out, so the magnetic field of a cylinder of magnetized iron or other ferromagnet can be represented by a current flowing around the outside surface. Here are some sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and especially 6 --Chetvorno^TALK 01:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for addition to SEE ALSO section

In the SEE ALSO section, a direct link to MAGNETIC FIELD would be helpful, in order to keep readers from having to go to the listed ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD entry to discover that there IS a Wiki entry for MAGNETIC FIELD, after all. Thanks.D.Helber (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The very first paragraph has a link to magnetic field. We do not add entries to the see also section if the term is used in the article. -- GB fan 14:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Well written and a suggestion

I have recently been revising on magnetics and would just like to say how informative and easy to read this article is. It is packed with information and progresses from the basics to the mathematical complexities so that you can choose your own level. Obviously a lot of work has gone into the preparation.

May I suggest though that it would be an enhancement if a list or table could be included showing example magnets from the entire range of strengths: (1) earth's weak magnetic field. (2) fridge magnet. (3) normal high power magnet (loudspeaker magnet for example). (4) most powerful man-made magnet. (5) fantastically powerful magnets of astrophysics. The full information is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(magnetic_field) , which I also suggest could be linked to from this article.

CPES (talk) 10:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

That's a great table! You could WP:BE BOLD and add it yourself if you know how to make a table in wiki markup. If not the directions are in Help:Table; just paste whichever one you like into the article, and add enough rows for all the sources listed. My personal feeling is it might be more appropriate to put it in Magnetic field, since not all the sources it lists are really "magnets" in the ordinary sense, but I wouldn't object to it here. --Chetvorno^TALK 15:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@CPES: I'm glad you like this article. I agree that Orders of magnitude (magnetic field) is a good table, but I think it's too large to insert in an article. And it is also unnecessary, since the table is already a Wikipedia page. Instead, I would suggest inserting some prose describing the range of magnet strengths with a link to the table (and an analogous addition in Magnetic field). RockMagnetist(talk) 18:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't notice that it was already a Wikipedia page. I agree with RockMagnetist, a few remarks in this article with a link to the page would be appropriate. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. I do know about tables and am a fairly old hand on Wikipedia, but I just wanted to make the suggestion. CPES (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Polarity and polarization

I did not find any mention of the terms "magnetic polarity" and "magnetic polarization" in this article about magnets (even though "magnetic polarity" redirects to this article - seems to not adhere to Wikipedia's Principle of least astonishment). Can these terms/concepts be added to this article, please? GeoWriter (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Magnetic polarity just needed updating - it should have pointed to Magnet#Polarity. Now it does. Magnetic polarization points to magnetization, as it should. Still, a couple of lines could be added to Magnet#Magnetic moment. RockMagnetist(talk) 01:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2018

Krisheducation (talk) 13:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

magnets are created using two methods known as double and singles stroke method

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DBigXrayᗙ 14:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done I found a source and added the information. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Split common uses into permanent and electromagnets ?

Any objections to splitting Common uses into permanent and electromagnets ? - especially since permanent magnet redirects here. Highlight loudspeakers and magnetrons under permanent-M ? - Rod57 (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Lame "definition"

Clarify, please: exactly what is it that makes "a permanent magnet" permanent?

In particular, I ask because Alnico inarguably does lose electromagnetic strength with age, therefore any claim to "permanence" is relatively short-lived, at best.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 07:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree, that is a confusing point that doesn't seem to be explained in the article. The name "permanent magnet" is just used to distinguish a magnet made of a piece of magnetized material from an electromagnet. An electromagnet is made of a piece of ferromagnetic material with a coil of wire around it. When a current is passed through the wire, its magnetic field magnetizes the core, creating a strong magnetic field around it, but when the current is turned off, the core loses its magnetization and its magnetic field disappears. In contrast, a permanent magnet is made from a piece of ferromagnetic material which is magnetized during manufacture, giving it a magnetic field which persists. The difference is the core of an electromagnet is made of low coercivity material which is easily magnetized and demagnetized, like annealed iron, while a commercial permanent magnet is made of a high coercivity material such as alnico or ferrite, which once magnetized is difficult to demagnetize so the magnetic field tends to last a long time. As you note, a permanent magnet's magnetization is not really permanent, and disappears over time, and when exposed to heat, vibration or counterfields, although with really high coercivity magnets like rare earth magnets the decrease is not likely to be noticeable. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC) 🧲

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020

(Redacted)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jack Frost (talk) 10:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2022

History of Magnet and earth gravity: Middle East Ikhan Al Safa "أخوان الصفا" were a group of philosophers in the Middle East. Around the 10th century, they published 52 messages culminating the science and philosophies of their time. In their fourth message "Mathematics Section: Geography" they explain that the earth is a sphere that stands at the center of air sphere, which they believe surrounds earth all around. They explain that the reason why the earth is at the center because "the center of earth pulls all earth parts all together... The center of earth is the center for all spheres, it is the magnet of all weights... Thus the earth retains its round shape, because in the depth of this center this magnet is keeping earth and all the spheres around earth still in the center" (رسائل اخوان الصفا وخلان الوفا، ٢٠١١، المجلد الثالث، دار صادر بيروت، الرسالة الرابعة، ص. ١٦٢).

They continue to explain how earth's mass is much heavier than water, and that is why water floots on top, and that air's mass is lighter than water, and that's why it is on top of water (p. 162)

-personal note: These books have been banned in the Middle East for Years, because Muslims believed these philosophers were hectic. However, I hope we can collectively grant them recognition for their attempts to enrich science and humanity. 2601:406:5000:B440:B16E:1025:AA07:AD17 (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)