interstitial
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#1
What is it that makes certain elements magnetic? For example, iron is a common example, and I've heard it's something to do with the magnetic dipoles aligning to produce a larger resultant magnetic field, but what actually is it about iron that makes it any different from say, aluminum?

Also, is there any particular reason why the magnetic elements are all very close to each other on the periodic table? :holmes:

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
interstitial
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#2
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#2
Bump.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Zen-Ali
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#3
Report 7 years ago
#3
Becuz ov Chemtry, innit.
0
reply
interstitial
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#4
(Original post by Zen-Ali)
Becuz ov Chemtry, innit.
Mad skills m8, but I was looking for something a bit more in depth

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Zen-Ali
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#5
Report 7 years ago
#5
(Original post by majmuh24)
Mad skills m8, but I was looking for something a bit more in depth

Posted from TSR Mobile
Sit down; u're not rdy m8.
0
reply
lerjj
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#6
Report 7 years ago
#6
I assume its to do with the way the electrons move being equatable to a current, which means there is a magnetic field as well. But I asked this question a while back to no avail, and haven't been able to come up with a more satisfying solution since then, so I'm not an expert.

Could be to do with the m of (n,l.m) which I believe stands for magnetic?
0
reply
uberteknik
  • Study Helper
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 7 years ago
#7
(Original post by majmuh24)
What is it that makes certain elements magnetic? For example, iron is a common example, and I've heard it's something to do with the magnetic dipoles aligning to produce a larger resultant magnetic field, but what actually is it about iron that makes it any different from say, aluminum?

Also, is there any particular reason why the magnetic elements are all very close to each other on the periodic table? :holmes:

Posted from TSR Mobile
I can't reply in depth right now, but if I get some time later this evening I will.

For now you will have to be content with knowing it's to do with the different ways in which the electric charge force arranges atoms in compounds and pure elements, the electron configuration of atoms, the 'spin' properties of electrons and nuclear magnetic dipole moments.
0
reply
interstitial
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#8
(Original post by lerjj)
I assume its to do with the way the electrons move being equatable to a current, which means there is a magnetic field as well. But I asked this question a while back to no avail, and haven't been able to come up with a more satisfying solution since then, so I'm not an expert.

Could be to do with the m of (n,l.m) which I believe stands for magnetic?
This is what I've found so far, not sure how rigorous it is but...

Electromagnetism


Electrons come in pairs, and each produce their own magnetic moments depending on their spin (an inherent quantum property, only comes in up or down versions). There's something to do with the linear ordering of these electrons, a natural phenomenon which causes them to make magnetic fields cos of electromagnetism and each charge having it's own associated magnetic field.

When an element has electrons that are all paired up, the magnetic fields just 'cancel put' for lack of a better term and it just reduces to no magnetism.

When some of the electrons are paired but some aren't, it is called ferrimagnetic.

When all of the electrons have the same spin and therefore a positive contribution to the net magnetic field, the element is strongly magnetic and said to be ferromagnetic.

When an external magnetic field is induced, it causes the microscopic areas of ordered electrons (domains), which are normally randomly arranged to align more so there is a greater magnetic contribution in a certain direction and it retains this until work is done to remove it (something to do with hystersis which I'm not too sure about just yet )

There's also paramagnetism and diamagnetism, but they're relatively neglible and don't normally have much of an effect.


Haven't seen that formula before, would you mind posting a link?

Thanks for helping BTW!

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
WGR
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#9
Report 7 years ago
#9
Image

I dunno, Magic?
0
reply
lerjj
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#10
Report 7 years ago
#10
(Original post by majmuh24)
This is what I've found so far, not sure how rigorous it is but...

Electromagnetism


Electrons come in pairs, and each produce their own magnetic moments depending on their spin (an inherent quantum property, only comes in up or down versions). There's something to do with the linear ordering of these electrons, a natural phenomenon which causes them to make magnetic fields cos of electromagnetism and each charge having it's own associated magnetic field.

When an element has electrons that are all paired up, the magnetic fields just 'cancel put' for lack of a better term and it just reduces to no magnetism.

When some of the electrons are paired but some aren't, it is called ferrimagnetic.

When all of the electrons have the same spin and therefore a positive contribution to the net magnetic field, the element is strongly magnetic and said to be ferromagnetic.

When an external magnetic field is induced, it causes the microscopic areas of ordered electrons (domains), which are normally randomly arranged to align more so there is a greater magnetic contribution in a certain direction and it retains this until work is done to remove it (something to do with hystersis which I'm not too sure about just yet )

There's also paramagnetism and diamagnetism, but they're relatively neglible and don't normally have much of an effect.


Haven't seen that formula before, would you mind posting a link?

Thanks for helping BTW!

Posted from TSR Mobile
Formula? I was just referring to the three quantum numbers n, l and m. They're basically an alternative way of describing electron orbitals I think, but I haven't read much about them in detail. However, this seems to suggest that the magnetic quantum number has nothing to do with magnetism, which is rather a shame:

http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genche...6/quantum.html
0
reply
interstitial
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#11
(Original post by lerjj)
Formula? I was just referring to the three quantum numbers n, l and m. They're basically an alternative way of describing electron orbitals I think, but I haven't read much about them in detail. However, this seems to suggest that the magnetic quantum number has nothing to do with magnetism, which is rather a shame:

http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genche...6/quantum.html
Haha, I've never even heard of that before!

I'm just guessing here, but it could have something do to with the magnetic moments due to differing angular momentum between things with different magnetic quantum numbers, I think the spin is the main component involved however.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
lerjj
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#12
Report 7 years ago
#12
(Original post by majmuh24)
Haha, I've never even heard of that before!

I'm just guessing here, but it could have something do to with the magnetic moments due to differing angular momentum between things with different magnetic quantum numbers, I think the spin is the main component involved however.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Agreed on spin, although an interesting revelation from Wikipedia:
  • there are magnetic alloys called heusler alloys
  • stainless steel is not magnetic despite being made of magnetic components
  • ferromagnetism is only displayed below a certain temperature (very high for iron, less so for other things)

So it would appear we're going to need quite a thorough look at bonding and structure. As well as quantum mechanics for the spin...

This could take a little while
0
reply
uberteknik
  • Study Helper
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 7 years ago
#13
(Original post by lerjj)
Could be to do with the m of (n,l.m) which I believe stands for magnetic?
errrr, No.

The shell names for electrons are historic and defined by a chap called Charles Barkla who experimented with x-rays and noticed that the atoms he obeserved appeared to emit two types. He called these A and B but later changed them to K and L because he wanted to leave room for further possible discoveries either side.

We now know that K and L energies are the result of electrons orbiting the nucleus in shells of increasing distance. The K and L suffixes are the two innermost orbital shells and future discoveries became K, L, M, N, P etc.

So no, M does not mean magnetic!
0
reply
interstitial
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#14
(Original post by lerjj)
Agreed on spin, although an interesting revelation from Wikipedia:
  • there are magnetic alloys called heusler alloys
  • stainless steel is not magnetic despite being made of magnetic components
  • ferromagnetism is only displayed below a certain temperature (very high for iron, less so for other things)

So it would appear we're going to need quite a thorough look at bonding and structure. As well as quantum mechanics for the spin...

This could take a little while
Not sure about 1.

There's no reason it should be. The order has to be regular and aligned in a certain way, and alloying metals distorts the lattice structure and probably just causes the magnetic fields to cancel out anyway.

Curie's law. I think you're right about the quantum mechanics though, so I'll probably give that a miss for now

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
lerjj
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#15
Report 7 years ago
#15
(Original post by uberteknik)
errrr, No.

The shell names for electrons are historic and defined by a chap called Charles Barkla who experimented with x-rays and noticed that the atoms he obeserved appeared to emit two types. He called these A and B but later changed them to K and L because he wanted to leave room for further possible discoveries either side.

We now know that K and L energies are the result of electrons orbiting the nucleus in shells of increasing distance. The K and L suffixes are the two innermost orbital shells and future discoveries became K, L, M, N, P etc.

So no, M does not mean magnetic!
I've said that that was wrong somewhere further up, but are you talking about the same things as me? I'm talking about a numbering system for energy levels where n=1,2,3... and l can be any non-negative integer less that n. There are only three letters, and I'm positive m stands for magnetic, but I think it's only of historical importance.

I'll try to find some sites that reference them.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../qunoh.html#c2
but yes, it's of historical importance basically... I thought it was a good guess at the time?
0
reply
interstitial
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#16
(Original post by uberteknik)
' X
(Original post by lerjj)
Y
This is what I've found:

"The magnetic quantum number determines the energy shift of an atomic orbital due to an external magnetic field, hence the name magnetic quantum number"

I think uberteknik is talking about electron energy levels instead.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Poll: What factors affect your mental health most right now? Post-lockdown edition

Anxiousness about restrictions easing (55)
6.16%
Uncertainty around my education (101)
11.31%
Uncertainty around my future career prospects (94)
10.53%
Lack of purpose or motivation (111)
12.43%
Lack of support system (eg. teachers, counsellors, delays in care) (44)
4.93%
Impact lockdown had on physical health (48)
5.38%
Social worries (incl. loneliness/making friends) (99)
11.09%
Financial worries (60)
6.72%
Concern about myself or my loves ones getting/having been ill (41)
4.59%
Exposure to negative news/social media (56)
6.27%
Difficulty accessing real life entertainment (26)
2.91%
Lack of confidence in making big life decisions (86)
9.63%
Worry about missed opportunities during the pandemic (72)
8.06%

Watched Threads

View All