Journal of Low Temperature Physics

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 209–229 | Cite as

Magnetization by rotation: The barnett effect in a superconductor

  • J. B. Hendricks
  • C. A. King
  • H. E. Roschach


The magnetic field due to the rotation of a superconductor has been measured for a number of hollow and solid tin cylinders of varying purity. The field generated within a hollow cylinder agrees with the predictions of the London theory:B=−(2mc/e)ω. The value of−2mc/e determined from the experiments was 1.17 × 10−7 G-sec, which agrees with the theoretical value of 1.137 × 10−7 G-sec within the experimental error of ±5%. The reversibility of the production of the field was investigated for both hollow and solid cylinders. In the case of the hollow cylinder, effects analogous to flux trapping were observed: If the specimen is cooled belowTc while in rotation, then the “London field” appeared only when the rotation speed was changed. In the case of the solid cylinder, effects analogous to those associated with “frozen in flux” were observed: the London field appeared reversibly only in those specimens sufficiently pure to exhibit a Meissner effect at fields of the order of 10−5 G. In one run a ferrite cylinder was substituted for the superconductor. A Barnett effect was observed; the magnitude of the field generated by rotation was consistent with the permeability measured at audio frequencies by conventional means. A novel heat-transfer effect connected with the rotation of the sample was also observed during the course of measurements on the hollow cylinders. A discussion of the electrodynamics of the rotating superconductor is given in an appendix.


Magnetic Field Permeability Ferrite Rotation Speed Magnetic Material 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    R. Becker, G. Heller, and F. Sauter,Z. Physik 85, 772 (1933).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    F. London,Superfluids (Dover Publications, New York, 1961), Vol. 1, p. 78.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    W. F. Love, R. F. Blunt, and P. B. Alers,Phys. Rev. 76, 305 (1949).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. F. Hildebrandt,Phys. Rev. Letters 12, 190 (1964).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. F. Hildebrandt and M. M. Saffren,Proc. of 9th Int. Conf. on Low Temp. Physics (Plenum Press, New York, 1965), Pt. A, p. 459.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. B. Hendricks, C. R. King, and H. E. Rorschach, p. 466.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Bol and W. M. Fairbank, p. 471.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    N. F. Brickman,Phys. Rev. 184, 460 (1969).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Griffin,Solid State Commun. 4, 245 (1966).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    L. A. Dorfman,Hydrodynamic Resistance and the Heat Loss of Rotating Solids (Oliver and Boyd, London, 1963), pp. 182–188.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. F. Hildebrandt, H. Wahlquist, and D. D. Elleman,J. Appl. Phys. 33, 1798 (1962).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    S. J. Barnett,Rev. Mod. Phys. 7, 129 (1935).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    B. S. DeWitt,Phys. Rev. Letters 16, 1092 (1966); G. Papini,Nuovo Cimento 45B, 66 (1966).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    P. Nozieres, in “Quantum Fluids,”Proceedings of the Sussex University Symposium D. F. Brewer, ed. (John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1966), p. 1.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    F. London,op. cit., in “ p. 53f.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. J. Dessler, F. C. Michel, H. E. Rorschach, and G. T. Trammell,Phys. Rev. 168, 737 (1968).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    N. Byers and C. N. Yang,Phys. Rev. Letters 7, 46 (1961).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1971

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. B. Hendricks
    • 1
  • C. A. King
    • 1
  • H. E. Roschach
    • 1
  1. 1.Physics DepartmentRice UniversityHouston

Personalised recommendations