Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> On a sunny day (Thu, 08 Oct 2009 08:46:48 +0200) it happened Jeroen Belleman
>> wrote in :
>>
>>> harry wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately the relationship between ampere turns and the magnetic
>>>> flux generated is not linear. Ie doubling ampere turns does not
>>>> double the flux. Also, at some point, the magnetic material
>>>> "saturates" and you can add as many ampere turns as you like but flux
>>>> will not increase.
>>> You may try to sell that argument to our magnet builders here
>>> at CERN. ;-) How do you think they get to 10 Teslas?
>>
>> They dont, it blew up.
>
>Sigh! Indeed it did. And we're still recovering from the blow.
>
>What happened was that a connection *between* two magnets failed,
>at just under 9kA. Much of the energy stored in the magnets, and
>it's a _lot_, got dumped into that spot, with the results you all
>heard about.
Somebody was trying to shrink a coin... :-]
I wonder what a shrunken Gold bar would look like.
But the good news is that LHC will soon start up
>again. Anyway, in this discussion, that's a side issue.
>
>My point was that even if ferromagnetic material in a coil
>saturates, pushing more current will still increase the field,
>albeit not by as much as before saturation set in.
Flux is flux. :-] If you are pumping electrons through a conductor and into a load, the flux man is happy to give.
"All your flux are" (small joke) need to be focused at the end of the exposed, downward facing pole to be "an electromagnet, right?
The idea is picking things up against the pull of gravity...
Might even want to loop the top side of that pole around to the edge to point downward as well. A pole-in-a-cup thing.
Seems like short and squat coil and pole would yield better holding capability than a long pole and coil would.