MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2591978256 · doi:10.1139/p06-065

Electrodynamics of a magnet moving through a conducting pipe

2006· article· en· W2591978256 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. Hossein Partovi, Eliza J. Morris

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Motor Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsMagnetAxial symmetryDragMechanicsEddy current brakeClassical mechanicsBoundary value problemEddy currentCylinderMagnetic fieldDipole magnetForce between magnetsRange (aeronautics)GeometryMagnetic energyAerospace engineeringMagnetizationSuperconducting magnetMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The popular demonstration involving a permanent magnet falling through a conducting pipe is treated as an axially symmetric boundary-value problem. Specifically, Maxwell's equations are solved for an axially symmetric magnet moving coaxially inside an infinitely long, conducting cylindrical shell of arbitrary thickness at nonrelativistic speeds. Analytic solutions for the fields are developed and used to derive the resulting drag force acting on the magnet in integral form. This treatment represents a significant improvement over existing models, which idealize the problem as a point dipole moving slowly inside a pipe of negligible thickness. It also provides a rigorous study of eddy currents under a broad range of conditions, and can be used for magnetic braking applications. The case of a uniformly magnetized cylindrical magnet is considered in detail, and a comprehensive analytical and numerical study of the properties of the drag force is presented for this geometry. Various limiting cases of interest involving the shape and speed of the magnet and the full range of conductivity and magnetic behavior of the pipe material are investigated and corresponding asymptotic formulas are developed.PACS Nos.: 81.70.Ex, 41.20.–q, 41.20.Gz

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.372
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.177 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicElectric Motor Design and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207