Two words: Permeability, and flux saturation. Iron has the highest saturation density of any of the elements. Cobalt has a higher permeability. Wrap 20 turns of wire around the samples, to make solenoid electromagnets. Apply 1 amp to each magnet. The Cobalt will be the strongest, followed by nickel, then a close third place, will be iron. Now, increase the current, until core saturation occurs. every element will reach a maximum, after which, it will not become any stronger, no matter how much more current is applied. Iron will be the clear winner. All these samples were saturated in your direct contact pull test, with the spring scale. That chart will apply. The distance tests, are permeability. (the one where they were floated on water. The one with the magnet placed above the samples on the scale, may have saturated some cores, but not others, based on their permeability times their saturation level. Those giant Neodymium magnets you used in this test are no joke. They cast a large field, and can saturate those small samples, without direct contact. I hope this answers more questions, than it begs. Excellent video!
@Vincent Robinette Fantastic reply! From my relatively minor physics education I'd assumed it'd be something about the ratio of these two but didn't have the exact vocab to put it so eloquently. Basically the same reason motor rotors are made of thin laminates so they take longer to reach flux saturation?
@@mrmjdza C'mon Mikey.. I'm sure you drank a few beers while trying to understand that magic how your dad made a car work. Hell, maybe you even were punished and had to wind the alternator coil yourself. Between you and me, who needs polynomials anyway, right?
@@mrmjdza I think you are confusing Vincent Robinette, who I think you wanted to thank for his informative comment, with Ian Macqueen, who you actually thanked but all he did was pedantically point out Vincent's poor text formatting
I haven't gone down through all the comments, so this may have already been said, but ... an important magnetic characteristic of iron is its coercive force. The magnetic domains of iron flip discretely, at different H-force excitation levels. At very low excitation, e.g. from a distant attracting magnet, very few domains reach their minimum thresholds and flip, so the macroscopic sample appears to have a low permeability. As the excitation increases, more domains are brought into play and the apparent permeability increases. When nearly all the domains have flipped into alignment with the excitation field, the apparent permeability declines again in magnetic saturation. A more complete picture of iron response would use a low-frequency AC excitation, low enough so eddy currents wouldn't affect the result, and with the excitation amplitude increasing with time. Plotting coil amperes, which can be calibrated to the excitatory H-field, versus B-field in the iron, either by time integration of voltage induced in a coil around the iron, or by detection of surface field strength at a Hall sensor (with some geometric considerations), one can obtain a trace plotting dynamic B versus H. The coercive force is manifested as hysteresis in the plot. That gives a fairly complete story. Iron that is annealed acquires large crystals and similarly large domains, which exhibit low coercive force, while work-hardened iron has smaller crystals (from breaking up the original big ones), and that iron is also magnetically hardened, with higher coercive force and characteristics more like a permanent magnet. Nickel, Cobalt, and Gadolinium will show similar coercive force, in varying proportions and again dependent on crystalline structure, which will depend on the history of temperature and mechanical stress. It's not just a matter of the place in the periodic table.
Cool set of experiments! The 3rd experiment was particularly surprising. One thing to keep in mind is that the last experiment is greatly affected by the mass of the sample and not just the magnetic properties of it. A more dense (massive) sample will have more inertia and therefore a longer measured time of travel. A more massive sample will also need to displace more water leading to increased drag as it moves through the water. Something to think about...
Here's what I believe happens. Cobalt responds to weak magnetic fields more easily than iron. Meaning hysteresis graph of iron would be taller and thicker (and at an angle closer to 45 degrees), while cobalt would be shorter and thinner (but more upright). This means that iron can produce stronger maximum magnetic field, but it takes more work to create it. On the other hand cobalt will far more quickly respond to magnetic field, but will not be able to create field as strong as iron. Basically, at the distance from a magnet, there will be weak magnetic field. Cobalt will magnetize quickly and start moving towards magnet, while iron will magnetize weakly until it gets closer. Kind of like how it's so very hard to change magnetization of neodymium magnets, while if you put Alnico close to a strong magnet it immediately changes it's magnetization. This is also possible to explain by permeability, but I don't understand how permeability works too well.
Keep performing these experiments, I love seeing this stuff! Great job with this experiment too, you've really tried to adhere to the Scientific method and your results are indeed baffling. I would venture the opinion that it has something to do with the molecular configuration of these materials that makes them more or less attracted to magnets. When you cool down the gadolinium and it became more magnetic, the only thing that is affected by temperature, is the molecular orientation of the crystals making up the metal. When you change that temperature, you either excite them or take that energy away with colder temperatures. All materials react the same way, well almost all, the colder something gets, the more compact the molecules become, so that there is where the answer lies with your results. Thanks again!
Great idea. I need to do tests in a room with temperature control (turn off the radiators or buy an airconditioner for faster result) and timelapse Gd going from above 20°C to well below. Should be very noticeable on the teslameter and milligram scale test. Thanks for watching!
Brainiac75 It would be very interesting to attach a thermometer to the sample in order to do a rough estimate of the Curie point. What you can definitely do is put the sample into a freezer and let it heat up with a thermometer attached (it would be also a bit more eco friendly ;))
Enjoyed Christmas very much, thank you. Only real good part about winter for me, though the lower temperatures are convenient for videos like this... Next video will feature something ´hot´ ;)
Yes - any ferromagnetic metal would work because they retain their magnetism permanently. So Iron, Nickel and Cobalt can all be used. Cobalt might be more durable than Iron, since it doesn't rust.
@@jamesartmeier3192 the question would be, since Cobalt seems to do much better than iron at a distance, and global poles are pretty distant, would cobalt give stronger and more accurate readings than iron?
@@shadowproductions969 Good question. :) If an iron and a cobalt permanent magnet were magnetized to the same strength and placed in a magnetic field, they would experience exzctly the same force. Iron can be more strongly magnetized than cobalt, but a permanent magnet does not have to be magnetized to its maximum (saturated) strength. If iron and cobalt were maximally magnetized, the iron would experience a stronger force because its permanent field would be stronger.The distance of the attracting magnetic poles isn't important in this - the flux strength of the local field and the strength of the permanently magnetized ferromagnetic bar magnet are the relevant quantities. Note that this is a different question than the video addresses, which is the degree of attraction of an *unmagnetized* slug of various ferromagnetic metals to a fixed magnet.
I wondered was the water bath time related to the resistance of the metals - cobalt has an electrical resistivity 62.4 nΩ·m (at 20 °C), nickel has an electrical resistivity 69.3 nΩ·m (at 20 °C), iron has an electrical resistivity 96.1 nΩ·m (at 20 °C) and gadolinium has an electrical resistivity (α, poly): 1310 nΩ·m
This was my 5th grade science experiment no joke. Got some squares of different metals from my fathers work and a spring scale, lost a bit of skin when i confirmed that steel is indeed strongly attracted to magnets.
Gravity is by far, the weakest of the 4 fundamental interactions. The weak nuclear force is 10 to the 29th power stronger, electromagnetism is 10 to the 36th power stronger, and the strong nuclear force is 10 to the 38th power stronger.
To get a more conclusive results you would need to tests all the elements at the lower temperature as well, if nothing else it would be interesting. Love the videos
Maybe also the break down temp for the 2 materials, assuming it's not so high as to need anything more then a blow torch. Could use aerogel insulator on a scale, while heating the metals under the magnet?
So if you want a magnetic reaction only in a small space without magnetic field interaction out of the box Don't use cobalt magnets or you'll need a more efficient Faraday cage, so probably more total weight for the same use
A little constructive criticism: You are measuring force with a spring scale. It is not a balance. And because you are measuring force, you measure it in newtons not kilograms. While your spring scale has been calibrated in kg, it goes not measure mass, it measures force. A beam balance measures mass. The Gadolinium tests above and below the Curie temperature were fascinating.
I may have an explanation as to why you got your results in the distance test. Cobalt and nickel have more electrons than iron. And the purity difference between the cobalt and nickel sample you obtained may be enough to make cobalt attract to the magnet faster than the nickel.
The answer is iron, by a HUGE amount. I thought everyone knew that. Cobalt and nickel are only slightly magnetic in comparison, and gadolinium even less. The thing you should know, however, is that there is such a thing as magnetic saturation. It requires much less field to fully magnetize iron, but you may not notice the difference with a strong magnet anyway because once it's saturated, it doesn't make much further difference because it can't be magnetized more. So even though iron is literally 100 times as magnetic as anything else, you won't see a 100 fold difference with a strong magnet.
Your samples are produced to have a roughly equivalent volume so their difference in density is noticeable when you pick them up. Iron is less dense than cobalt. At the same volume it has a lower mass, therefore fewer atoms. While iron does have a higher susceptibility to having it's magnetic fields align under the influence of a strong magnet or current and holds onto a magnetic alignment better than cobalt, at a greater distance the difference in the number of atoms working to pull the raft into alignment and drag it across the water's surface is becoming a more noticeable disadvantage. If you would like to test this, get a sample of iron that is the same mass as your cobalt sample and run the test again. Another, better option would be to test cobalt, iron of equal volume as the cobalt and iron of equal mass as the cobalt inside of a vacuum chamber floating on a non-polar liquid with lower friction (such as mineral oil). Just reduce the pressure in the chamber to slightly above the vapor pressure of the liquid you are using.
Another great video. Conductivity and stability and molecular electro dispersion changing the properties of alignment at distance due to the photon angle
Brainiac75 There are several things you want to look at How does temperature change the magnetism in the first place in a material? Does it do it the same way that it changes its electrical conductivity? Does it change the alignment of the materials molecular structure It exact opposite example would be how sulfur at high temperatures can form a polymer chains Electrical and photon dispersion of a material being hit perpendicular to absorb the energy may be different than at an angle in a way that we cannot measure
higher coercivity for cobalt , at weak fields has higher magnetization. Iron has lower coercivity than cobalt but higher saturation magnetization, so stronger in large fields.
Nice work! I am particularly interested in the magnets used in 'electric' guitar pickups. They are commonly alnico (2 or 5, whatever that means) individual rod magnets or a single ceramic (rarely alnico) bar magnet, never neodymium. The three highest pitched strings (1 -3, e B G) are solid steel, the lowest pitch stings (4 - 6, D A E) have steel cores but are 'wound' with various materials (bronze, phosphor bronze, nickel) to make them thicker. This seems to be a trial and error 'black art' with no scientific measurement attempted.
The Cobalt being a heavier element is resisting the expansion of the universe more and hence when the spherical magnetic wave leaves the surface of the nucleus as it pulses in and out on its natural frequency, that wave crests at the electron radius like all elements but the wave goes further and so then further stronger spherical waves of dark energy cancelling out between the two substances forming a low pressure area between them in the quantum foam causing greater attraction is your answer. The waves are stronger. Materials. Wave frequency and materials. Waves are not all the same, some will add up and repel some will attract that's why.
Interesting thought. Eddy currents are always a factor, when you have an electric conductor moving in a magnetic field. However, both cobalt and nickel are better conductors than iron, so it must be negligible. Base on the comments so far, this is the solution: Cobalt and nickel have higher permeability for low-intensity magnetic fields but will be saturated with magnetism earlier than iron. This means, that cobalt and nickel will be more magnetic at a distance in a low-intensity magnetic field but less magnetic than iron near the magnet, where iron can use the strong magnetic field to be more magnetic than both Co and Ni. In short: Co and Ni are easier magnetized but are saturated earlier than Fe. Thanks for watching!
It's an interesting property of gadolinium with the temperature thing. If you slowed the rpms down enough for an over unity magnet motor....It could work with a heating and cooling system. Interesting
I am a Canadian. Our nickels were made of pure nickel for many years, and from 1968 to 2000, so were our dimes and quarters. I am surprised to hear that nickel should not be handled without gloves!
On your chart at 6:51 you have included the "Official magnetic saturation" so you were on to something! (Mb you had a clue? Why did you put it there?) At the moment I didn't know what that was, but now I kinda got an idea after reading some great comments here. So if you also had a permeability chart I think that would also shine some light as to what is happening. Anyway this video was really great. Keep being so analytical and informative, and even more! Subscribed.
I'm sorry if this is a stupid idea or has a really simple answer I overlooked in the 30 seconds it took me to come up with this, or if he has already made a video on this. It would be cool to see what element is the best for making an electromagnet. Like, how large and strong the field is.
Good luck with the future liquid helium tests - I hope you're able to get a hold of some. There is a global shortage right now, so it may take some time.
This video is amazing! I would be very interested to understand the differences between repulsive and attractive neodymium magnets for exemple... sorry for the question because I am totally unaware of those mechanisms but your videos help very well to understand complex rules only by “watching them” 😊👍
I can't stop thinking about the distance between surfaces having an impact on how magnetic a material is. OP - what a great insight, thank you; Internet - please hook me up with a name for this phenomenon, and/or a good book on the subject. 100% good science
The Iron has a different gradient of magnetic field strength. Cobalt and nickle seem to maintain field strength at a more constant rate whereas the Iron's field strength is more non-linear. it's like it's compressed. Which accounts for the higher spot values as you get closer. Also, would you get the same results if your big magnetic source was a different material other than neodymium? what happens when it's FE->FE or FE->Co or Co->Co etc...?
I'm not very educated in magnetism but my guess is that the Cobalt magnet has a more distant magnetic field but with a weaker strength while the iron has a small distant field but at a stronger strength, maybe that is why the iron magnet is more difficult to pull off the surface of the neodymium magnet than the Cobalt because it has a stronger pull on the magnet than nickel and Cobalt ones?
Thanks for the input, Braden. Going through comments it seems that its more a matter of strength of the magnetic field from the different samples. Cobalt and nickel have higher permeability for low-intensity magnetic fields but will be saturated with magnetism earlier than iron. This means, that cobalt and nickel will be more magnetic at a distance in a low-intensity magnetic field but less magnetic than iron near the magnet, where iron can use the strong magnetic field to be more magnetic than both Co and Ni. Co and Ni are easier magnetized but are saturated earlier than Fe.
Well, this result is actually predicted when placing the elements in a correlated calendrical form. It is also why the catholic calendar starts on Jan 1 when that makes no sense, unless you know that they did it to attract everything. Cobalt is the element for the feminine cardinal earth. That is the center of all our gravity and purpose. I have a visual at Timeskool. It just works, ...
CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: Here is a copy and paste of my latest TOE (Theory Of Everything) idea followed by a copy and paste of the gravity test for that TOE. I don't have the necessary resources to do the gravity test, but maybe you or someone you know could do the test and then tell the world what is discovered either way. Revised TOE: 3/25/2017a. My Current TOE: THE SETUP: 1. Modern science currently recognizes four forces of nature: The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetism. 2. In school we are taught that with magnetism, opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel. But inside the arc of a large horseshoe magnet it's the other way around, like polarities attract and opposite polarities repel. (I have proved this to myself with magnets and anybody with a large horseshoe magnet and two smaller bar magnets can easily prove this to yourself too. It occurs at the outer end of the inner arc of the horseshoe magnet.). 3. Charged particles have an associated magnetic field with them. 4. Protons and electrons are charged particles and have their associated magnetic fields with them. 5. Photons also have both an electric and a magnetic component to them. FOUR FORCES OF NATURE DOWN INTO TWO: 6. When an electron is in close proximity to the nucleus, it would basically generate a 360 degree spherical magnetic field. 7. Like charged protons would stick together inside of this magnetic field, while simultaneously repelling opposite charged electrons inside this magnetic field, while simultaneously attracting the opposite charged electrons across the inner portion of the electron's moving magnetic field. 8. There are probably no such thing as "gluons" in actual reality. 9. The strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are probably derivatives of the electro-magnetic field interactions between electrons and protons. 10. The nucleus is probably an electro-magnetic field boundary. 11. Quarks also supposedly have a charge to them and then would also most likely have electro-magnetic fields associated with them, possibly a different arrangement for each of the six different type of quarks. 12. The interactions between the quarks EM forces are how and why protons and neutrons formulate as well as how and why protons and neutrons stay inside of the nucleus and do not just pass through as neutrinos do. THE GEM FORCE INTERACTIONS AND QUANTA: 13. Personally, I currently believe that the directional force in photons is "gravity". It's the force that makes the sine wave of EM energy go from a wide (maximum extension) to a point (minimum extension) of a moving photon and acts 90 degrees to the EM forces which act 90 degrees to each other. When the EM gets to maximum extension, "gravity" flips and EM goes to minimum, then "gravity" flips and goes back to maximum, etc, etc. A stationary photon would pulse from it's maximum extension to a point possibly even too small to detect, then back to maximum, etc, etc. 14. I also believe that a pulsating, swirling singularity (which is basically a pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon) is the energy unit in this universe. 15. When these pulsating, swirling energy units interact with other energy units, they tangle together and can interlock at times. Various shapes (strings, spheres, whatever) might be formed, which then create sub-atomic material, atoms, molecules, and everything in existence in this universe. 16. When the energy units unite and interlock together they would tend to stabilize and vibrate. 17. I believe there is probably a Photonic Theory Of The Atomic Structure. 18. Everything is basically "light" (photons) in a universe entirely filled with "light" (photons). THE MAGNETIC FORCE SPECIFICALLY: 19. When the electron with it's associated magnetic field goes around the proton with it's associated magnetic field, internal and external energy oscillations are set up. 20. When more than one atom is involved, and these energy frequencies align, they add together, specifically the magnetic field frequency. 21. I currently believe that this is where a line of flux originates from, aligned magnetic field frequencies. NOTES: 22. The Earth can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic field, electrical surface field, and gravity, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 23. The flat spiral galaxy can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic fields on each side of the plane of matter, the electrical field along the plane of matter, and gravity being directed towards the galactic center's black hole where the gravitational forces would meet, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 24. As below in the singularity, as above in the galaxy and probably universe as well. 25. I believe there are only two forces of nature, Gravity and EM, (GEM). Due to the stability of the GEM with the energy unit, this is also why the forces of nature haven't evolved by now. Of which with the current theory of understanding, how come the forces of nature haven't evolved by now since the original conditions acting upon the singularity aren't acting upon them like they originally were, billions of years have supposedly elapsed, in a universe that continues to expand and cool, with energy that could not be created nor destroyed would be getting less and less dense? My theory would seem to make more sense if in fact it is really true. I really wonder if it is in fact really true. 26. And the universe would be expanding due to these pulsating and interacting energy units and would also allow galaxies to collide, of which, how could galaxies ever collide if they are all speeding away from each other like is currently taught? DISCLAIMER: 27. As I as well as all of humanity truly do not know what we do not know, the above certainly could be wrong. It would have to be proved or disproved to know for more certainty. ________________________________________________ Here is the test for the 'gravity' portion of my TOE idea. I do not have the necessary resources to do the test but maybe you or someone else reading this does, will do the test, then tell the world what is found out either way. a. Imagine a 12 hour clock. b. Put a magnetic field across from the 3 to 9 o'clock positions. c. Put an electric field across from the 6 to 12 o'clock positions. (The magnetic field and electric field would be 90 degrees to each other and should be polarized so as to complement each other.) d. Shoot a high powered laser through the center of the clock at 90 degrees to the em fields. e. Do this with the em fields on and off. (The em fields could be varied in size, strength, density and depth. The intent would be to energy frequency match the laser and em fields for optimal results.) f. Look for any gravitational / anti-gravitational effects. (Including the utilization of ferro cells so as to be able to actually see the energy field movements.) (An alternative to the above would be to shoot 3 high powered lasers, or a single high powered laser split into 3 beams, each adjustable to achieve the above set up, all focused upon a single point in space.) 'If' effects are noted, 'then' further research could be done. 'If' effects are not noted, 'then' my latest TOE idea is wrong. But still, we would know what 'gravity' was not, which is still something in the scientific world. Science still wins either way and moves forward.
Here is a copy and paste of the math so far for the TOE idea: The mathematics for the TOE doesn't even exist yet as far as I am currently aware. It goes beyond any quantum field theory formulas that I am currently aware of. The outline though is basically as follows: The formula has at least 3 levels to it: 1. The Internal Photon Level: The 3 interacting forces, (which might even be just a singular force with 3 different modalities), all interacting at basically 90 degrees to each other and all simultaneously pulsating and swirling. A complex part of the formula but I believe to be totally doable. 2. The External Photon Level: For each pulsating, swirling photon, all the pulsating, swirling photons interacting with it. An exponential part of the formula that I am not even sure modern day super computers could adequately handle. 3. The Inter-dimensional Photon Level: For each modality within each photon would have an energy frequency associated with it. The energy frequencies could be seen as being in their own space time dimension. (For me, 'space' is energy itself of which is the 'gem' photon and 'time' is the flow of energy; 'temperature' is the interaction of energy), so one would be dealing with way more than just 3 spatial dimensions and way more than just 1 time dimension (as there would many different energy frequencies with many different flows of energy). Whenever like resonate energy frequencies resonated with each other, they would affect each other, kind of like 'spooky action at a distance'. Anytime energy frequencies overlapped, there would be a temporary spike of some sort in each space time dimension. In addition, if in reality the 'gem' photon is just a singular force with 3 different modalities, it's possible that energy could 'slip' between modalities which would also affect the results. A very complex part of the formula on top of all the complexity that came before it. 4. Any time any energy moved in the system, the entire formula would have to be recalculated due to potential ripple effects. Like I said above, I don't even believe the mathematics exists yet for what I am trying to do, but at a minimum, the formula would contain the above levels the way I currently see it to be. ______________________________________________________________________________ 'IF' my latest TOE idea is really true, (and I fully acknowledge the 'if' at this time), that the pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon is the energy unit of this universe that makes up everything in existence in this universe, and what is called 'gravity' is a part of what is currently recognized as the 'em' photon, then the oscillation of these 3 interacting modalities of the energy unit would be as follows: Gravity: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction; Electrical: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction; Magnetic: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction. Then: 1 singular energy unit, with 3 different modalities, with 6 maximum most reactive positions, with 9 total basic reactive positions (neutrals included). Hence 1, 3, 6, 9 being very prominent numbers in this universe and why mathematics even works in this universe. (And possibly '0', zero, for no flow of energy, hence the number system that we currently have).
@Brianiac75 your container bottom distortion is messing with your readings, more in the cold test try using a thick nylon washers stacked to stiffen the container bottom
Do all of the cylinders have the same mass? If not, seems like these tests need to be adjusted. The same force will accelerate a lighter object more and make it go faster across the bath.
Great video, quality content and editing as always. Although you could add a timer while editing instead of using smartphone, it would be much more precise.
@@chemusvandergeek1209 yeah i guess so but i bet even without a trained eye from thousands of people who will watch this someone will notice the editing sooner or later, the ripples on water, the general motion of an object, its quite hard to hide.
PS: I love your videos, good science methods at work. Thanks for all your work. I have neglected Magnetic Universe Theory for some months now, few were showing interest. I was spending more time defining terms to relay Magnetic Universe Theory concepts than relaying the concepts and got frustrated. The most important discovery I made in the use of Magnetic Universe Theory was how simple it is to fathom all things related to the universe. Gravity, electricity, light and even time itself are seen with clarity for what they are and how and why they function as they do. This knowledge may very well die with me, health being what it is. I was a bit concerned about that over the last few years but no longer. Another few decades of academic nonsensical crap will end and standard model science will die, then someone else will take up the notions I have devoted a life to and make something of them.
I am very interested and what you have learned throughout your life since a child I have always love to listen to the older generation and I have learned a lot from them one thing is there's two kinds of old people old people that forget about the bad and remember the good and old people that's better and just hang on to the bad and forget about the good Another one is I'm going to forget the bad so I can make more room for the good But I am sure this is nothing compared do what your knowledge is I have a little bit of an understanding when my world was turned upside down and everything I thought I knew was wrong but I am very interested in anything you have to teach my email address is amberbenji18@gmail.com I look forward to hearing from you Have a blessed day
Perhaps cobalts crystal Aligns to the magnet easier but irons crystals are more reactive to the magnet? This is just a guess I’m no professional nor do I have any experience outside of some metalwork
mass is not egal for all metal. If iron is heavyer, it is harder to accelerat. It's why it accelerate slower in the boat (less acceleration) and haven't as much lift (more gravitation force) even it Iron has more attraction force. (I think)
Thanks for the input, Lionel. Cobalt and nickel are actually denser than iron, so it is counter-intuitive, that they accelerate faster to the magnet at a distance. Here's the explanation based on my viewers comments: Cobalt and nickel have higher permeability for low-intensity magnetic fields but will be saturated with magnetism earlier than iron. This means, that cobalt and nickel will be more magnetic at a distance in a low-intensity magnetic field but less magnetic than iron near the magnet, where iron can use the strong magnetic field to be more magnetic than both Co and Ni. Co and Ni are easier magnetized but are saturated earlier than Fe.
I'm probably wrong, and if I am right, someone probably already beat me to the explanation, but here's my thoughts. It must take less energy to create the magnetic field in cobalt, but perhaps fewer overall atoms are able to align at the surface, as compared to iron. Cobalt has a slightly higher atomic mass. Then again so what. That might not even have a bearing. Or does it - maybe density's the issue... Iron Cobalt Melting Point (°C) 1530 1495 Boiling Point (°C) 2862 2927 Density, g cm-3 7.87 8.90 Electrical Conductivity 16 25 A magnetic field of strength B that fills up a volume V has an associated energy E where E = [B squared/(8 x Pi)] x V. So it *would* take less energy to align the atoms to create the magnetic field. Now if iron has more free electrons... gotta check... Bingo - both cobalt and iron can snag valance electrons from the two outermost shells. Both atoms have 2 electrons in their outer shell, cobalt has 8 in the next layer, and iron 14. So cobalt's easier to attract at a distance, due to the lesser energy requirements to align the particles, but when in contact with the magnet, iron has more particles to bring to the table, so to speak.
It does sort of come down to the individual atoms, as well as the magnetic domains they create. Cobalt while not as heavy as iron, is a slightly denser metal, so can fit more atoms into a smaller space. This gives cobalt the advantage when it comes to number of atoms and domains. This is comparable to increasing the size of a magnet, in that it gives you a "longer throw" so to speak. But while cobalt may have the edge in sheer atoms, and so a more intense magnetic field at distance, it loses in the number of unpaired electrons compared to iron. Iron as an atom has 1 additional unpaired electron compared to cobalt, giving it a stronger magnetic moment, but iron as a metal has less overall atoms per unit volume. It simply isn't giving off enough field lines in the right direction to get it going very fast. But up close, the overall higher flux density starts to take over as more of the magnetic domains point in the right direction. It's similar to how higher grade magnets work better up close, due to a more intense magnetic field, while larger and heavier magnets work better at distance. Iron is, up close, simply better able to get more of it's electrons pointed in the right direction to generate a much more intense magnetic field. If you tried the same with cobalt, you'd hit magnetic saturation beforehand.
Nickel, don't wear it as a jewelry. So nickel plated things aren't smart to handle often? Or do you have to be particularly reactive to nickel to have irritations? Cuz I like watercooling in PCs and was legitimately considering using a watercooling fitting as a ring or a necklace (on a chain ofc) and yeh, that's my question
i would have liked to see the other elements at the colder temps it would be interesting to see i believe iron loses magnetic attraction at colder temps as my magnets in the cold shop dont seem as strong at 28 f could be the magnet instead of the iron also i believe the iron Chrystal are more chaotic than the other elements making it less attractive at a distance
why not base it off of moles of material and not volume? I dont know too much about magnetic cells (or what ever they are called) so I am probably wrong but I am still curious.
Does gadolinium change its strength relative to temperature or does it receive all of its for ferromagnetic strength as soon as it drops below a certain temperature?
Great & interesting video. I vvanted to ask a question though, vvould all the magnets act differently vvhen exposed to the cold temeratures of outer space ? Im also vvondering if they'd somehovv be affected @ full vacuum. Am asking this after seeing hovv the Gadolinium vvas effected by the temperature change vvhich made me vvonder if there vvas a further significant change in the temperature if there'd be a further & even greater change in the magnetism . As humanity continues to explore space these questions may arise & testing beforehand could speed up the construction of things being sent into space. TY again for a great video & my appologies for the question as its probably easy to tell I have little scientific background.
So neodymium magnets aren't made entirely of neodymium? That doesn't make sense. I looked it up and it's apparently Nd2Fe14B so I guess it is still partly neodymium.
Would the behavior of the other magnets have changed at ~10c, or once the object turned Ferromagnetic its behaviors become fairly consistent? I would have quite liked to see the experiments repeated with all the elements outdoors, and maybe a couple trials of each test.
Could it be that, compared to the other elements, Iron actually "rides" (for lack of a better description) the magnetic field? The others appear to be more attracted but the magnet may be trying to (add?) To the magnetic field??? I'm not a scientist, but I am very interested. Btw, thank you for the video!
Thanks for the input, Randy. I've been going through the comments and my viewers may have figured it out. Cobalt and nickel have higher permeability for low-intensity magnetic fields but will be saturated with magnetism earlier than iron. This means, that cobalt and nickel will be more magnetic at a distance in a low-intensity magnetic field but less magnetic than iron near the magnet, where iron can use the strong magnetic field to be more magnetic than both Co and Ni. Co and Ni are easier magnetized but are saturated earlier than Fe. I still need to look for official sources for it, but my viewers are rarely wrong :o)
