
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
For the sake of efficiency, I suggest not to mix natural magnetism AND natural piezoelectricity. IMHO, mineralogy, crystallography and chemistry of natural ferromagnetic and paramagnetic species do not seem to follow common simple principles in the details (mainly in the minor element contents). Much work has been done on factors affecting whole rock magnetism, but as for the crystalline deep-seated details, definitive advances have been achieved when working on synthetic spinels. I guess that if you look after "rock magnetism and particle orientation", "magnetism and crystal structure", etc., you will sort out the good references. There are also several geophysical prospecting and mapping methods more directly relevant to your electromagnetic field/current induction querry. J.J. In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "NMF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, I have a rather general question (or maybe its rather silly question to > ask). I would like to get some input and suggestions (hopefully you will > have some technical references to support your ideas). I am interested > knowing off-hand what specific types of geometrical formations and > orientations of a magnetic particle (say magnetite or some other > paramagnetic derivative) would be required in order to maximize the local > field effects of an electromagnetic field and/or elicit the greatest current > induction within some unit of space. > > I'm working under the hypothesis that the geometrical organization as well > orientation within three dimensional space will be a benefical factor in > order to maximize the effects that i mentioned above. I am just interested > in knowing off hand of some configural spatial organizations (that occur in > nature) that might be capable of enhancing the responsiveness within > piezoelectrical materials (or just magnetic crystals). So any suggestions > will be great. Thanks. > > NMF
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |