----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 9:02
PM
Subject: [femm] coenergy vs. stress
tensor calculations of magnetic force
Hi,
I've written before about making a simulation of a levitation device with
diamagnetic materials in FEMM. I was interested in determing the
equilibrium position of the levitating magnet by calculating the force for a
number of positions between the diamagnetic
plates.
Following the advice of the FEMM manual, I used
the coenergy method for calculating the field energy, and then looking for the
force from that. But what I found was that the Coenergy displayed no
observable trend with height of the magnet. On a lark, I tried the same
simulation and calculated the Force from the stress tensor, using a fixed
contour. Surprisingly, I got very believable results that showed the stable
and unstable equilibrium points for the levitating magnet quite nicely. Iwas
content with that, but I'm still intrigued why the coenergy method
doesn't seem to be working in this case. We tried moving the outer boundary to
increase the area for the problem. I tried increasing the mesh density inthe
region where the force on the magnet is being calculated. But none of those
things seems to be able to get the coenergy method to provide meaningful
results. I might be tempted to say that my stress tensor calculations arejust
misleading, but they mirror so nicely the behavior of the actual system that I
find that hard to believe.
Would anybody be willing to take a look at the
simulation I've put together and make some suggestions as to where the
coenergy calculation might be messing up, or where I could improve the model
to get the "right" behavior?
I've
attached the femm file, the associated pre and post lua files, and an excel
file with the coenergy numbers, and graphs of both the coenergy and stress
tensor calculations of the force with height (gravity is included
manually).
If
you look at the Excel file, you can't possibly discern a pattern of behavior
from the coenergy graph, while the stress tensor graph is pretty good, though
not as smooth as you might like.
Any
help would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Jim
Your use of Yahoo!
Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.