Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 20 references

Openable Force-Balanced Halbach Magnets: From Fibonacci Sphere Simulations to Icosahedral Realizations

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A Halbach sphere made of discrete magnetic dipoles can be cut along a plane where the tensile opening force vanishes, and as the number of dipoles grows the force-free cut approaches the magic angle of about 54.7 degrees.

desk verdict Useful design concept with real prototype torque reductions, but the point-dipole force model and a geometry inconsistency in the icosahedron section keep the quantitative claims from being reliable yet. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09323 v1 pith:2OMAE37H submitted 2026-08-10 physics.ins-det cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.app-phphysics.med-ph

Ingo Rehberg , Helmut Soltner , Peter Blümler This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ins-detcond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.app-phphysics.med-ph
keywords Halbachsphereforce-freeopeningmagicangleFibonacciicosahedralmagnetarrangementpermanentmagnetsmagneticresonancespherocylinder
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Permanent-magnet Halbach spheres generate highly homogeneous fields but are hard to open: the two halves pull on each other with kilonewton forces. This paper shows numerically that for a sphere built from discrete dipoles there are cutting planes, specified by a tilt angle $\theta$, azimuth $\phi$, and height $h$, along which the tensile force between the halves cancels exactly, leaving only shear forces that a hinge can easily carry. As the number of dipoles grows, the force-free tilt angle approaches the magic angle $\theta_m=\arccos(1/\sqrt{3})\approx54.7^\circ$, a convergence the authors present as numerical evidence rather than a proven theorem. The idea is tested with a 12-cube icosahedral Halbach sphere and a spherocylinder (Halbach cylinder with hemispherical caps): measured opening torques drop by more than an order of magnitude while the central field stays homogeneous at the percent level. If correct, the framework turns 'closed, homogeneous, and accessible' from a contradiction into a design choice for NMR and other permanent-magnet instruments.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the pairwise force between two magnetic dipoles separated by $\mathbf r$, $$\mathbf F \propto $r^{{-4}}$\{(\hat{\mathbf m}_1\cdot\hat{\mathbf r})\hat{\mathbf m}_2+(\hat{\mathbf m}_2\cdot\hat{\mathbf r})\hat{\mathbf m}_1-[5(\hat{\mathbf m}_1\cdot\hat{\mathbf r})(\hat{\mathbf m}_2\cdot\hat{\mathbf r})-(\hat{\mathbf m}_1\cdot\hat{\mathbf m}_2)]\hat{\mathbf r}\}$$, summed over all dipole pairs that lie on opposite sides of a cutting plane. The sphere's magnets are placed on a Fibonacci lattice, an approximately uniform equal-area distribution of points on a sphere, with each dipole oriented according to the Halbach condition (polar orientation angle twice the polar angle of its location). The cutting plane is parameterized by its normal $(\theta,\phi)$ and its height $h$ from the sphere's center; the paper scans these parameters to find the zero-force contours $F(\theta,\phi,h)=0$. For the asymptotic magic-angle identity, the helpful-but-not-exact shortcut is to treat the two hemispheres as two parallel point dipoles of equal strength, whose force $\propto 1-3\cos^2\theta$ vanishes at $\theta=\arccos(1/\sqrt{3})$; the paper stresses that this argument ignores higher-order moments of the hemisphere and is only a memorization aid.

What would settle it

Build an icosahedral Halbach sphere from 12 spherical (or otherwise nearly point-like) magnets instead of cubes, open it at $\theta=34.7^\circ$, $\phi=0^\circ$, $h=0$, and measure the torque; if it does not fall within the predicted $\pm0.049$ Nm range (or at least below a tenth of the 3.3 Nm maximum), the point-dipole force-free condition is refuted for that geometry. Alternatively, compute $\theta_0(N)$ for $N$ up to $10^5$ with multipole-expanded forces and check whether the approach to $54.7^\circ$ follows the $N^{-1/2}$ scaling claimed in Fig. 3.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a dipolar Halbach sphere made of $N$ discrete magnetic dipoles can be cut into two pieces along a plane whose normal direction $\hat{\mathbf n}=(\sin\theta\cos\phi,\sin\theta\sin\phi,\cos\theta)$ and height $h$ are chosen so that the total magnetic force $\mathbf F$ across the cut has zero component along $\hat{\mathbf n}$; only shear components remain. For the great-circle cut $h=0$, the force-free polar angle $\theta_0(N)$ increases with $N$, from $\theta_0\approx34.7^\circ$ for the 12-magnet icosahedron to $\theta_0\approx52.2^\circ$ for a 300-dipole Fibonacci sphere and $\theta_0\approx53.5^\circ$ for 20,000 dipoles, and the authors identify the asymptotic value as the magic angle, $\lim_{N\to\infty}\theta_0(N)=\theta_m=\arccos(1/\sqrt{3})$, explicitly noting that this limit is supported by numerical evidence rather than a mathematical proof. The experiments on an icosahedral Halbach sphere (12 NdFeB cubes, 20 mm edges) and on a spherocylinder show opening torques of $-0.25$ Nm and $-8.06$ Nm, respectively, with the icosahedron's torque more than an order of magnitude below the maximum of 3.3 Nm expected for that arrangement; the measured central-field homogeneity is at the percent level (FWHM about 2.4 mT on roughly 197 mT for the icosahedron, about 0.8 mT for the spherocylinder).

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that each permanent magnet can be treated as a point dipole at its center, with the pairwise force of Eq. (2) and $r^{-4}$ scaling; the paper itself shows this is quantitatively imperfect for real cube magnets, since the measured icosahedron opening torque ($-0.25$ Nm) falls outside the predicted range ($-0.049$ to $+0.049$ Nm), an effect attributed to the finite size and tips of the cubes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Designers of large-$N$ Halbach spheres can open them near $\theta_m\approx54.7^\circ$, where the tensile force vanishes and only shear must be carried by the hinge.
  • For the 12-magnet icosahedron, the force-free opening angle is $\theta_0\approx34.7^\circ$ (with $\phi=0^\circ$, $h=0$); the measured torque is more than an order of magnitude below the maximum, so even partial cancellation gives large mechanical relief.
  • For spherocylinders, the force-free opening angle falls between $45^\circ$ and $\theta_m$, and the authors build a prototype at $\theta=33^\circ$ below that window, whose measured attractive torque ($-8.06$ Nm) matches the expectation that the caps' weak repulsion cannot compensate the cylinder halves' attraction.
  • The framework is stated to extend to higher-order multipole Halbach systems, so the same cut-plane search should yield force-free openings for quadrupole and higher arrays.
  • With $h=0$ giving the largest aperture, the azimuth $\phi$ can be tuned to maximize clearance between the cut and the nearest magnet, as the authors compute for the dodecahedron, truncated icosahedron, and truncated icosidodecahedron.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper's claims, one could test the $N^{-1/2}$ approach by computing $\theta_0(N)$ for $N=10^5$; the fit coefficient $172^\circ$ predicts a value about $0.54^\circ$ below $\theta_m$.
  • Because the point-dipole model under-predicts the force between cube magnets, practical assemblies might need a slightly larger opening angle than the nominal force-free value, or rounded magnet tips; the paper reports the discrepancy but does not quantify this correction.
  • The $1/\sqrt{3}$ ratio is the same as the magic angle used in NMR sample spinning; if the geometry is more than a coincidence, a force-free cut at $\theta_m$ would align the field axis with the MAS rotor axis, a connection the paper does not draw.
  • Among the four surveyed discrete geometries, the truncated icosahedron looks like the most practical candidate for a next demonstration: 60 magnets, $\theta_0=46^\circ$, $\phi=36^\circ$, and a reasonable $0.14a$ clearance.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates mechanically openable Halbach spheres built from discrete permanent magnets. On the theory side, it models each magnet as a point dipole on a sphere and computes the tensile force across a cutting plane as a function of plane-normal polar angle θ, azimuth φ, and height h. For Fibonacci-lattice spheres with up to 20,000 dipoles, force-free cutting angles are found numerically and appear to approach the magic angle θ_m = arccos(1/√3) as N→∞, although no proof is provided. The framework is applied to Platonic and Archimedean solids (icosahedron, dodecahedron, truncated icosahedron, truncated icosidodecahedron) and extended to spherocylindrical Halbach assemblies. Experimentally, a 12-cube icosahedral Halbach sphere and a spherocylinder were built; torque measurements show reductions of about one order of magnitude relative to the estimated maximum for the icosahedron, and magnetic field scans show central homogeneities of about 12,000 ppm (icosahedron) and 4,100 ppm (spherocylinder). The central claim is that zero-tensile-force cutting planes exist and are practically realizable while preserving field homogeneity.

Significance. If the quantitative predictions survive closer scrutiny, the work offers a practical solution to the long-standing access problem for spherical Halbach magnets, with direct applications in portable NMR/MRI. The paper's strengths include reproducible numerical recipes, explicit code and data releases via Zenodo, two physical prototypes, and direct field measurements. The experimentally demonstrated reduction of opening torque by more than an order of magnitude is a solid qualitative result. However, the exact force-free-plane claim is not yet quantitatively established: the point-dipole torque prediction for the icosahedron disagrees with the measured value by orders of magnitude, the magic-angle limit rests on a fit extrapolation rather than a derivation, and the reported hinge geometry is inconsistent between the text and the figures. These issues are fixable and do not invalidate the qualitative concept, but they require revision before the quantitative design procedure can be considered validated.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, Eq. (5)] The numerical evaluation of the predicted opening torque is not self-consistent. Using the parameters stated in the text, the factor μ0 m_h^2/(4π R^4) equals approximately 93.9 N, so F ≈ −2.919×10^{-5} × 93.9 N = −2.74×10^{-3} N; multiplying by r_h = 0.059 m gives τ_h ≈ −1.6×10^{-4} N m, not the printed −2.7×10^{-3} N m. Please check whether the factor 0.059 m was included in the evaluation. As printed, the comparison with the measured −0.25 N m is based on a torque value roughly seventeen times too large, and the actual point-dipole prediction is about 1.5×10^3 times smaller than the measured value.
  2. [§3.1] The geometry of the manufactured hinge is described inconsistently. The text states that the cutting plane is defined by θ = θ_m, φ = 90°, h = 0, while Fig. 7 and the subsequent torque calculation use θ = 34.7°, φ = 0°, h = 0. Since θ_m ≈ 54.7° differs from 34.7° and φ differs by 90°, these are different planes. The manuscript must state which plane was actually built and evaluate the point-dipole prediction for that plane; otherwise the experimental validation cannot be connected to the design.
  3. [§2.1, Eq. (4)] The limiting statement lim_{N→∞} θ_0(N) = θ_m is presented as Eq. (4), but the supporting Fig. 3 is a two-parameter fit (θ_m and the coefficient 172 in θ_0(N) = θ_m − 172/√N) to the same simulation data, and the text explicitly acknowledges that there is no mathematical proof. The manuscript should either supply an independent analytic argument for the magic-angle limit or clearly label Eq. (4) as a numerically motivated conjecture. The abstract and introduction should avoid the word 'derive' for this point, since the derived element is the numerical force map, not the asymptotic limit.
  4. [§2.1 and §3.1] The force-free cutting planes are located with a point-dipole force model, yet the only direct quantitative test, the icosahedron torque measurement, lies far outside the predicted window. The text attributes the discrepancy to the finite size and tips of the cube magnets but provides no corrected model. Because a finite-size correction of even a few degrees would shift the zero of the force map, the practical claim that opening at the designed angle makes the tensile force vanish is not established for real finite magnets. A finite-element or Magpylib simulation of the exact 20-mm cube geometry, similar to the simulation already used for the spherocylinder, should be added to quantify the shift in the force-free plane.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.2] The estimate N ≈ (127/9.7)^2/2 ≈ 150 appears without definition of the constants 127 and 9.7; please provide the expressions they come from.
  2. [Fig. 3b] The inset described as a log-log plot of θ_m − θ_0(N) has no readable axis labels in the current display; adding labelled axes would make the claimed power-law behavior verifiable.
  3. [§2.1, Eq. (3)] The quantity m_h = N m/2 is defined as the sum of dipole magnitudes on a hemisphere; for odd N this is not an integer number of dipoles, so clarify that N is taken to be even or define m_h accordingly.
  4. [§1] The statement that the framework 'is general and applicable to higher-order multipole Halbach systems' is not backed by any calculation in this paper; either add a concrete example for a quadrupole or higher-order case, or soften the claim.
  5. [§3.1] The ±1° error estimate that yields the torque range −0.049 N m to 0.049 N m is not derived; please state explicitly how the angular uncertainty is propagated through the non-linear force map.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The asymptotic magic-angle convergence (Eq. 4) is the intercept of a two-parameter fit, not an independent derivation; the remaining force-reduction demonstration is not circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.1, Fig. 3 and Eq. (4)]
    "The fitting function (blue) with two parameters is given in the legend. ... We take the study shown in Fig. 3 as convincing evidence that the asymptotic value of the cutting angle is the magic angle: lim_{N→∞} θ0(N) = θm = arccos(1/√3) (4)"

    The limit asserted in Eq. (4) is exactly the constant term of the two-parameter fit θ0(N) = θm − 172/√N displayed in Fig. 3(a). It is a fitted intercept, not a quantity obtained from the force model or from an independent calculation. The only analytical support offered, the 'two hemispheres as point dipoles' argument giving F ∝ 1 − 3cos²θ, is explicitly admitted by the authors to be inexact because it ignores forces from higher-order moments of the hemisphere. Thus the claimed convergence to the magic angle is an extrapolation of the fitted curve, and the 'asymptotic value' is statistically forced by the chosen fitting function rather than derived from first principles.

full rationale

The paper contains one genuine circular step: the headline asymptotic result, Eq. (4), reduces to a fitted parameter of the curve θ0(N) = θm − 172/√N. The authors are transparent that no mathematical proof exists, but the derivation chain for this particular claim is nevertheless fit-based rather than first-principles. This is only partial circularity: the practical force-free opening design for the icosahedron uses the directly computed zero at θ0 ≈ 34.7° (Fig. 2), not the fitted magic angle, and the measured order-of-magnitude torque reduction is an experimental result independent of the fit. The quantitative torque prediction in Sec. 3.1 fails outside the stated error range, but that is a model-accuracy problem, not circularity. Self-citations to Refs. [8] and [11] are external published results and are not load-bearing in a circular way. Therefore the central practical demonstration retains independent content, but the asymptotic magic-angle claim is a fitted input presented as a theoretical limit, warranting a score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard magnetostatics plus several domain-specific assumptions about Halbach magnetization patterns and ideal shell fields. The main free parameters are fitting constants used to extrapolate the magic-angle limit and to convert measured field values into force predictions. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • lambda in empirical force fit = 2.6
    Fitted to numerical force data for N=300 dipoles in Fig. 1b using the ansatz F proportional to 1 - lambda cos^2(theta). Represents the deviation of the discrete sphere from a two-point-dipole model, but is not central to the main claim.
  • asymptotic angle theta_m and coefficient c in theta_0(N) = theta_m - c/sqrt(N) = theta_m = 54.7 degrees, c = 172 degrees
    Fitted to Fibonacci-sphere simulations of the force-free cutting angle as a function of N (Fig. 3). The claimed magic-angle limit theta_m is the fitted asymptotic value, not an independently derived prediction.
  • effective remanence B_R = 1.316 T
    Obtained by fitting the computed central field to the measured value |B| = 196.5 mT for the icosahedron (Section 3.1). Used to convert the dimensionless force into the predicted opening torque.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Halbach orientation rule: each dipole's polar orientation angle is twice the polar angle of its location on the sphere.
    Invoked in Section 2.1 to define the dipolar Halbach sphere. This is the standard Halbach construction and is not derived in the paper.
  • standard math The force between two magnetic dipoles is given by the classical dipole-dipole force formula in Eqs. (1)-(2), and the total force between two clusters is the sum of pairwise dipole-dipole forces.
    Used throughout Sections 2.1 and 3.1 to compute opening forces. Relies on electrodynamics and ignores finite-size effects, mutual demagnetization, and magnetic saturation, which the paper acknowledges as a source of discrepancy.
  • domain assumption The ideal Halbach spherical shell central field is B_c = (4/3) B_R ln(sRo/sRi), and the field of an infinitely long Halbach cylinder has the standard form.
    Used in Section 2.2 to derive the spherocylinder end-cap radius matching condition. Taken from Ref. [13] without re-derivation.
  • domain assumption Cutting a long cylinder into two semi-infinite halves reduces the end field by a factor of 1/2, the same as cutting a sphere into hemispheres, so a hemisphere end cap on a cylinder restores the infinite-cylinder field strength.
    Argument in Section 2.2 and Fig. 4, described by the authors as strict only at the cutting plane and an upper bound for finite cylinders.
  • domain assumption The force-free opening angle for an infinitely long Halbach cylinder is 45 degrees and for a ring of point dipoles is the magic angle, based on line-dipole and point-dipole limits.
    Used in Section 2.2 to bracket the spherocylinder opening angle between 45 degrees and 54.7 degrees. Taken from the NMR-CUFF analysis in Ref. [8].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Openable Force-Balanced Halbach Magnets: From Fibonacci Sphere Simulations to Icosahedral Realizations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2OMAE37H

@misc{pith2026260809323,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Openable Force-Balanced Halbach Magnets: From Fibonacci Sphere Simulations to Icosahedral Realizations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2OMAE37H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09323}
}
read the original abstract

A long-standing goal in magnet design is to completely surround a volume of highly homogeneous magnetic field with permanent magnets while maintaining practical access to that volume. In this work, we present a theoretical and experimental investigation of mechanically accessible spherical magnets in Halbach configuration that can be opened with minimal or vanishing force. Focusing on dipolar Halbach spheres composed of discrete magnetic subunits, we derive conditions for force-free opening along specific cutting planes. These conditions define a continuous set of geometries for which tensile magnetic forces cancel, leaving only shear components, enabling mechanically effortless opening. The theoretical predictions are validated experimentally using icosahedral approximations of the Halbach sphere, for which both opening forces and magnetic field properties are measured. The results demonstrate that excellent field homogeneity can be preserved while reducing opening forces by orders of magnitude. Although discussed in detail for the dipolar case, the theoretical framework is general and applicable to higher-order multipole Halbach systems. Finally, the concepts are extended to spherocylindrical Halbach configurations, highlighting their potential for large-volume, highly homogeneous, and mechanically accessible permanent-magnet systems for magnetic resonance

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09323 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The force to open a spherical Fibonacci arrangement of 300 dipoles. (a) Only every second dipole is indicated by an arrow pointing along 𝐦. Their arrangement forms a homogeneous field indicated by 𝐁 (magenta), where red arrows are almost parallel to 𝐁, blue antiparallel, green perpendicular. The vector 𝐧̂ (cyan) is normal to the cutting plane (cyan circle). (b) 𝐹(𝜃, ℎ = 0) is numerically determined (red dots). The p… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The force to open an icosahedron. (a) Same as Fig. 1a, for 12 magnets in an icosahedral arrangement. (b) Same as Fig. 1d. (c) Same as Fig. 1b. Δ𝜃=𝜃 − 𝜃0 . 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 number of dipoles N 25° 30° 35° 40° 45° 50° 55° f o r c e-f r e e c u t tin g a n gle 0 a) 54.7° 54.7 172 N 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 10 4 0 10 1 10 2 m 0 b) 0 1 1000 1 100 1 1/ N 10 25° 30° 35° 40° 45° 50° 55° c) 54.7° 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The opening angle for Fibonacci spheres increases with the number of dipoles. (a) The dots (magenta) are numerically obtained. The fitting function (blue) with two parameters is given in the legend. The fitting range is indicated by a solid line, and the extrapolated part is dashed. The asymptotic value obtained from that fit is indicated as the red dashed line. (b) This inset shows 𝜃m − 𝜃0 (𝑁) on a log-log plot. (c… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Halbach hemispheres as end caps of a Halbach cylinder form a Halbach spherocylinder (capsule shape). A front quarter is cut away to reveal the interior. The red arrows indicate the magnetization directions, and the large yellow arrow denotes the resulting magnetic fiel…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The optimal opening angle for four magnet configurations: (a) icosahedron, (b) dodecahedron, (c) truncated icosahedron, (d) truncated icosidodecahedron. The cutting angle 𝜃0 (𝜙) is shown as a colored line. The color provided in the color bar indicates the distance 𝑑m f…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Magpylib simulation of a spherocylindrical magnet assembled from cuboidal magnets: (a) The magnet consists of a central Halbach cylinder (magnets with north poles in orange and south poles in green), discretized into 16 cuboidal magnets (10 mm side length, 100 mm total…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Hinged icosahedral magnet composed of twelve NdFeB cubes (side length 20 mm with their centers at a radius of 40.5 mm), cutting plane defined by 𝜃= 34.7 ◦ , 𝜙= 0◦ , and ℎ= 0. (a) and (b) Closed configuration shown from two different perspectives. The hinge is realized …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Magnetic field of the icosahedron shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Hinged spherocylinder composed of a 100 mm long Halbach cylinder and two hemispherical halves of an icosahedron, openable to an angle defined by 𝜃 = 33◦ and 𝜙 = 90◦ . (a) Closed configuration, with the hinge located on the right (realized using an M6 threaded brass rod…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Magnetic field of the spherocylinder shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. L. Johns, E. O. Fridjonsson, S. J. Vogt, A. Haber (Eds.), Mobile NMR and MRI: Developments and Applications, The Royal Society of Chemistry, 2015. doi:10.1039/9781782628095. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1039/9781782628095

    work page doi:10.1039/9781782628095 2015

  2. [2]

    Halbach, Design of permanent multipole magnets with oriented rare earth cobalt material, Nuclear In- struments and Methods 169 (1) (1980) 1–10.doi: 10.1016/0029-554X(80)90094-4

    K. Halbach, Design of permanent multipole magnets with oriented rare earth cobalt material, Nuclear In- struments and Methods 169 (1) (1980) 1–10.doi: 10.1016/0029-554X(80)90094-4

    doi:10.1016/0029-554x(80)90094-4 1980

  3. [3]

    Soltner, P

    H. Soltner, P. Blümler, Practical Concepts for Design, Construction and Application of Halbach Magnets in MagneticResonance,AppliedMagneticResonance54 (2023) 1701–1739.doi:10.1007/s00723-023-01602-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s00723-023-01602-2 2023

  4. [4]

    Rehberg, P

    I. Rehberg, P. Blümler, Analytic approach to creating homogeneous fields with finite-size magnets, Phys. Rev. Appl. 23 (2025) 064029.doi:10.1103/9nnk-jytn

    work page doi:10.1103/9nnk-jytn 2025

  5. [5]

    Leupold, A

    H. Leupold, A. Tilak, E. Potenziani, Adjustable mutli- tesla permanent magnet field sources, IEEE Trans- actions on Magnetics 29 (6, 1) (1993) 2902–2904, 1993 IEEE International Magnetics Conference (IN- TERMAG 93), Stockholm, Sweden, Apr 13-16, 1993. doi:10.1109/20.281092

    work page doi:10.1109/20.281092 1993

  6. [6]

    Bauer, H

    C. Bauer, H. Raich, G. Jeschke, P. Blümler, Design of a permanent magnet with a mechanical sweep suitableforvariable-temperaturecontinuous-waveand pulsed epr spectroscopy, Journal of Magnetic Reso- nance 198 (2) (2009) 222–227.doi:10.1016/j.jmr. 2009.02.010

    doi:10.1016/j.jmr 2009

  7. [7]

    O.Tretiak,P.Blümler,L.Bougas,Variablesingle-axis magnetic-field generator using permanent magnets, AIP Advances 9 (11) (2019).doi:10.1063/1.5130896

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5130896 2019

  8. [8]

    C. W. Windt, H. Soltner, D. van Dusschoten, P. Blüm- ler, A portable Halbach magnet that can be opened and closed without force: The NMR-CUFF, Journal of Magnetic Resonance 208 (1) (2011) 27–33.doi: 10.1016/j.jmr.2010.09.020

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jmr.2010.09.020 2011

Show all 20 references
  1. [9]

    Blümler, H

    P. Blümler, H. Soltner, Halbach magnet for magnetic resonancethatcanbeopenedandclosedwithouteffort, European Patent EP2365353 (2011)

    2011

  2. [10]

    Johns, E

    P.Blümler,F.Casanova,Hardwaredevelopments:Hal- bach magnet arrays, in: M. Johns, E. O. Fridjonsson, S. Vogt, A. Haber (Eds.), Mobile NMR and MRI: De- velopmentsandApplications,RoyalChemicalSociety, Cambridge, 2015, book section 4, pp. 133–157.doi: 10.1039/9781782628095-00133

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    Rehberg, P

    I. Rehberg, P. Blümler, Discretized Halbach spheres: Icosahedral symmetry for optimal field homogeneity, Phys. Rev. Appl. 25 (2026) 054009.doi:10.1103/ hyv2-s2tf. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/hyv2-s2tf

    2026 doi

  4. [12]

    Leupold, E

    H. Leupold, E. Potenziani, A. Tilak, Lightweight, distortion-free access to interiors of strong magnetic- field sources, Journal of Applied Physics 76 (10, 2) (1994) 6856–6858, 6th Joint Magnetism and Mag- netic Materials-Intermag Conference, Albuquerque, NM, Jun. 20-23, 1994....

    1994 doi

  5. [13]

    Leupold, A

    H. Leupold, A. Tilak, E. Potenziani, Permanent mag- net spheres: Design, construction, and application (in- vited), Journal of Applied Physics 87 (9, 2) (2000) 4730–4734, 44th Annual Conference on Magnetism and Magnetic Materials, San Jose, CA, Nov. 15-18, 1999.doi:10.1063/1.373141

    2000 doi

  6. [14]

    J. Chen, C. Xu, Design and analysis of the novel test tube magnet as a device for portable nuclear magnetic resonance, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 43 (9, 1) (2007) 3555–3557.doi:10.1109/TMAG.2007.901888

    2007

  7. [15]

    E. P. Furlani, Permanent Magnet and Electromechan- ical Devices: Materials, Analysis, and Applications, Academic Press, San Diego, 2001.doi:10.1016/ B978-012269951-1/50004-8

    2001

  8. [16]

    doi:10.1155/1998/79537

    K.W.Yung,P.B.Landecker,D.D.Villani,Ananalytic solution for the force between two magnetic dipoles, MagneticandElectricalSeparation9(1)(1998)39–52. doi:10.1155/1998/79537

    1998 doi

  9. [17]

    Swinbank, R

    R. Swinbank, R. James Purser, Fibonacci grids: A novel approach to global modelling, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 132 (619) (2006) 1769–1793.arXiv:https://rmets. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1256/qj.05.227, doi:https://doi.org/10.1256/qj.05.227. ...

    2006 doi

  10. [18]

    Rehberg, P

    I. Rehberg, P. Blümler, Halbach_two_point_oh: Opti- mize Uniform Fields with Permanent Magnets (Jun. 2026).doi:10.5281/zenodo.20669385. URLhttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20669385

    2026 doi

  11. [19]

    Rehberg, Dipole Cluster Inspector - A Python GUI for Exploring Thousands of Magnetic Configurations (Jul

    I. Rehberg, Dipole Cluster Inspector - A Python GUI for Exploring Thousands of Magnetic Configurations (Jul. 2026).doi:10.5281/zenodo.10084573. URLhttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10084573

    2026 doi

  12. [20]

    M.Ortner,L.Bandeira,Magpylib:afreepythonpack- age for magnetic field computation, SoftwareX 11 (2020) 100466.doi:10.1016/j.softx.2020.100466. I. Rehberg et al.:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 12 of 12

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.