Determination of Magnetic Susceptibility of a Paramagnetic Material by Quincke’s

Method
Sajag Kumar (2011143)1, ∗
1
School of Physical Sciences, National Institute of Science Education and Research (NISER), Bhubaneswar 752050, India
(Dated: September 15, 2021)
We perform an experiment designed by Quincke to determine the magnetic susceptibility (χ) of a
paramagnetic material. It is an elegant experiment which determines an electromagnetic property by
measurements of mechanical phenomena. We determine χ of F eCl3 solution at a given concentration
and also calculate mass and molar susceptibility along with curie’s constant and magnetic dipole
moment. The molar susceptibility of the F eCl3 was obtained to be (4.51 ± 0.38) × 10−8 m3 mol−1
which is away from the literature value of 1.69 × 10−8 m3 mol−1 , the reasons for this discrepancy is
also discussed.

I. INTRODUCTION randomly oriented as before and the material loses its

magnetism. In the following section we will discuss some
According to Faraday’s law of induction a current pro- of the parameters which can characterise a paramagnetic
duces a corresponding magnetic field. Electrons moving material.
in their orbits are equivalent to a loop of current hence
each unpaired electron in an atom’s orbit produces mag-
netic field and consequently have an associated magnetic B. Magnetic Susceptibility (χ) [1]
moment. When external magnetic field is applied to a
material, its behaviour is determined by how these mi- Magnetic susceptibility measures how much a material
croscopic magnetic moments align themselves inside the will be magnetised in an external magnetic field. It is
material. The alignment of these magnetic moments de- called magnetic susceptibility because it tells us how sus-
pends on a lot of factors like the structure of the material. ceptible a material is to becoming a temporary magnet
Materials are divided into the following categories on the in an applied external field. Mathematically:
basis of how they react when an external magnetic field
M
is applied: χ= (1)
H
1. Diamagnetism: Atoms of the material do not
where, M is magnetisation and H is the applied magnetic
have any unpaired electrons and hence no magnetic
field. Some other quantities which can be determined by
moment.
magnetic susceptibility:
2. Paramagnetism: Atoms of the material have ran- χ
domly oriented magnetic moments. χ0 = (2)
ρ
3. Ferromagnetism: Atoms of the material have χ00 = χ0 M (3)
parallelly oriented magnetic moments. C = χ00T (4)
√
4. Antiferromagnetism: Atoms of the material µ = 2.8241 C (5)
have anti-parallelly oriented magnetic moments.
where, χ0 is called mass susceptibility, ρ is density of
5. Ferrimagnetism: Atoms of the material have the material, χ00 is the molar susceptibility, M is molar
mixed parallelly and anti-parallelly oriented mag- mass of the material, C is the curie’s constant, T is the
netic moments. temperature and µ is the magnetic moment of dipole of
the material.

A. Paramagnetic Materials
II. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP OF QUINCKE’S
As stated in previous section paramagnetic materials METHOD
have atoms with randomly oriented magnetic moments.
They get weakly magnetised in an external magnetic Quincke’s method is an elegant method by which we
field. Once we remove the applied magnetic field the can determine magnetic susceptibility which an electro-
magnetic moment of the paramagnetic material become magnetic quantity by measurements of mechanical phe-
nomena. The experimental setup is simple. We have
a U-shaped glass tube with the solution to be studied.
One arm of the glass tube has an electromagnet around
∗ [email protected] it. The length of the limb is sufficient to keep the other
 2

The gravitational force is given by:

Fg = 2πr2 ρhg (10)

where, g is the acceleration due to gravity. And the buoy-

ant force is given by:

Fb = 2πr2 ρa hg (11)

From (9) we have:

1
(µ − µo )H 2 πr2 = 2πr2 (ρ − ρa )hg (12)
2

From (7) and (12) we have:

FIG. 1. Schematic diagram of experimental setup of quincke’s h

method. χ = [4gµo (ρ − ρa )] − χa (13)
B2
where, χa is the magnetic susceptibility of air which is
lower extreme end of the this limb well outside the mag-
for practical purposes zero.
netic field of the electromagnet. To measure the rise or
fall in the height of the solution in the U-tube we attach
a travelling microscope.
III. METHODOLOGY

A. Measuring χ A standard F eCl3 solution was prepared. To measure

the density of the sample; we first of all measured the
We first note that the magnetic energy density (u) of weight of the empty and dry specific gravity bottle w1 ,
a magnetic field H in a material with magnetic perme- then we filled it with distilled water and weighted it again
ability µa is given by: w2 and we dried it completed and then filled it with our
1 solution and weighted it again. Now the density of our
µH 2
u= (6) solution would be given by:
2
Also the B and H are related in the material by the w3 − w1
ρ = ρwater (14)
following equation: w2 − w1
B
H= (7) We calibrated the magnetic field as a function of current
µo (1 + χ) over an appropriate range and recorded it in a table. We
where, µo is the magnetic permeability of free space. then switched OFF the power supply. We transferred
When the electromagnet is turned ON in the experimen- some of the prepared solution to the U-tube so that the
tal setup, all the dipoles present in the solution would meniscus of the solution is at the centre of the poles of the
align themselves parallel to B such that their potential electromagnet. The travelling microscope was focused
energy is minimum. As a consequence of this, the liquid, on the meniscus and the initial reading was noted. The
which contains many such dipoles, will tend to be drawn power supply was switched ON and the current was var-
into the region of maximum filed since this will minimise ied slowly up to 4A in steps of 0.5A. As the solution of
its total magnetic potential energy. The liquid experi- in the tube rose with increasing current corresponding
ences an attractive magnetic force Fm pulling it into the heights were measured for each value of current.
region of strongest field. Now let’s say the meniscus in
the narrow tube rises by an amount h, relative to its ini-
tial position. Then the magnetic potential energy of the A. Precautions
space, because the liquid displaced air, increases by:
1 Albeit a simple and an elegant experiment quincke’s
∆U = (µ − µo )H 2 (πr2 h) (8) method is very sensitive. We must ensure that the U-
2
where, r is the radius of the U-tube. The net magnetic tube is clean and have no impurities. It may happen that
force on the solution must be balanced by the downward the solution stuck to the sides of the U-tube and did not
gravitational force Fg and upward buoyant force Fb : rise as much as it should; it should be avoided. Backlash
error in case of microscope must be avoided. We must
Fm = Fg − Fb (9) not use the U-tube more than once without cleaning.
 3

IV. OBSERVATIONS 7. χa = 0.

1. Height of water column at B = 0 (a) = 4.565 cm. 8. ρa = 1.29 kgm−3 .

2. Least count of travelling microscope = 0.001 cm. 9. χwater = −9.04 × 10−6 .

3. Weight of empty specific gravity bottle (W1 ) = 21.4 10. Temperature of sample = 298 K.
gm.
11. From (14), ρ = 1128.5 kgm−3 .
4. Weight of specific gravity bottle with distilled water
(W2 ) = 46.3 gm. 12. Acceleration due to gravity (g) = 9.8 ms−2 .
5. Weight of specific gravity bottle with test fluid
(W3 ) = 49.5 gm. 13. Magnetic permeability of vacuum (µo ) = 4π × 10−7
N A−2 .
6. Density of water = 1000 kgm−3 .

S. No. I (A) B (G) S. No. I (A) B (G)

1 1 1420 16 2.5 3300
2 1.1 1510 17 2.6 3390
3 1.2 1580 18 2.7 3530
4 1.3 1750 19 2.8 3630
5 1.4 1900 20 2.9 3800
6 1.5 2050 21 3 3880
7 1.6 2160 22 3.1 3950
8 1.7 2340 23 3.2 4140
9 1.8 2460 24 3.3 4180
10 1.9 2580 25 3.4 4260
11 2 2640 26 3.5 4330
12 2.1 2770 27 3.6 4380
13 2.2 2880 28 3.7 4440
14 2.3 3120 29 3.8 4490
15 2.4 3150 30 4 4630

TABLE I. Data for calibration of magnetic field with current.

Meniscus Reading Difference

S. No. I (A) B (G) B 2 (G2 ) B 6= 0 (b) h = (b − a)
M.S.R. Total (cm)
V.S.R.
(cm) (cm)
1 1 1420 2016400 4.65 15 4.665 0.1
2 1.5 2050 4202500 4.65 27 4.677 0.112
3 2 2640 6969600 4.65 35 4.685 0.12
4 2.5 3300 10890000 4.7 3 4.703 0.138
5 3 3880 15054400 4.7 15 4.715 0.15
6 3.5 4330 18748900 4.7 43 4.743 0.178
7 4 4630 21436900 4.75 19 4.769 0.204

TABLE II. Measure of h with B 2 .

V. DATA ANALYSIS From (13), taking χa = 0:

A. Computing χ χ = s[4gµo (ρ − ρa )] (15)

 4

h (in cm) Hence:

0.2
Recorded Data δs = 0.42197
Fitted Line
δχF e = 0.2670 × 10−4
0.18
δχ0F e = 0.2366 × 10−7 m3 kg −1
0.16 δχ00F e = 0.3833 × 10−8 m3 mol−1
δC = 0.1142 × 10−5 m3 Kmol−1
0.14
δµ = 0.8160 × 10−26 Am2
0.12 VI. RESULTS

0.1
×10
6 From V B and V A:
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
B^2 (in sq. gauss)
χF e = (3.14 ± 0.27) × 10−4
FIG. 2. Plot of h with B 2 . The slope (s) of the curve comes χ0F e = (2.78 ± 0.24) × 10−7 m3 kg −1
out to be (4.96071 ± 0.42197) × 10−9 cmG−2 and the intercept χ00F e = (4.51 ± 0.38) × 10−8 m3 mol−1
with Y -axis is (0.08693 ± 0.00558).
C = (1.34 ± 0.11) × 10−5 m3 Kmol−1
µ = (9.59 ± 0.82) × 10−26 Am2
Substituting values from IV in (15):
VII. CONCLUSION
χ = 3.1400 × 10−4 (16)
The literature value of molar susceptibility of F eCl3 is
From (2)-(5): [3] 1.69 × 10−8 m3 mol−1 . It is way off the obtained value
of (4.51±0.38)×10−8 m3 mol−1 . There are many reasons
χF e = 3.1400 × 10−4 for this, first of the the approximations in theoretical
computation, the meniscus was assumed to be rising in
χ0F e = 2.7824 × 10−7 m3 kg −1 a cylindrical shape while it does not, also the U-tube in
χ00F e = 4.5074 × 10−8 m3 mol−1 a laboratory is bound to have impurities associated with
it. We also neglected χa which is close to zero but not
C = 1.3432 × 10−5 m3 Kmol−1
exactly zero.
µ = 9.5944 × 10−26 Am2

CODE AND DATA

B. Errors [2] All the graphs have been generated with pyROOT
and line fitting has been done with ROOT’s inbuilt lin-
We have: ear fit function. The slopes of the graphs come from
χ2 fit. All the code used to generate this document is
δs δχF e δχ0 δχ00 δC δµ hosted at: https://github.com/SlowGraviton/P241/
= = 0F e = 00F e = =2 = 0.08506 tree/main/Lab%203.
s χF e χF e χF e C µ

[1] D. J. Griffiths, Introduction to Electrodynamics, 3rd ed. [3] Magnetic Susceptibility of a Paramagnetic Material by
(Prentice Hall, 1999). Quincke’s Method, National Institute of Science Educa-
[2] J. R. Taylor, An Introduction to Error Analysis, 2nd ed. tion and Research Bhubaneswar.
(University Science Books, 1997).