Re: Magnetic field measurements

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: Ed Phillips <evp-at-pacbell-dot-net> 

Tesla list wrote:
 >
 > Original poster: "john cooper" <tesla-at-tesla-coil-dot-com>
 >
 > Don't know if they have a website but this book may be of help:
 >
 > The Magnetic Measurements Handbook by Jack M. Janicke
 > Magnetic Research Press
 > A Division of Magnetic Research, Inc.
 > 122 Bellevue Ave.
 > Butler, NJ 07405
 >
 > I think that I bought mine directly from them 3 or 4 years ago when I was
 > building a magnetometer.
 > John

	The devil himself seems to have inspired the bewildering sets of units
for magnetism and electromagnetism.  When I was a freshman in college
(1942, different world) the academic engineering world was in the
process of changing from cgs to mks to mks rationalized (poking 4 pi
somewhere else, but never getting rid of it of course) units and neither
I or any of the other students really came to terms with them.  To top
things off, several of the instructors were practical engineers who
still used the English system (lines/square inch, etc.).  Now the SI
freaks have introduced some more units which, as far as I'm concerned,
don't help matters either.  I've found that using the gauss and oersted
seem to work just fine for me, and almost all of the magnetic material
catalogs I have seen seem to use them still.  The Tesla is too large,
while the gauss is of the same order as the earth's field.  Any
CONSISTENT system is of course OK.  For electrical units the choice
isn't quite as large, although there are the electrostatic system, the
electromagnetic system, and now the SI system.

	It's of interest to note that almost all of the units are named for
some famous contributor to the field, Gilbert being the first and Gauss
and Oersted a couple of centuries behind.  Maxwell is a bit later and
Tesla later still, so you pays your money and takes your choice.

Ed

Ed