Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 September 2014
In 1890 I published a theory of ferromagnetic induction in which it was suggested that the equilibrium of Weber's elementary magnetic particles was due only to magnetic forces. It was shown that when the elementary magnets are made to turn by applying a magnetising force which is progressively increased, the conditions of equilibrium must be such that there is first a small amount of stable (reversible) deflection, then a break away with irreversible deflection into a new position of stability, and finally a reversible approach to the position of complete parallelism which corresponds to saturation. A model was constructed showing that these conditions could be satisfied by a purely magnetic control. It was made up of little magnets, pivoted on fixed centres which were uniformly spaced. The magnets were all free to turn, but controlled one another by their mutual magnetic forces. They tended to form rows, and when an external field was applied the rows broke up and fresh rows were formed more nearly in the direction of the field. With this simple model the known characteristics of the magnetising process were, qualitatively, well reproduced. A recent study of the stability of such rows of magnets has, however, led me to abandon this model, and to design instead a model in which each atom forms a magnetic system comprising a Weber element capable of turning, but controlled by the magnetic forces exerted on it by other parts of the atom which are taken as fixed. As in the old model, the control is wholly magnetic. Various forms of the new model will be described in a later part of this paper, but in the first place it may be useful to give some account of the investigations of stability which have convinced me that the old model fails, quantitatively, to represent the process.
page 97 note * “Contributions to the Molecular Theory of Induced Magnetism,” Proc. Roy. Soc., xlviii, p. 342; Phil. Mag., Sept. 1890.
page 97 note † Proc. Roy. Soc., Feb. 1922; Phil. Mag., March 1922.
page 98 note * In a paper by Honda, and Okubo, on “Ferromagnetic Substances and Crystals in the light of Ewing's Theory of Molecular Magnetism,” Science Reports of the Tôhoku University, vol. v, Aug. 1916Google Scholar, also Phys. Rev., vol. x, p. 705, this point seems to have been overlooked. The distance between centres is taken there as probably more than twice the length of each magnet, which gives a wider range of stable deflection than is admissible.
page 105 note * When i is made indefinitely small the ratio is 1 to or 2·598. As i increases the ratio is somewhat diminished, becoming 2·54 for i=1·05, 2·48 for i = 1·1, and so on.
page 107 note * A description of these coils will be found in Proc. R.S.E., vol. xiii, 1885, p. 523.
page 107 note † Searle, , Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc., vol. xii, 1902, p. 27.Google Scholar
page 113 note * Yensen, “Magnetic and other Properties of Electrolytic Iron melted in vacuo,” Bulletins of the Engineering Station of the University of Illinois, Nos. 72, 83, 95.
page 117 note * Phys. Rev., ix, p. 84, 1917; x, p. 661. This is confirmed by Westgren, A., Jour. Iron and Steel Inst., ciii, p. 303, 1921.Google Scholar
page 118 note * Phys. Rev., ix, p. 85, 1917.
page 118 note † Ibid., xvi, p. 464, 1920.
page 120 note * For a summary of effects of stress see chapter ix of the author's book on Magnetic Induction in Iron and other Metals.
page 120 note † Hull (Phys. Rev., May 1921) finds that the space-lattice of nickel is the face-centred cube. This gives each atom twelve nearest neighbours. If the shell electrons assume a corresponding grouping, the nickel model should have twelve “fixed” magnets, set in lines inclined to one another at 60°, 120°, and 180°.
page 121 note * Jour. de Phys., iv, p. 469, 1905.
page 124 note * Loc. cit., p. 315 et seq. “The so-called β iron has the same lattice as the α iron…. No difference has been found in the structure of iron below and above A2. At A3, however, the atoms of iron are completely rearranged, and the iron passes from one crystal class into another.” The magnetic change occurs at the lower arrest point A2.
page 124 note † From known data as to the space-lattice of the iron crystal and the saturation limit of magnetisation in iron, it is easy to show that the moment of the Weber element in an atom of iron is very nearly 2 × 10-20 c.g.s. units. (See Proc. Roy. Soc., February 1922, vol. 100, A, p. 453.)
page 125 note * Industries, Sept. 19, 1890.
page 125 note † Phil. Trans., vol. clxxxvii, A, p. 715, 1896.
page 126 note * The words “inner” and “outer” are retained only as a convenient means of fixing the ideas. We are concerned here simply with relative motion between parts of the atom, with elastic relative displacements through a limited range, with the breaking away from a stable configuration, and with the dissipation of energy that attends the settling again into a stable configuration.
page 127 note * Franck, and Hertz, , Verh. d. deutsch. Phys. Gesells., 1914, p. 457Google Scholar and p. 512; M'Lennan (and pupils), Proc. Roy. Soc., vol. 91, A, p. 485; 92, A, p. 305 and p. 574; Phil. Mag., Dec. 1918. See also Davis and Goncher, Phys. Rev., Aug. 1917 and Jan. 1919; Goncher, Proc. Phys. Soc., vol. xxxiii, p. 13; Horton and Davies, Proc. Roy. Soc., 95, A, p. 408; Phil. Mag., June 1921; Horton and Bailey, Phil. Mag., Oct. 1920; Mohler, Foote, and Stimson, Phil. Mag., July 1920.