Do you mean something that can be controlled to appear either capacitive
or
inductive? If so there are devices that can do this. Saturable reactors
in
parallel with capacitors will do this. These donot involve a change in
coercive force but do involve permeability changes.

No, the component may switch between magnetic capacitance and magnetic
inductance, which would differ only on coercance.

If you mean an inductor that acts as a capacitor or a capacitor that acts
as
an inductor- the answer is --forget it.

Forget what, pièzoelèctrets?
----------------------

Capacitive inductance and magnetic capacitance are buzz words that are
contradictory right from the definitions of capacitance and inductance.

As for piezoelectrets- some materials exhibit both piezoelectric and
ferromagnetic properties So.....what about them? please tell me in modern
and technical English.

Capacitive inductance and magnetic capacitance are buzz words that are
contradictory right from the definitions of capacitance and inductance.

As for piezoelectrets- some materials exhibit both piezoelectric and
ferromagnetic properties So.....what about them? please tell me in modern
and technical English.

In effect, you are talking about what most in the English speaking world
call "permeance".
Its units are the same as those of inductance. In effect it is the inverse
of reluctance. The electrical analogue is conductance not capacitive
reactance. All it indicates is that a high capacivity core is a good
magnetic "conductor" and, in spite of what the article says, doesn't
necessarily imply high energy storage.

However the inverse of inductance is not capacitance and "magnetic
capacivity" is not "capacitance", magnetic or otherwise.

To be fair, the references are not from English speaking sources and there
is definitely a translation factor there (even where it mentions magnetic
capacitance, there appears to be some conceptual factors that are screwy in
terms of interpretation and make a mess out of a simple thing). The
translator, in the side reference on magnetic capacitance, doesn't seem to
realise the difference between a capacitive reactance -j(1/wC) (in ohms) and
an inductive susceptance -j(1/wL) (in Siemens or (ohms)^-1 ).

This also has nothing to do with coercivity (couldn't find a definition of
"coercance").
If you want some device where the flux/mmf ratio (or permeance ) changes -
then there are many cases that exist -some desirable and others not
desirable.

Unfortunately, for most devices, where magnetic non-linearity exists -
permeance and reluctance are rather useless in practice except as a
visualisation in terms of an electrical analogue.

So- if you really want variable coercivity -you can simply take a permanent
magnet and apply an external mmf. Then, when used as a permanent magnet, you
will be able to demagnetise it when you want. Of course, it won't
remagnetize by itself.

However, since you persist in using your own brand of language and your own
terms, it is all but impossible to understand what you are wanting or
implying.

In effect, you are talking about what most in the English speaking world
call "permeance".
Its units are the same as those of inductance. In effect it is the inverse
of reluctance. The electrical analogue is conductance not capacitive
reactance. All it indicates is that a high capacivity core is a good
magnetic "conductor" and, in spite of what the article says, doesn't
necessarily imply high energy storage.

However the inverse of inductance is not capacitance and "magnetic
capacivity" is not "capacitance", magnetic or otherwise.

To be fair, the references are not from English speaking sources and there
is definitely a translation factor there (even where it mentions magnetic
capacitance, there appears to be some conceptual factors that are screwy
in
terms of interpretation and make a mess out of a simple thing). The
translator, in the side reference on magnetic capacitance, doesn't seem to
realise the difference between a capacitive reactance -j(1/wC) (in ohms)
and
an inductive susceptance -j(1/wL) (in Siemens or (ohms)^-1 ).

This also has nothing to do with coercivity (couldn't find a definition of
"coercance").
If you want some device where the flux/mmf ratio (or permeance )
hanges -
then there are many cases that exist -some desirable and others not
desirable.

Unfortunately, for most devices, where magnetic non-linearity exists -
permeance and reluctance are rather useless in practice except as a
visualisation in terms of an electrical analogue.

So- if you really want variable coercivity -you can simply take a
permanent
magnet and apply an external mmf. Then, when used as a permanent magnet,
you
will be able to demagnetise it when you want. Of course, it won't
remagnetize by itself.

However, since you persist in using your own brand of language and your
own
terms, it is all but impossible to understand what you are wanting or
implying.

If you follow your original reference down to the marked link "magnetic
capacitor" and follow it, you will end up in references to capacitive
reactance along with a host of other BS.
Here it is:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_capacitance
Read it and see the term "reactance" repeated several times along with the
misapplication nonsense.

Now as to "capacitivity" which is correctly defined in the article as
permeance (and is not capacivity as defined for electric fields) there is no
trouble except that the term is misleading and seems to have mislead the
source of the link to magnetic capacitance.

As for permittance(which is not defined while permitivity is defined) -or
more properly "capacitance" which is the electric FIELD analog to permeance
(flux-charge and mmf-emf). This analog provides no useful benefit but the
electric CIRCUIT analog which is what all the source references discuss,
the analog is conductance-not capacitance.

I should repeat that the only laws truly common to electrical and magnetic
"circuits" in general are Kirchoff's Laws. If the magnetic circuit is
linear, then other resistive circuit concepts may be used.

However the inverse of inductance is not capacitance and "magnetic
capacivity" is not "capacitance", magnetic or otherwise.

-ity is not -ance ever. However, they should be proportional.
--------
True, but many -ances are not defined- and the reference you gave me
treated an itivity as an ance.
Artley "Fields and configurations" mentions permeability, permeance, and
permittivity, but not permittance. Another text also makes this
omission-could they be onto something?

-
Capacitors store work; inductors shift work.
NO. Capacitor energy storage is more obvious,-you can disconnect it and walk
away with it and recover it somewhere else (hence shifting work). Inductors
also store energy and will neither require nor release energy as long as the
current doesn't change making it more awkward to disconnect and walk away.
In both cases, energy can be stored and released at another time.

-ity is proportional to spatial dimensions. -ance is the bare
property.
---------
Permittivity, resistivity, conductivity, permeability are not spatial
related terms. Permeance, resistance and conductance depend on spatial
dimensions. you have it backwards.

So- if you really want variable coercivity -you can simply take a
permanent
magnet and apply an external mmf. Then, when used as a permanent magnet,
you
will be able to demagnetise it when you want. Of course, it won't
remagnetize by itself.

a magnetic reservory
--------
meaning ??????????

If you follow your original reference down to the marked link "magnetic
capacitor" and follow it, you will end up in references to capacitive
reactance along with a host of other BS.
Here it is:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_capacitance
Read it and see the term "reactance" repeated several times along with the
misapplication nonsense.

Now as to "capacitivity" which is correctly defined in the article as
permeance (and is not capacivity as defined for electric fields) there is
no
trouble except that the term is misleading and seems to have mislead the
source of the link to magnetic capacitance.

As for permittance(which is not defined while permitivity is defined) -or
more properly "capacitance" which is the electric FIELD analog to
permeance
(flux-charge and mmf-emf). This analog provides no useful benefit but the
electric CIRCUIT analog which is what all the source references
discuss,
the analog is conductance-not capacitance.

I should repeat that the only laws truly common to electrical and magnetic
"circuits" in general are Kirchoff's Laws. If the magnetic circuit is
linear, then other resistive circuit concepts may be used.

However the inverse of inductance is not capacitance and "magnetic
capacivity" is not "capacitance", magnetic or otherwise.

-ity is not -ance ever. However, they should be proportional.
--------
True, but many -ances are not defined- and the reference you gave me
treated an itivity as an ance.
Artley "Fields and configurations" mentions permeability, permeance, and
permittivity, but not permittance. Another text also makes this
omission-could they be onto something?

-
Capacitors store work; inductors shift work.
NO. Capacitor energy storage is more obvious,-you can disconnect it and
walk
away with it and recover it somewhere else (hence shifting work).
Inductors
also store energy and will neither require nor release energy as long as
the
current doesn't change making it more awkward to disconnect and walk away.
In both cases, energy can be stored and released at another time.

-ity is proportional to spatial dimensions. -ance is the bare
property.
---------
Permittivity, resistivity, conductivity, permeability are not spatial
related terms. Permeance, resistance and conductance depend on spatial
dimensions. you have it backwards.

So- if you really want variable coercivity -you can simply take a
permanent
magnet and apply an external mmf. Then, when used as a permanent magnet,
you
will be able to demagnetise it when you want. Of course, it won't
remagnetize by itself.

a magnetic reservory
--------
meaning ??????????

Read again- it refers to "the effect of a dielectric body in producing
static electric induction as compared with that of some other body or bodies
referred to as a standard."
In other words it is an electrostatic term and has nothing to do with
magnetic devices or terms.

----------
And a /science/ dictionary calls it magnetic permittivity: http://
dictionary.reference.com/search?q=relative%20permittivity.
----------
I tried your reference above and google indicated that it did not match
anything.

Oh dear, why not go back to abvolts, abamps and statvolts etc.? Give us a
break.

The terms emf, mmf do include unfortunately the word "force" I agree with
you there- these are anachronisms which have stuck but any sophomore knows
what they refer to so, in the absense of any more convenient terms such as
potential difference, we use them. Field never did represent energy or
force- nothing wrong with that. Actually electric potential (difference) is
defined in terms of work or energy. No BS involved in these terms.

------
C = Q/V;
-------
OK
-----
L|P =?= I/V
------
Nonsense If you mean L/P by L|P then L/P =N^2 which is unitless and only
reflects the reality that one could have 1A in N turns or N Amps in 1 turn
which is equivalent.

L = Vt/I = Zt-
-------
Are you trying to say v(t) =L(di(t)/dt)? and rewriting it avoiding the
calculus? Then all of sudden bringing in the idea of impedance -incorrectly.

Yep, it's not useful because it's wrong. Current is not a fundamental
property whereas charge is, even if the retarded [Francish] scientists
behind the SI believe that the ampère (A) goes there. It is the trend
that is the magnetic analòg to charge, proportional to h or Et, not
magnetic flux or lines or current or permeance or any of that shit.
------
While current is not the fundamental property, the choice of the ampere as
the base unit is reasonable. The rest of your statement is gibberish.

Voltage is, however, proportional to partial charge. The analusis
still needs the magnetic likewise.
-----------
Are you trying to make a point hete? if so you have failed.

their gap in dimensional grasp? Permittivity and permeability should
not be related by a velocity if they're supposed to be analògs. I
think that's the Francs' fault also. What if permittance is also
related to permeance by a velocity?
---------
First of all, permittivity and permeability are mathematically analogous
because one can write equations in the same form for both electrostatic and
magnetostatic situations. Whether they are related or not is not of concern
as the two "static" situations are independent.
The velocity relationship doesn't destroy any analogies.

Inductors must induce. Capacitors must capace. The point is the
component must identify with its behavred without other components,
such as the wire and supply in the circuit. When the inductor is
disconnected, it chokes itself. It depends on a capacitor to live.

C = q/V = rq/kQ
L = Vtt/q = kQtt/qr

t/q I could accept as analògic, but not tt/q.
---------------
Only one point that is correct appears in all the above blather.
That is with regard to behaviour.
we can write i(t) =C(dv/dt) (corresponding to q(t)=Cv(t)), and
v(t)=L(di/dt) corresponding to v(t)=L d(dq/dt)/dt as two different
i(t)-v(t) relationships -which appears to be what you are awkwardly and
questionably trying to say. Use of current (which is easily measurable) as
a variable is simpler and more practical than using q which is not so
easily measured.

we can also write i(t) =Gv(t) as another relationship
Any real device has all three of these properties but can be represented by
a combination of ideal elements.
However, to return to a magnetic element only the analog of i(t)=Gv(t)
exists in the magnetic circuit and even there it isn't generally of much
use.
I did not say that there is an analog between C and L. although one can look
at C=(epsilon)A/l and inductance is (mu*N^2)A/l which is of the same
form. The behaviour in an electric circuit is not a direct analog but is a
dual analog (see duality in electric circuits) as indicated above.

-ity is proportional to spatial dimensions. -ance is the bare
property.
---------
Permittivity, resistivity, conductivity, permeability are not spatial
related terms. Permeance, resistance and conductance depend on spatial
dimensions. you have it backwards.

resistivity: O·m·m/m
resistance: O
-------
No resistivity is expressed for a unit volume . resistance and other ances
depend on the actual physical dimensions.

It's magnetic instead of thèrmic. I straihtend out the dumb Francish
spelling of réservoir, or simply tank.
-----------
And simply made things unclear. That is not what I call straightening out
some thing.

Never mind, I found a good leed:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Reluctance#Applications.
-------
One of which I had mentioned before. Saturable reactors. In effect, you have
now finally realised that what you were looking for is what I suggested was
what you wanted to consider.
Now you will have to find some good texts on electromagnetic energy
conversion. Is your math up to it? If it is at the level that you are using
above- it isn't.
Anyhow, I think this thread has pretty well had it.

Read again- it refers to "the effect of a dielectric body in producing
static electric induction as compared with that of some other body or
bodies
referred to as a standard."
In other words it is an electrostatic term and has nothing to do with
magnetic devices or terms.

----------
And a /science/ dictionary calls it magnetic permittivity: http://
dictionary.reference.com/search?q=relative%20permittivity.
----------
I tried your reference above and google indicated that it did not match
anything.

Oh dear, why not go back to abvolts, abamps and statvolts etc.? Give us a
break.

The terms emf, mmf do include unfortunately the word "force" I agree with
you there- these are anachronisms which have stuck but any sophomore
knows
what they refer to so, in the absense of any more convenient terms such
as
potential difference, we use them. Field never did represent energy or
force- nothing wrong with that. Actually electric potential (difference)
is
defined in terms of work or energy. No BS involved in these terms.

------
C = Q/V;
-------
OK
-----
L|P =?= I/V
------
Nonsense If you mean L/P by L|P then L/P =N^2 which is unitless and only
reflects the reality that one could have 1A in N turns or N Amps in 1 turn
which is equivalent.

L = Vt/I = Zt-
-------
Are you trying to say v(t) =L(di(t)/dt)? and rewriting it avoiding the
calculus? Then all of sudden bringing in the idea of
impedance -incorrectly.

Yep, it's not useful because it's wrong. Current is not a fundamental
property whereas charge is, even if the retarded [Francish] scientists
behind the SI believe that the ampère (A) goes there. It is the trend
that is the magnetic analòg to charge, proportional to h or Et, not
magnetic flux or lines or current or permeance or any of that shit.
------
While current is not the fundamental property, the choice of the ampere as
the base unit is reasonable. The rest of your statement is gibberish.

Voltage is, however, proportional to partial charge. The analusis
still needs the magnetic likewise.
-----------
Are you trying to make a point hete? if so you have failed.

their gap in dimensional grasp? Permittivity and permeability should
not be related by a velocity if they're supposed to be analògs. I
think that's the Francs' fault also. What if permittance is also
related to permeance by a velocity?
---------
First of all, permittivity and permeability are mathematically analogous
because one can write equations in the same form for both electrostatic
and
magnetostatic situations. Whether they are related or not is not of
concern
as the two "static" situations are independent.
The velocity relationship doesn't destroy any analogies.

Inductors must induce. Capacitors must capace. The point is the
component must identify with its behavred without other components,
such as the wire and supply in the circuit. When the inductor is
disconnected, it chokes itself. It depends on a capacitor to live.

C = q/V = rq/kQ
L = Vtt/q = kQtt/qr

t/q I could accept as analògic, but not tt/q.
---------------
Only one point that is correct appears in all the above blather.
That is with regard to behaviour.
we can write i(t) =C(dv/dt) (corresponding to q(t)=Cv(t)), and
v(t)=L(di/dt) corresponding to v(t)=L d(dq/dt)/dt as two different
i(t)-v(t) relationships -which appears to be what you are awkwardly and
questionably trying to say. Use of current (which is easily measurable)
as
a variable is simpler and more practical than using q which is not so
easily measured.

we can also write i(t) =Gv(t) as another relationship
Any real device has all three of these properties but can be represented
by
a combination of ideal elements.
However, to return to a magnetic element only the analog of i(t)=Gv(t)
exists in the magnetic circuit and even there it isn't generally of much
use.
I did not say that there is an analog between C and L. although one can
look
at C=(epsilon)A/l and inductance is (mu*N^2)A/l which is of the same
form. The behaviour in an electric circuit is not a direct analog but is a
dual analog (see duality in electric circuits) as indicated above.

-ity is proportional to spatial dimensions. -ance is the bare
property.
---------
Permittivity, resistivity, conductivity, permeability are not spatial
related terms. Permeance, resistance and conductance depend on spatial
dimensions. you have it backwards.

resistivity: O·m·m/m
resistance: O
-------
No resistivity is expressed for a unit volume . resistance and other ances
depend on the actual physical dimensions.

It's magnetic instead of thèrmic. I straihtend out the dumb Francish
spelling of réservoir, or simply tank.
-----------
And simply made things unclear. That is not what I call straightening out
some thing.

Never mind, I found a good leed:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Reluctance#Applications.
-------
One of which I had mentioned before. Saturable reactors. In effect, you
have
now finally realised that what you were looking for is what I suggested
was
what you wanted to consider.
Now you will have to find some good texts on electromagnetic energy
conversion. Is your math up to it? If it is at the level that you are
using
above- it isn't.
Anyhow, I think this thread has pretty well had it.