Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Physica C 467 (2007) 141144

www.elsevier.com/locate/physc

Interpretation of the method of images in estimating

superconducting levitation
Jose Luis Perez-Diaz *, Juan Carlos Garcia-Prada
Departamento de Ingeniera Mecanica, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Butarque 15, E28911 Leganes, Spain
Received 26 June 2007; received in revised form 12 September 2007; accepted 14 September 2007
Available online 25 September 2007

Abstract
Among dierent papers devoted to superconducting levitation of a permanent magnet over a superconductor using the method of
images, there is a discrepancy of a factor of two when estimating the lift force. This is not a minor matter but an interesting fundamental
question that contributes to understanding the physical phenomena of imaging on a superconductor surface. We solve it, make clear
the physical behavior underlying it, and suggest the reinterpretation of some previous experiments.
2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
PACS: 02.70.Bf; 03.50.De; 41.20.q; 41.20.Gz; 74.25.Ld; 74.60.Ec
Keywords: Meissner eect; Method of images; Magnetic levitation; Superconductor levitation

1. Introduction
It has long been known that a repulsive force arises
between a magnetic eld (generated for instance by a permanent magnet) and a superconductor [1]. This force is
due to the repulsion of the magnetic eld from the superconductor, i.e. the Meissner eect. In 1953 there was a rst
attempt to make a superconducting bearing [2] using this
force and a rst engine that used a superconducting bearing
was made in 1958 by Buchhold [3] and Schoch [4]. After the
discovery of high critical temperature superconductors [5]
the Meissner repulsive force has become a popular demonstration of superconducting properties [6].
The usual approach to the description of the dynamics
of a permanent magnet or magnetic dipole at +z over a
semi-innite superconductor is the use of the method of
images in which the superconductor expels the magnetic
eld as if there were another mirror magnetic dipole at

Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 916249912; fax: +34 916249430.

E-mail address: jlperez@ing.uc3m.es (J.L. Perez-Diaz).

0921-4534/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.physc.2007.09.011

z under the superconductor surface. This model is used

for both type I and type II superconductors and, even in
the case of a hard superconductor, the model is useful for
describing the stiness [7]. Furthermore, the method of
images has been extended [8] or used as a basis for other
more realistic geometries [9].
It is useful to describe the magnetic eld H outside the
superconductor (z > 0) as the sum of the eld generated
by the real dipole Hr and that generated by the image
dipole Hi.
It is well-known from classical magnetostatics [10] that
the magnetic eld (in MKS units) generated at a point r
by a magnetic dipole m located at the origin of coordinates
is
Hr

1 3nn  m  m
4p
r3

where r jrj is the distance and n rr is the unit vector in

the direction from the dipole to the point.
By substituting x  xr for r in (1), we obtain the eld Hr
generated by the real dipole m located at xr = zk, where k is
the unit vector in the z direction. On the other hand, by

142

J.L. Perez-Diaz, J.C. Garcia-Prada / Physica C 467 (2007) 141144

substituting x  xi for r and m* for m in (1) we obtain the

eld Hi generated by the image dipole m* located at
xi = zk. The image dipole m* is the symmetric mirror
image of m (see Fig. 1). The in-plane component of m* is
equal to that of m and the z component of m* is opposite
to that of m. Therefore a description of the magnetic eld
generated by the real dipole in the presence of a semi-innite superconductor for z > 0 will be given by:
Hx Hr Hi
"
1 3x  xr  mx  xr
m


5
4p
jx  xr j
jx  xr j3
#
3x  xi  mx  xi
m


5
3
jx  xi j
jx  xi j

This eld is tangential to the superconductor surface, that

is, it satises Hz = 0 just at the surface of the superconductor z = 0. This boundary condition is necessary in order to
satisfy the conditions that the magnetic eld H vanishes in
the superconductor (H = 0 for z < 0) and that Hz is
continuous.
On the very top surface of the superconductor there will
be superconducting currents that are the true origin of the
magnetic eld Hi and generate a discontinuity in the component of the magnetic eld parallel to the plane.
But, the mechanically interesting parameter is, indeed,
the force exerted by the superconductor on the real
dipole. This force is able to levitate the magnet when it
compensates the magnets weight and has attracted the
interest of many authors for the types of potential uses
we mentioned previously. In spite of its interesting nature, there has been a discrepancy in the way to describe
and calculate it.

2. Direct force model

Some prior works [1113] calculate the force between
the superconductor and the permanent magnet m as that
between the mirror image dipole at z and the real dipole
at z. We shall call this approach the direct force model.
The force F12 exerted by a real magnetic dipole m1 on a
real magnetic dipole m2 at a distance r from the rst one is
well-known from classical magnetostatics [14]:
"
3l0 m1  m2 r m1  rm2 m2  rm1
F12
4p
jrj5
#
m1  rm2  rr
5
3
7
jrj
where l0 is the magnetic permeability of vacuum.
This last expression may be derived as the force suered
by a magnetic moment m2 in an external magnetic eld H1:
F l0 rm2  H1

when using [1] for the magnetic eld H1 generated by dipole m1.
When applied to the force exerted by the mirror dipole
on the real dipole m at z and oriented with a h angle with
the z axis one obtains a vertical lift force described by:
Fz

3l0 m2 1 cos2 h
4p
2z4

3. Potential energy or reinforced model

On the other hand some other works [1517] take a different approach. They use the also well-known expression
for the potential energy of two real magnetic dipoles m1
and m2 at a distance r
"
#
l0 3r  m1 r  m2 m1  m2

V 
6
5
3
4p
jrj
jrj
which may be obtained by using the general expression of
the potential energy of a magnetic moment m2 in an external magnetic eld H1:
V l0 m2  H1

when using (1) for the magnetic eld H1 generated by dipole m1.
Therefore, in the case of the dipole m located over a
semi-innite superconductor at a vertical distance of z
and oriented at an angle h with respect to the z axis, the
potential energy between real and image dipoles may be
written as:
V

Fig. 1. Dipole m at z over a superconducting surface and its corresponding image dipole m* at z.

l0 m2 1 cos2 h
3
4p
2z

These authors obtain the force as minus the derivative of V

with respect to the position z of the real permanent magnet.

J.L. Perez-Diaz, J.C. Garcia-Prada / Physica C 467 (2007) 141144

Fz 2

3l0 m2 1 cos2 h
4p
2z4

This results in a force that is twice that obtained in [5] by

the direct force model. Thus, we shall call this approach
the potential energy or reinforced model.
4. Giaros argument
This discrepancy was pointed out by Giaro et al. [18] in a
simpler version: an electric charge q at z over a perfect conducting uncharged (or electrically earthed) plane. Both problems are equivalent and the physics under them are similar.
In the electric case the eld generated by the surface is
the same that it would be by a mirror image charge q* =
q at z.
The direct force model in this case allows the force
between the real q and mirror q* charges to be described
by Coulombs law:
Fz 

1
q2
4pe0 2z2

10

where e0 is the dielectric permittivity of vacuum.

The reinforced or potential energy model states that the
potential energy of the system U will be obtained as the
electric potential energy between q and q* and therefore
will be:
U

1 q2
4pe0 2z

11

From this the force exerted on the real charge q can be obtained as minus the derivative of U with respect to z
obtaining
F z 2

1
q2
4pe0 2z2

12

143

mirror image of the other justies (13) to be the correct

expression for the potential energy and not the classical
Coulomb one as expressed in Eq. (11).
5. Equivalent mechanism and interpretation
The Coulomb potential energy has proved to describe
successfully by both classical mechanics and quantum
mechanics and it is always used for the Hamilton or
Lagrange formalism of Mechanics [19] even in linked or
constrained systems. Therefore, if Giaros argument is correct the question remains open as to why this exception to
Coulombs potential appears.
We propose that the question is solved in the following
way, i.e. that the reinforced or potential energy model correctly describes the lift force exerted by the superconductor
on the charge (or dipole). Simultaneously, the direct force
model correctly describes the force between image and real
charges (or dipoles). The point is that these two forces are
not the same because the image charge (or dipole) is not
rigidly xed to the superconductor.
In order to make this idea clear, we can use an equivalent mechanism. In fact, when we have a real charge over
a perfect conductor electrically earthed, we obtain a mechanism that reacts to changes in the real charge coordinates
by changing symmetrically those of the mirror image one.
Therefore, the electric (or magnetic) eld obtained in the
case of a charge (or magnetic dipole) at z over the surface
will be the same as that obtained by joining two real
charges q and q* (or real dipoles m and m*) to joints 1
and 2 in the mechanism of Fig. 2.
In this mechanism we have two joints 1 and 2 and a
direct force between them Fd. The mechanical analysis is
valid for any kind of force Fd: electric (10), magnetostatic
(5) or simply a mechanical spring.

which is exactly twice the value obtained from (10) by the

direct force method.
Giaro et al. argued that the correct expression for the
force is that of the rst papers (direct force model). The argument may be condensed as follows: If the eld acting on the
real charge q (or real dipole m) equals that generated by the
image charge q* (or image dipole m*), then the force exerted
on the real charge q (or real dipole m) will be just the same as
would be exerted by the image charge q* (or image dipole
m*). Giaro then proposes that the true potential energy
should be obtained by integrating that force (10). Therefore,
Giaros potential energy is the work done in Eq. (10) when
moving the real charge (or real dipole) from z to innity:
U Giaro

1 q2
4pe0 4z

13

which is just half the value used in (11) for the potential energy in the reinforced model.
Giaro argues that the link between real and image
charges (dipoles) which makes one to be just the symmetric

Fig. 2. Mechanism equivalent to a mirror system in which real (1) and

image (2) charges (or dipoles) are symmetrically at the same distance of the
earthed surface of a perfect conductor. Fd is the force between 1 and 2. Fe
is the external force that has to be applied to keep in equilibrium the
system and therefore the measured force. In the case of the superconducting levitation Fe is the weight of the real magnet.

144

J.L. Perez-Diaz, J.C. Garcia-Prada / Physica C 467 (2007) 141144

An external force, Fe, must be exerted on 1 in order to be

at equilibrium and it may be deduced easily from elementary analysis of the mechanism [20] to be:

work and that is the reason why his work represents only
half of the true potential energy.

Fe 2  Fd

6. Conclusion

14

In the case of the magnetic dipole levitating over a superconductor this force, Fe, is just the weight of the magnet
or Mg, where M is its mass and g is the gravitational
acceleration.
Simultaneously, the upper bars (joined to 1) have a compression T given by
T

jFd j
2 sin u

15

This solves the discrepancies because the force that is

interesting for mechanical use is the external one Fe (the lift
force) that is in accordance with the reinforced model.
This makes clear that the superconductor surface, when
a permanent magnet is over it, may be understood as a special case of link and the method of images may be used to
describe the dynamics of the system. The real measured
force on the real magnet is therefore
Fe 2  Fd

where / is the angle between any of these upper bars and

the plane surface.
In the same manner the lower bars (joined to 2) have a
tension of the same value. Reactions R3 and R4 at joints 3
and 4 are both the same:
1
R3 R4  Fe
2

16

It is noteworthy that the external force on joint 1 is

equilibrated half by the direct force and half by the compression of the upper bars. The work done by the external
force, Fe, when displacing joint 1 a height of dz, is
dW=Fe dz, which equals the sum of the work done by
the direct forces Fd at joint 1 dW 1 F d  dz 12 dW ) and
at joint 2 dW 2 F d  dz dW 1 12 dW ).
This means that the work needed to displace a real
charge (dipole) is divided equally into the work to move
the real charge (dipole) on a xed eld like the existing
in that moment and the work to move the image
charge (dipole) deeper into the superconductor (by modifying the current distribution). The total potential energy
is therefore correctly described by Eq. (11) (or (8)) but
not by (13).
In fact the work done by Fd when carrying the real
charge (dipole) from its position at +z to innity is just
the same as is done by Fd when carrying the image charge
(dipole) from its position at z to minus innity. Physically, we can interpret the work of carrying the image
charge (dipole) to minus innity as the work of modifying
the surface charge (current) distribution in the presence of
the real charge (dipole). Giaro does not consider this latter

in accordance with the reinforced model (9).

Furthermore, this consideration should help to reinterpretate the excess force measurements described in some
works [21] that used a direct force model and confused Fd
with the measured force Fe.
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]

V. Arkadiev, Nature 160 (1947) 330.

I. Simon, J. Appl. Phys. 24 (1953) 19.
T.A. Buchhold, Sci. Am. 3 (2002) 74.
K.F. Schoch, Adv. Cryogen. Eng. 6 (1960) 65.
J.G. Bednorz, K.A. Muller, Z. Phys. B64 (1986) 184.
E.A. Early, C.L. Seaman, K.N. Yang, M.B. Maple, Am. J. Phys. 56
(1988) 617.
A.A. Kordyuk, J. Appl. Phys. 83 (1998) 610.
Q.G. Lin, Phys. Rev. B 74 (2006) 24510.
J. Lugo, V. Sosa, Physica C 324 (1999) 9.
J.D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, John Wiley&Sons, 1975.
J. R Hull, Supercond. Sci. Technol. 13 (2000) 854.
K.B. Ma, Y.V. Postrekhin, W.K. Chu, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 74 (2003)
4989.
F.C. Moon, Superconducting Levitation, Wiley-VCH, 2004.
F.C. Moon, Magnetosolids Mechanics, Wiley, 1984.
Z.J. Yang, T.H. Johansen, G. Helgesen, A.T. Skjeltorp, Physica C
160 (1989) 461.
M.W. Coey, Phys. Rev. B 65 (2002) 214524.
. Gundogdu, Supercond. Sci. Technol. 18
A. Cansiz, J.R. Hull, O
(2005) 990.
K. Giaro, W. Gorzkowski, T. Motylewski, Physica C 168 (1990) 479.
H. Goldstein, Classical Mechanics, Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company Inc., 1987.
J.C. Garcia-Prada, C. Castejon, H. Rubio, Problemas Resueltos de
Teora de Maquinas y Mecanismos, Paraninfo, 2007.
J.R. Hull, Supercond. Sci. Technol. 13 (2000) 854.