Does Physics Allow For The Creation Of Hyper-Diamagnetic Materials? Or Materials That Can Be Hypermagnetized?

[Spacescifi]

There are many uses we could think of if hyper-diamagnetic materials were ever invented..

But does the current understanding of physics even allow for it?

If such materials could be made, how would they be used in conjunction with space travel technology.

Known Physics: Making uber magnets has limits, since too high a field (so far around or above 500 tesla) breaks the electromagnet. Therefore I was curious if we could bypass this limit by making special materials that are far more susceptible to magnetic influence?

[K^2]

Magnets, generally, don't like existing. Magnetic field has a lot of energy stored in it. The problem making stronger magnets is similar to trying to make a stronger pressure tank, but with additional challenges. Just like a pressure tank, a magnet can fail mechanically, literally tearing itself apart, but it can also fail on a phase-transition level, causing it to become something far less magnetic in an instant, dumping all that energy. And you basically only have the energy of chemical bonds to balance it, putting an upper limit on how high the stored energy can go.

[kerbiloid]

Even if we could, how would we catch them?

[Terwin]

3 hours ago, K^2 said:

Magnets, generally, don't like existing. Magnetic field has a lot of energy stored in it. 

If we try to use a magnetic field for energy storage, could that be more efficient than batteries, or is it just a different description for capacitors/super capacitors?

[magnemoe]

2 minutes ago, Terwin said:

If we try to use a magnetic field for energy storage, could that be more efficient than batteries, or is it just a different description for capacitors/super capacitors?

It would work like capacitors more than batteries buts another type of storage. Also if you have high electrical capacity superconductors this is an bomb with the power of the charge if you break it, like if are in an accident. 
So fun with self driving cars with these as power source. Its the curse of any high power storage who don't need air to work and can release lots of energy fast == bomb. 

3 hours ago, K^2 said:

Magnets, generally, don't like existing. Magnetic field has a lot of energy stored in it. The problem making stronger magnets is similar to trying to make a stronger pressure tank, but with additional challenges. Just like a pressure tank, a magnet can fail mechanically, literally tearing itself apart, but it can also fail on a phase-transition level, causing it to become something far less magnetic in an instant, dumping all that energy. And you basically only have the energy of chemical bonds to balance it, putting an upper limit on how high the stored energy can go.

Now its an tricks to make an very strong magnetic field, shoot a lot of plasma trough an coil, now even if you could protect the coil from plasma think gun barrel the magnet coil is now an fragmentation grenade. 

[boriz]

I have a related question, if I may.

When you compress a spring, it heats up. Work it repeatedly and it heats up a lot. How does this translate to compressing the  fields of opposing magnets. A magnetic spring if you will.  If worked repeatedly, what heats up? Just the metal of the magnet, or is some heat generated in the air between?

[boriz]

1 hour ago, Terwin said:

If we try to use a magnetic field for energy storage, could that be more efficient than batteries, or is it just a different description for capacitors/super capacitors?

We do use magnetic fields for energy storage. They are called inductors.

[mikegarrison]

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Even if we could, how would we catch them?

With a pokeball. That's how you catch everything.

[K^2]

55 minutes ago, boriz said:

When you compress a spring, it heats up. Work it repeatedly and it heats up a lot. How does this translate to compressing the  fields of opposing magnets. A magnetic spring if you will.  If worked repeatedly, what heats up? Just the metal of the magnet, or is some heat generated in the air between?

Heat comes from energy losses as work is being done against the system. When you move magnets around, that's usually in form of induced currents in anything conductive. Typically, even a superconductive magnet will have parts to it that are conventionally conductive, and moving magnets around will result in currents flowing through these, generating heat. That said, you can make magnets ridiculously efficient even when ordinary conductors are involved, which is a big part of why electric vehicles can get so many wins.

[boriz]

15 minutes ago, K^2 said:

Heat comes from energy losses as work is being done against the system.

If we are talking about a magnetic field passing through a conductor, eddie currents and such, the heat is generated in the metal of course, but with opposing magnets, the fields don't pass through each other, they press against each other and distort. I suppose my question is do distorted fields produce their own heat, outside of the metal?

[darthgently]

2 hours ago, Terwin said:

If we try to use a magnetic field for energy storage, could that be more efficient than batteries, or is it just a different description for capacitors/super capacitors?

Capacitors store an electric field, and as magnemoe noted, inductors store magnetic fields.  That is what my lego block level, decades faded, electronics tech training whispers in my ear anyway

[farmerben]

If you could safely and repeatable quench a superconducting solenoid, you could drive a current of protons at high energy.  Perhaps for propulsion, or proton boron fusion.

[K^2]

2 hours ago, boriz said:

If we are talking about a magnetic field passing through a conductor, eddie currents and such, the heat is generated in the metal of course, but with opposing magnets, the fields don't pass through each other, they press against each other and distort. I suppose my question is do distorted fields produce their own heat, outside of the metal?

Ignoring any mutually induced magnetization (which we can fold into the permeability), the magnetic field of two magnets is the sum of individual magnets' contributions. So while the net field seems to flow around the magnets, the rate of change of the magnetic field (which is what drives the eddy currents) is the same as if the second object wasn't a magnet. Another way you can think of is that the density of the fields of the original magnetic field is fluctuating within the magnet as you move the magnets closer or let them move further apart. If this didn't happen, the magnets would not be able to do work against each other, and that means they wouldn't be able to apply a force on each other.

But to answer the more direct question, no, there would be no heat produced by a changing magnetic field in perfect vacuum. There would still be a loss to electromagnetic radiation, but that can be mitigated by changing the field more slowly. And if you have any sort of a gas, there would almost certainly be some amount of conductivity due to ionized particles, and that would result in  a very, very tiny heat loss. But for any practical purpose, your losses are going to be in anything electrically conductive, which is the magnets themselves, any metal frameworks, and any circuitry you might be using (if this is meant for energy storage.)

[boriz]

I appreciate your answer and the time you took to make it. My understanding on this subject has been increased. Thank you.

I am however still curious about how energy is moved/stored in distorted magnetic fields. And the losses therein.

 

 

 

[Terwin]

6 hours ago, K^2 said:

Ignoring any mutually induced magnetization (which we can fold into the permeability), the magnetic field of two magnets is the sum of individual magnets' contributions. So while the net field seems to flow around the magnets, the rate of change of the magnetic field (which is what drives the eddy currents) is the same as if the second object wasn't a magnet. Another way you can think of is that the density of the fields of the original magnetic field is fluctuating within the magnet as you move the magnets closer or let them move further apart. If this didn't happen, the magnets would not be able to do work against each other, and that means they wouldn't be able to apply a force on each other.

 

1 hour ago, boriz said:

I am however still curious about how energy is moved/stored in distorted magnetic fields. And the losses therein.

Didn't he just say that the magnetic fields do not distort? 

You have multiple magnetic fields added together.

Which makes sense as permanent magnets(iron ones at least) are formed by aligning the atoms so that their magnetic fields add together instead of subtract form each other.

That means any 'distorted' magnetic field is just multiple fields added together.  So you just add together the effects of each of the magnetic fields and you get the result.

[boriz]

7 minutes ago, Terwin said:

So you just add together the effects of each of the magnetic fields and you get the result.

Thank you for that. However I'm interested in what happens in the compressed fields, not the metals.

Does a compressed magnetic field take energy to compress? Is some of that energy in the field itself or is it all in the metal?

I'm not a pseudoscience amazing person. I'm asking a question that was probably explained in my school physics lessons, but I was distracted by that girl.

 

[mikegarrison]

What is a "compressed magnetic field"?

Edited July 13 by mikegarrison

[boriz]

On 7/12/2024 at 9:07 PM, Terwin said:

Didn't he just say that the magnetic fields do not distort? 

No. [snip]  Here's a video of distorting magnetic fields.

[snip]

 

 

 

 

Edited July 14 by Starhawk
Redacted by moderator

[boriz]

Take two magnets and push them together opposite poles. Don't let them touch, just get them close and hold that. See how pushing is required? See how energy is expended? Hold them still, yet you are still using force. This is the conversation.

Try to keep them 2mm apart, Is it hard? Does it use some force? Are you using energy? Where does that energy go?

[snip]

 

Edited July 14 by Starhawk
Redacted by moderator

[kerbiloid]

56 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

What is a "compressed magnetic field"?

DIY
https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/ASPJ/journals/Chronicles/apjemp.pdf

[boriz]

17 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

DIY
https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/ASPJ/journals/Chronicles/apjemp.pdf

Very happy to talk about that on another thread. This is not about weapons, unless you make it so.

[boriz]

8 hours ago, K^2 said:

very, very tiny heat loss.

Thank you for addressing my question. Tiny heat loss is heat loss. Any heat loss at all is what I was looking for. Thank you. Now my magnetic on orbit attitude mechanism invention has promise. I'll mention you on the paper, if there is one

[kerbiloid]

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19980228274

[Shpaget]

5 hours ago, boriz said:

Now my magnetic on orbit attitude mechanism invention has promise.

Magnetorquers are an off the shelf part for cubesats, and even available for much bigger birds.

Unfortunately, the work only around bodies with decent magnetic field.

Edited July 13 by Shpaget

[Starhawk]

Some content has been removed.

Please take care to refrain from making personal remarks about other members.

Thank you for your understanding,
KSP Moderation Team