NBS

PUBLICATIONS

NBSIR 84-3018 Reference AlllDb 03nflt.

MAGNETIC MEASUREMENTS,

CALIBRATIONS, and

STANDARDS:

Report on a Survey

October 1984

-QG

109

,1156

84-3013

1984

Electromagnetic Technology Division

National Bureau of Standards

Boulder, Colorado 80303

NBSIR 84-3018

NATIONAL BUREAU Of STANDARDS

LIBRARY

MAGNETIC MEASUREMENTS,

CALIBRATIONS, and

STANDARDS:

Report on a Survey

F.R. Fickett

Electromagnetic Technology Division

National Bureau of Standards

Boulder, Colorado 80303

October 1984

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director

CONTENTS

Page

1 . BACKGROUND 1

2. THE QUESTIONNAIRE 2

3. TABULATION OF THE RESPONSES . . . 3 a. The Respondents . 3 b. Properties 4 c. Instruments 5 d. Materials 6 e. Standards Organizations .... 6

f. Traceability to NBS 6 g. Areas of Possible NBS Involvement 6

h. Impact 9

i. Workshop 9

4. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS ..... 9

5. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 11

APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE A1

APPENDIX B: PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS B1

MAGNETIC MEASUREMENTS, CALIBRATIONS, AND STANDARDS:

REPORT ON A SURVEY

by

F. R. FICKETT

ELECTROMAGNETIC TECHNOLOGY DIVISION

1 . BACKGROUND

In 1983, a decision was made to evaluate the interest in developing a competence in magnetic measurements within NBS. There had been a program

several years earlier that had provided calibration services to industry and

to other agencies, but it was terminated, primarily due to an NBS-perceived

lack of interest on the part of the users and to budgetary constraints. In

the following years, inquiries from the private sector indicated that perhaps

it was time to reassess this decision.

Our small group in the Center for Electronics and Electrical Engineering

has maintained a competence in magnetics throughout the years with work for

other government agencies and with funds from a program of grants for postdoctoral research. At the present time, we are receiving one or more requests a week for information and data on magnetic measurements and magnetic properties. We have always managed to respond to such requests, but at the expense

of other work. It was suggested that we might be the appropriate group to

investigate the actual need for such services. There is, thus, little doubt

that we started the program with a small bias.

Be that as it may, there were several factors operable that made a review

of the question quite reasonable. First, and probably most important, was the

enormous increase in the use of magnetics in the computer and computer-related

industries, especially magnetic media for data storage and magnetic devices

for accessing, storing, and processing these data.* In addition, rapid

developments in the field of permanent magnets and of new ferromagnetic alloy

materials, such as the amorphous ferromagnets both soft and hard, had brought

new life to this area of magnetics as well.

Magnetism is a unique field of science. Its historical development has

led to a plethora of units that has proven to be the bane of many a student of

physics and engineering. It is a difficult field, and one in which few

organizations can afford to maintain any depth of competence.

Our approach to the evaluation of the need for a NBS magnetics program

was to develop a detailed (five pages) questionnaire and distribute it to

those that we felt would be most affected by such a program: the members of

the IEEE Magnetics Society, the Magnetic Materials Producers Association, the

*NBS, through the Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology and the

Office of Standard Reference Materials, does provide standard tapes and a standard flexible disk cartridge for output signal amplitude calibration of

magnetic recording systems.

1
appropriate ASTM and ANSI committees, the manufacturers of magnetic instrumentation, standards laboratories, and numerous consultants. In all, about 2000

questionnaires were mailed. The number of responses was significantly greater

than expected — nearly 500. Furthermore, about one quarter of the respondents

not only replied to all of the questions, but also took the time to write

lengthy additional comments.

In the report that follows, we present the results of this survey. First

we outline the questionnaire structure and explain what we hoped to learn from

each of the sets of questions. Next we give a summary of the responses and a synopsis of the additional information provided by the respondents. Finally,

we present our analysis and a few conclusions.

2. THE QUESTIONNAIRE

A copy of the questionnaire is included here as Appendix A. The final

form was arrived at in consultation with officers of the various organizations

mentioned above, the center staff, G. Tassey of the program office (for

economic assessment and impact questions) , and numerous others mentioned in

the Acknowledgments.

The questionnaire is divided into five major parts. The first (preface

and section A) asks for information on the respondent’s organization, including some financial information. The second (sections B, C, and D) explores

which properties are measured, instruments used, frequency range, accuracy and

precision required, method and frequency of instrument calibration, and types

of materials involved. The questions are structured to indicate whether a respondent is a user, instrument manufacturer, or provider of standards. The

third section (E) determines the degree of interaction of the respondent's

organization with the various standards-setting organizations. Included here

is a key question to determine the extent to which traceability to NBS is

important to their operation. The fourth part (sections F and G) asks a number of questions regarding the extent and type of participation by NBS that

the respondent would find beneficial. The questions here are quite specific,

dealing with such matters as the particular areas of involvement (data compilations, calibrations, measurement facilities, or standard reference materials

(SRMs)) as well as the potential impact of these services. Several of the

questions allow for comments to the effect that it would be best if NBS were

not involved in a particular area (or at all for that matter). A final group

of questions (sections H and I) determines the interest in a workshop type of

meeting related to the topics and provides space for further comments.

For nearly every question, a response of "other" was provided. In most

instances, these responses were tabulated manually and are discussed in the

text

A total of 487 complete questionnaires was processed. Another 20 or so were used only in part. Most of these were received from retired scientists

who, while not able to respond to the specific questions, did take the time to

provide numerous very valuable comments based on their experience in the

various fields.

2
3. TABULATION OF THE RESPONSES

Here we present a summary of the results from the survey. Processing of

the large number of returns required creation of a computerized data base and

many hours of data entry. With the programs now written and operating, we

feel that we can answer almost any question that might be asked regarding the

responses. It is neither practical nor desirable to include all permutations

in this report, but the reader should feel free to contact the author with

specific questions.

The data presentation below are divided into separate sections based on

the major categories of the questionnaire. Percentages are usually used to

indicate the response to a particular question. Unless otherwise stated, this

percentage is based on the total number responding to that question, not on

the total of all responses to the survey. To keep this report to a manageable

size, many of the questions are not discussed in detail, but are reported only

as overall percentages. We have tried to provide detailed information on those that have a significant bearing on our conclusions.

a . The Respondents

The organizations represented by the respondents are listed in Appendix B.

There is a heavy preponderance of computer-related companies, indicating the

importance of those fields today (a significant departure from the situation

in the days of the earlier NBS magnetics facility) . But these are by no means

the only ones. The steel industry, aerospace companies, power-related companies, high-tech firms of various sorts, consultants, national laboratories, and

university research laboratories are represented here. In the case of larger

organizations, multiple responses were often received. These multiple responses are each treated separately in the tabulation, since most often they are from quite different parts of the organization.

A total of 481 respondents designated the type of organization. The

breakdown (in percentage response) is as follows:

The sum is greater than 100%, since some organizations fall into more than one category. The category "other" includes a tremendous variety of organizations

such as telephone, oil, power tool, automotive, private research, and consultants .

Computer related

Materials producer

Electronic components

Instrument manufacturer

University

Aerospace

Fabricator

Electric power

Government

National laboratory

Standards laboratory

Other

38

14

10

775

5

3

3

1 <1

15

3
b . Properties

The question asked about 17 properties ranging from the common (flux

density) to the esoteric (magnetocrystalline anisotropy) . As a percentage of

total respondents to the questionnaire,

87% listed themselves as routinely measuring one or more of

the properties;

9% listed themselves as manufacturers of instruments that

measure the property in question;

7% listed themselves as providers of standards for

measurement of the property (but often only for inhouse use)

The properties most often measured (>300 responses) were flux density (B)

,

field intensity (H) , and B-H loop. The next category (>200 responses) included

flux, coercivity, magnetization, permeability, remanence, and saturation. No

property on the list received less than 88 responses. The 48 responses of

"other" to the question covered a wide range of properties. Most were related

to magnetic recording (density, overwrite, head output, bit error rate), but

there were a number involving microwave properties (ferromagnetic resonance,

spin waves), and more conventional ones (magnetoresistance, Hall effect, loop

squareness)

Another question in this group asked for the frequency range in which the

properties were most often measured. Forty percent measured at dc; 28% below

100 Hz; 32% between there and 100 kHz; 24% from 100 kHz to 1 GHz; and only 5%

above that. Again, multiple entries make the total much greater than 100%.

The rather uniform distribution of responses over the frequency spectrum and

the large number of multiple responses (>33%) was unexpected and has significant implications for potential NBS services.

Everyone who responded to the measurement question also responded to the

question regarding the accuracy generally required in their measurements. The

breakdown is as follows:

In general, great accuracy is not called for in the area of magnetic

measurements. However, 10% of the respondents indicated that, for some measurements, extreme accuracy (<0.1%) was required. No listed property

escaped an entry in this category. The properties most mentioned (10 or more

respondents) were flux density, field intensity, and saturation. Six to nine

respondents listed remanence, coercivity, magnetization, permeability, and B-H

loop

Accuracy Required in % % of Respondents

>10

1-10

0.1-1

2 60

37

4

2

0 . 01 - 0 . 1 <100 ppm

4
c . Instruments

There are numerous techniques available for measuring the various properties. The choice among them is dictated by many considerations such as material, sample size, desired accuracy, time required for a measurement, cost

of the instrumentation, and amount of training required of the operator. The

questionnaire presented a list of 30 instruments that are commonly used in the

field of magnetics. Again, as a total percentage of those responding to the

questionnaire

89% are users of the instruments and are discussed in more

detail below;

23% are manufacturers, most make electromagnets of various

sorts or magnetic recording instrumentation, many make

instruments only for their own use;

12% provide standards or calibration service, again

frequently for in-house use only. Most are in the

magnetic recording media category, with permanent

magnets in second place and hysteresigraph standards

third

Of the users, more than 200 use one or more of the following: iron-core

electromagnets, permanent magnets. Hall effect gaussmeters, search coil

fluxmeters, and degaussers. In addition, between 100 and 200 respondents

routinely use resistive solenoids, vibrating sample magnetometers, hysteresigraphs , magnetizers, demagnetizers , standard magnets, magnetic moment standards, and magnetic recording media standards.

In this last group there are three surprises in terms of heavy usage - the standard magnets, moment standards and the vibrating sample magnetometer

(VSM) . The first of these require recalibration on a regular (but infrequent)

schedule. The nickel sphere moment standard is only available from NBS as far

as we know, although specialized nickel standards for hysteresigraph calibration are provided by the University of Dayton, and this response indicates a wider usage than expected. Finally, the widespread use of the VSM is interesting in that it is a very sophisticated instrument, requiring specialized

calibration standards. NBS now provides a few of these in the form of SRMs

,

but only 22 respondents say that they use them. Similarly, volt-second

standards are the conventional method for calibrating fluxmeters, yet only 39

report using them (as opposed to 202 users of fluxmeters)

None of the listed instruments was cited less than 20 times. The "other"

category produced 15 entries, nearly all specialized instruments related to

magnetic recording.

Nearly all users responded to our question relating to the source and

frequency of calibrations for their instruments. In-house laboratories

provide 59% of the calibrations and 34% use an external service. This implies

that 7% never have their instruments calibrated, although only 1% admitted it on the f requency-of-calibration question. Regarding this question, 8% have

calibrations done only when the instrument is returned for repair, 33/ have

occasional calibrations, and 54% calibrate on a regular schedule.

5
d. Materials

The purpose of this question was to determine which of the many magnetic

materials were most used. Nearly everyone (475) listed at least one, but most

listed several. We used 8 categories for this question with the following

responses

Material % Response

Ferrites 79

Permanent magnets 70

Soft ferrous alloys 66

Recording media 61

Thin films 50

Powders 46

Amorphous alloys 40

Other 6

The "other" category included superconductors, minerals of various sorts,

magnetic colloids, superparamagnetic materials, magnetic insulators and

semiconductors to name a few.

e. Standards Organizations

Paper standards, such as those available from ASTM, are used by 35% of

the respondents. Interaction with standards groups is claimed by 73%, with

57% indicating active committee participation. The most often mentioned

groups are: IEEE (38%), ANSI (56%), ASTM (38%), MMPA (2%), and NCSL (1%). The

"other" category (12%) included about a dozen organizations.

fTraceability to NBS

Here we attempted to assess whether or not a lack of traceability to NBS was ever a problem to these organizations. Of the total responding to the

survey, 33% indicated that it was. Five categories of problems in this regard were offered. The responses:

Reason % Response

Compatibility assurance 73

Military contract requirements 23

Other 14

Trade equity 11

Foreign customer requirements 9

The "other" category mostly included problems with company-company or companyvendor agreement

g.

Areas of Possible NBS Involvement

Here we presented seven broad areas in which NBS might play a role

helpful to the magnetics community. We asked the respondents to rate each of

6
these areas as either extremely useful (E) , useful (U) , or not useful (N)

More than 90% contributed to this section. In the following tabulation, we

list each category and the number responding with each rating as a percentage

of those responding to that category. The total responses to that category

follow the category title in parentheses. The column headings are as given in

parentheses above.

Area of Involvement E U N

Develop new measurement techniques (424) 42 52 5 Make measurements on request (415) 44 48 8

Provide traceability (412) 47 43 10

Compilations of data (391) 31 56 12

Instrument calibration (388) 27 57 16

Reference magnet calibration (373) 31 50 19

Coil calibration (360) 23 54 23

Accurate field facility (365)

Standard Reference Materials

24 46 30

Ferrite SRM (363) 42 47 11

Magnetic media SRM (350) 54 30 15

Amorphous alloy SRM (294) 26 51 23

Magnetic steel SRM (319) 31 44 25

Magnetic thin film SRM (288) 37 37 26

Other SRM (30) 39 30 30

In the "other SRM" category, a large number requested permanent magnet materials

of various sorts. Other SRM requests were for ferrofluids, shielding alloys,

square-loop materials, more paramagnetic materials, diamagnetic materials, and

coercivity standards to name a few.

A more complex question was included in this section in which we inquired

as to which properties should be reported for a given SRM material and to what

accuracy. For the five categories given in the table, we received a total of

847 responses plus an additional 44 suggesting other SRMs and appropriate

properties. A discussion of our analysis of this question would be a report

in itself; one that we leave for another time.

We asked, in a separate question, if there were other services that

people would like to have available at, or from, NBS. A total of 49 responses

was received (10% of the total) covering a wide range of desires. They cannot

all be listed here, but we give a few that serve to indicate the type of

request received:

Maintain a core of excellence in measurement techniques for support of

industry. Develop new techniques of measurement as new properties become

important

Provide a telephone consultation service for discussion on specific

measurements and technical literature relevant to measurements.

Serve as a referee in industry comparison testing. Provide guidance for

industry standards organizations. Review and coordinate specifications

for magnetic products from other government agencies.

7
Provide a magnetic measurements "handbook" that would include techniques,

limitations, and relative advantages of various techniques.

Develop a data base on all magnetic materials. Investigate biological

effects of magnetic fields.

Create a service laboratory for evaluating new materials, providing

accurate measurements and a general testing service.

Standardization of magnetics CAD (Computer Aided Design) systems.

Develop an input that would cause standard output from magnetics calculation codes. Develop computer programs for calculation of flux leakage.

Provide a standard toroid for B-H loop measurement, a saturation magnetization standard, and more standards for VSM calibration. Provide coer- civity standards.

Promote standardization of magnetic units.

Clearly there is much that could be done that would be of interest to the

magnetics community.

In order to evaluate the negative side of NBS involvement, we asked if

anyone saw the potential for conflict with private organizations should NBS

undertake any of the services described in the section. A total of 44 responses

was received (10% of the total), but not all of them were negative in spite of

the wording of the question. Most of the negative responses referred to the

problems that would be faced by private organizations offering calibration and

measurement services for a fee. Several made the point that entry of NBS into some of these areas would not automatically lead to conflict any more than it

has in many other fields in which NBS provides such services. One person

(from the computer industry) wrote a long and very thoughtful letter to the

effect that NBS standards might add extra testing to his routine and thus

increase costs and delivery times. In addition, he suggested that some foreign countries would probably issue conflicting standards that would

further complicate his business. Another respondent wrote that he felt that

industry itself could, and should, provide calibration services if traceable

reference standards were available from NBS.

In summary, it seems that there are legitimate concerns on the part of some respondents that would have to be addressed in the development of a magnetics program at NBS, but the overwhelming attitude is that such services

are sorely needed now.

Another matter that was mentioned in several instances was that of making

the laboratory available to an extent as a user facility. While not mentioned

specifically as an option in the questionnaire, several comments did address

this possibility. We have explored this concept at some length with L. Rubin

and others associated with the Francis Bitter National Magnet Laboratory,

which is a model user facility in our opinion. They encouraged us to consider

such an option and not only saw no conflict with their operation, but felt

that it would provide a place to which they could refer many requests that

they get, but cannot handle at the present. Such an option also would provide

a solution to many of the concerns expressed by respondents regarding the lack

8
of training available in magnetics in the U.S. at all levels from technician

to advanced-degree staff.

h . Impact

In order to evaluate what effect NBS involvement might have on the

organizations surveyed, we included a question that asked what impact such an action would have on their business. Six specific possibilities (all positive)

were suggested along with the ubiquitous "other." A total of 86% of all

respondents contributed to this question, most with more than one entry (in

fact, 54% of those responding to this question used three or more entries). A

summary of the results is given below.

Proposed Impact % Responding

Improved product reliability 63

Improved ability to meet customer specifications 63

Improved product features 46

Increased ability to compete in foreign markets 37

Increased production yields 35

Cost reductions 28

Other 13

Once again, the list of responses to the "other" entry was varied, to say

the least. In one way or another, they nearly all addressed some aspect of

improvement in technical "communication" and believability of critical measurements and data. There is no question but that essentially all of those

surveyed feel that NBS involvement in magnetics will have a significant impact

on their business.

i . Workshop

Our request as to how many of the respondents would be interested in

attending a workshop to address some of the concerns related to magnetic

measurements and standards was well received with 67% indicating an interest.

However, when asked if they would be interested in presenting a paper or serving on a discussion panel, the percentage dropped significantly, to 29%.

This is probably to be expected as it seems that most felt they had much to

learn from such attendance, but not as much to contribute.

4. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

The results of the survey seem unequivocal — a magnetics program at NBS

would be welcomed by nearly all of the respondents. The population surveyed

is, of course, the one that most needs the proposed service. There is also a much larger group (general electronic instrument manufacturers, military

laboratories, utilities, the semiconductor industry, etc.) that would be

affected by such a service, and it was not practical to survey them as well.

Random inquiries of this group, however, indicate a similar response to that

reported here. Questions to evaluate the willingness of the organizations to

pay for the service were removed from the questionnaire early in the process,

since they were deemed to be too vague by the early reviewers. This vagueness

was unavoidable, since we had no way of determining the cost of the services

proposed. The general response of this early group was that they would be

9
willing to pay a "reasonable" fee, but certainly not the entire cost of

creating and maintaining the laboratory.

Balanced against this enthusiasm is the perceived size of the group that

would benefit. This is a matter that is certainly open to debate. Also,

there is the matter of the cost of creating a major new facility, housing

state-of-the art equipment, in the present economic climate. This laboratory

would almost certainly require 8-10 people at various levels and $0.5M in

equipment money. The small amount of equipment that presently exists at NBS

is mostly outdated and certainly not competitive with that now resident in the more technically competent industrial facilities.

Whether a small initial effort could be successful as a base upon which

to build in future years is questionable. If it is too small or too poorly

equipped, the desired impact on industry would not be possible. We feel that

there is a minimum level below which it is not practical to proceed. At this

level, the choice of projects would become extremely critical. Calibrations

would not be possible, and development of all but the most important SRMs

would be deferred. This minimum effort would concentrate nearly exclusively

on the development of measurement techniques and dissemination of this information to users through publications.

The survey results agree with our long-held position on the structure of

such a program, namely, that we need a strong capability in instrumentation

and magnetics research before a calibration and standards facility is created.

The most requested area of involvement is research on new measurement techniques

with help in the determination of magnetic properties a close second.

The strong request for support in the magnetic media area was somewhat

unexpected, since that is one field in which industry has an excellent capability. Furthermore the new Center for Magnetic Recording Research formed by

the industry (located at the University of California at San Diego) is now a reality. The requested services from NBS appear to be generic, pointed toward

long-term evaluation of measurement techniques and creation of methods and

materials for resolution of measurement-related disputes.

We feel that the survey results lead to the following major conclusions

regarding a full-scale magnetics facility at NBS:

It should have the capability to measure all of the common magnetic

parameters including the ability to handle unusual shapes and sizes of

samples. Emphasis should be on the truly basic parameters (B, H, M) in

all their aspects, but the more exotic ones (magnetocrystalline anisotropy,

magneto-optical effects, etc.) should not be ignored. The measurement

capability should cover a frequency range from dc to at least 1 GHz.

Special emphasis should be given to the vibrating sample magnetometer in

its various forms and in the creation of appropriate SRMs for this

instrument because of its widespread use in industry.

A measurement service for the public may be essential, at least initially.

We feel that our ultimate goal should be to assist industry by providing

well-documented measurement techniques and essential SRMs that allow them

to perform their own measurements, with NBS providing direct services in

10
only the most critical areas. An active industrial associate program

might be helpful in this regard.

Providing for some form of traceability of measurements to NBS should be

given high priority. Helping manufacturers of magnetic instrumentation

develop a calibration capability traceable to NBS would be valuable and

would perhaps eliminate the need for a full-scale calibration facility at

NBS.

Extreme measurement accuracy is not generally necessary, 1% being adequate

in most cases. Even this level is not easily achieved in many measurements. This is not to say that extreme accuracy is never required; NMR

is a field where quite the opposite is true.

A capability in modern techiques for computer modeling of fields is

needed. Methods for testing results from the various models, both

analytic and experimental, should be developed.

We do not see the need for a workshop as a source of further input to

this analysis. Certainly, if a program in magnetics is developed within NBS,

such a meeting would be of prime importance, both to gather the most recent

information on needs and desires and as a method of introducing the program to

the outside world. From the responses and comments received on this topic, it

would appear that the best forum for such a workshop would be in connection

with one or more of the magnetics meetings (Magnetism and Magnetic Materials,

San Diego, November 1984; INTERMAG, St. Paul, April 1985; or International

Conference on Magnetism, San Francisco, August 1985).

5 . ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A very special acknowledgement is due Mrs. V. Grulke for her participation

in this project. From learning the intricacies of the data base management

system to many long hours of data entry and even longer hours of extracting

the "extra" comments of the respondents from the questionnaires, she maintained

her normal good humor and high spirits. This job could not have been done

nearly as quickly or as well without her help.

As with any undertaking of this magnitude, many people provided assistance and encouragement. We are indebted to the staff of the Superconductors

and Magnetic Materials Group, especially R. Goldfarb and A. Clark, for their

participation. Comments from J. French and J. Mayo-Wells were very helpful.

B. Taylor and other members of his division provided valuable information on calibrations. G. Tassey of the program office provided an excellent education

in the ways of asking economic questions. M. Hogan of ICST contributed

information on the standardization of magnetic media and on the activities of

NBS and ANSI in this area. C. Johnson, President of the IEEE Magnetics

Society, not only provided input and encouragement, but also arranged for us

to receive already-processed mailing labels for the nearly 2000 members of his

society. T. Dolan of the Magnetic Materials Producers Association arranged

for his executive committee to review the questionnaire. The entire membership

of ASTM committee A06, under the chairmanship of M. Boenitz, provided many of

the early ideas regarding measurement of the soft steels and similar materials.

11



APPENDIX A - QUESTIONNAIRE

OMB Approval No: 0652-0019

Expiration Date: January 1984

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

QUESTIONNAIRE

ON

MAGNETIC MEASUREMENTS, CALIBRATIONS, AND STANDARDS

As a result of inquiries received from industry, we are attempting to

make an assessment as to what role, if any, the National Bureau of Standards

(NBS) should play in the area of magnetics. We would appreciate it if you

would help us by responding to the questions below and adding any further

comments that seem appropriate. Please note that NBS is not a regulatory

agency nor, as a matter of policy, does it compete with private industry. Our

goal is to evaluate areas of magnetics in which industry would welcome assistance from NBS. If you have questions, please call Dr. Fred R. Fickett at NBS

in Boulder, Colorado (303-497-3785). Probably not all questions will be

applicable to your organization; just ignore those that are not. In each

response area check as many entries as apply.

Please indicate any correction to

the mailing label.

Name of person responding: Tel:

Are you willing to be contacted by telephone regarding your responses? Y

NBS-1208

(11-83)

A1
A. Your Organization

1 . Aerospace 7. Instrument Manufacturer

2. Computer Related 8. Materials Producer

3. Electric Power 9. National Laboratory

4. Electronic Components 10. Standards Laboratory

5. Fabricator 11. University

6. Government 12. Other

Number of employees in Research and Development

Approximate total yearly sales

Approximate total yearly Research and Development expenditures

B. Properties of Concern

Circle M if your organization manufactures instruments to measure

property, U if the property is routinely measured, and S if your

organization provides physical standards.

the

1. Flux ((f)) M U s

2. Flux density (B) M U s

3. Field intensity (H) M U s

4. Coercivity (H ) M u s

5. Magnetization (M) M u s

6. Permeability (y) M u s

7. Susceptibility (y) M u s

8. B-H loop M u s

9. Energy product M u s

10. Remanence (B , M ) r r M u s

11. Saturation (B , M ) s s M u s

12. Core loss M u s

13. Other hysteresis losses M u s

14. Domain effects M u s

15. Magnetostriction M u s

16. Magnetocrystalline anisotropy M u s

17. Magneto-optical effects M u s

18. Others M u s

The measurements are primarily made

dc <100 Hz 0.1-100 kHz 100 kHz

at

-1 GHz >1 GHz

In general, the accuracy required of

>10% 1-10% 0.1-1% 0.01-0.1%

our measurements is in the range:

<100 ppm.

Is extreme accuracy ( <0 . 1 %) required for any measurements? Enter numbers

from the list (B) above.

continued

A2
C. Instruments and Standards

Circle M if your organization manufactures these, U if

routinely, and S if your organization provides physical

calibration

I. Magnet systems - Electromagnet with iron

they are used

standards or

M U s Solenoidal, resistive M U s Superconducting M U s Permanent magnet M u s

2. Magnetometers - Force balance M u s SQUID M u s Fluxgate M u s Proton precession M u s Vibrating sample M u s Vibrating coil M u s Nuclear magnetic resonance M u s

3. Gaussmeters - Hall effect M u s

4. Fluxmeters - Search coil M u s Rotating coil M u s

5. Coercimeters M u s

6. Permeameters M u s

7. Loop measuring - Hysteresigraph M u s Epstein frame M u s Other M u s

8. Magnet processing - Magnetizers M u s Demagnetizers M u s Calibrators M u s

9. Degaussers M u s

10. Magneto-optic devices - Kerr effect M u s Faraday effect M u s

11. Microwave - Ferromagnetic resonance M u s

12. Standard magnets M u s

13. Volt-second standards M u s

14. Magnetic moment standards (e.g., nickel) M u s

15. Susceptibility standards (e.g., A£, MnF 2 ) M u s

16. Magnetic recording media standards M u s

17. Other M u s

Calibrations of instruments is done {never , only when returned to

manufacturer for repair , occasionally , on a regular schedule _ by

{in-house laboratory , external service }.

continued

A3
D. Materials

Indicate how often your organization deals with each of the following

materials. Circle A for all the time, 0 for occasionally, and N for never

1. Soft ferrous alloys

2. Ferrites

3. Permanent magnets

4. Powders

5. Thin films

6. Recording media

7. Amorphous alloys

8. Other

A 0

A 0

A 0

A 0

A 0

A 0

A 0

A 0

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

E. Calibration and Standards

1. Does your organization use paper standards, such as those available

from ASTM, for magnetic measurements? Y N

2. What standards groups does your organization interact with?

a) ASTM , b) IEEE , c) ANSI , d) NCSL , e) Other

3. In which groups is there active committee participation?

a) ASTM , b) IEEE , c) ANSI , d) NCSL , e) Other

4. Is lack of traceability of measurement to NBS ever a problem? Y N

If so, is this because of: a) Requirements of foreign customers

b) Military contract requirements

c) Compatibility assurance

d) Trade equity

e) Other

F. Possible Areas of NBS Involvement

Please indicate your feelings as to the usefulness of each of the following possible outputs from an NBS magnetics program. Circle E for extremely

valuable, U for useful, or N for not useful.

1. Compilations of data (reviewed and evaluated)

2. Research on new measurement techniques

3. Establishment of a facility to provide precise

field and field gradient configurations

4. Calibration of a) Instruments

b) Reference magnets

c) Coils

5. Traceability of measurements and calibrations

E U N

E U N

E U N

E U N

E U N

E U N

E U N

continued

A4
6 . Standard reference materials for:

a) ferrites E U N

b) steels E U N

c) amorphous alloys E U N

d) magnetic media E U N

e) thin alloy films E U N

f) Other E U N

In the list below please indicate the properties (from the list in

part B) that should be determined for that standard reference material.

Enter the number(s) from part B. Also indicate that range of characterization accuracy that would be adequate for your needs with the

code: A = ppm level; B = 0.01-0.1%; C = 0.1-1%; and D = 1-10%.

Material Properties Accuracy

a) ferrites

b) steels

c) amorphous alloys

d) magnetic media

e) thin alloy films

f) Other

7. Measurement of magnetic properties of specific

materials upon request. E U N

8. Are there other services that would be desirable?

9. Do you see potential conflict with private organizations in any of

the services described in 1-9 above? Y N

Please explain if "yes" was marked.

Impact

Which of the following contributions to your organization and its products

would you anticipate as a result of NBS involvement?

1. Improved product features

2. Cost reductions

3. Improved product reliability

4. Increased production yields

5. Improved ability to meet customer specifications

6. Improved competitive position in foreign markets

7. Other

continued

A5
H . Workshop

1 . Would you be interested in attending a 1-2 day workshop on magnet

measurements, calibrations, and standards? Y N

2. Would you consider presenting a paper or serving on a discussion

panel? Y N

I. Additional Comments

Thank you for your assistance.

A6
APPENDIX B - PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS

Listed here are most

the survey.

3M

A. 0. SMITH

A&E DATA TECHNOLOGY

ACME ELECTRIC

ACTON COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY GROUP

ADVANCE MAGNETICS

AERTECH INDUSTRIES

AGFA

AIM

AIRFORCE HANSCOMB FIELD

ALCOA

ALIOTH ASSOCIATES

ALLEGHENY LUDLUM

ALLIED CORPORATION

ALPHA DATA

AMAX SPECIALTY METALS

AMCODYNE

AMF TUBOSCOPE

AMP EX

APCI

APOLLO MAGNETICS

APPLIED DATA

APPLIED MAGNETICS

ARMCO

ARMY

ARNOLD ENGINEERING

AT&T

ATHANA

BAKER ELECTRONICS

BASIC FOUR

BBM CORPORATION

BELL LABS

BENTLEY NEVADA

BETHLEHEM STEEL

BLACK & DECKER

BODINE ELECTRIC

BOEING

BOSE

BRIGGS & STRATTON

BROWN DISK MANUFACTURING

BUREAU PRODUCTS

BURNS RESEARCH

BURROUGHS

CABOT

CALTECH

CAP MAGNETIC PRODUCTS

CARLTON CONSULTING

of the organizations represented by the responses to

CARMEL CHEMICALS

CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY

CARTECH

CENTURY DATA

CERAMIC MAGNETICS

CERTEL INCORPORATED

CIPHER DATA PRODUCTS

CMC TECHNOLOGY

COLLEGE OF WILLIAM & MARY

COLT INDUSTRIES

COMPUTER PERIPHERALS

COMPUTER POWER

CONRAIL CORPORATION

CONSULTANT

CONTROL DATA

CORCOM INCORPORATED

CORNING

COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY

CURRY ENGINEERING

CUTLER-HAMMER

CYBERNEX

D. M. STEWARD

DATA ELECTRONICS

DATA GENERAL

DATA MAGNETICS

DATA PRODUCTS

DATAFLUX

DEC

DEL ELECTRONICS

DELCO REMY

DENNISON

DEPOSITION TECHNOLOGY

DESOTO INCORPORATED

DIAMOND RESEARCH

DISCO VISION

DISCOVER TECHNOLOGY

DISCTRON

DISK TECHNOLOGY

DMA SYSTEMS

DOFASCO

DOW CHEMICAL

DUMONT WORLD

DUPONT

DYMEK CORP

DYSAN

ECHO SCIENCE

EG&G

EIKON

B
ELECTRO ENGINEERING WORKS

ELECTROCUBE

ELECTRON ENERGY CORPORATION

EMERSON MOTOR

EMS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

ERADCOM

ERIEZ MANUFACTURING

ESPEY MFG. AND ELECTRONICS

F.W. BELL

FAIRCHILD WESTON SYSTEMS

FERROXCUBE

FIELD EFFECTS INCORPORATED

FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

FOOTHILL ELECTRONICS

FOXBORO

FRANTZ LABORATORIES

FRONTIER TIMBER COMPANY

GBS ENTERPRISES

GENERAL ELECTRIC

GEORGE ASSOCIATES

GRAHAM MAGNETICS

GT&R PLASTIC

GTE

GULTON INDUSTRIES

GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

GEORGIA TECH

HAMILTON DIGITAL CONTROLS

HARDER COMPANY

HERCULES

HEWLETT-PACKARD

HITACHI MAGNETICS

HOEGANNES

HONEYWELL

HOOSIER MAGNETICS

HUGHES AIRCRAFT

HURNEY MAGNETICS

IAP RESEARCH

IBIS SYSTEMS

IBM

IG TECHNOLOGIES

IGC

INFOMAG

INLAND STEEL

INTERNATIONAL JENSEN

INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC

INTERNATIONAL SIGNAL AND CONTROL

IOMEGA

IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY

IRWIN INTERNATIONAL

ITT NORTH MICROSYSTEMS

KENNEDY COMPANY

KILLMORGEN CORPORATION

KJS ASSOCIATES

KOMAG

KROKER ENGINEERING & DEVELOPMENT

LASL

LDJ ELECTRONICS

LOCKHEED

MAGNETIC MEASUREMENTS CORPORATION

MAGNETIC PERIPHERALS

MAG-MEDIA

MAGNEBIT

MAGNET MANUFACTURING

MAGNETIC SYSTEMS

MAGNETICO

MAGNETICS INCORPORATED

MAGNETOGRAPH

MAGNEX

MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY

MARKO METALS

MATHEMATICAL SCIENCE

MAXELL

MAXWELL LABORATORIES

MEDIA INCORPORATED

MEDIA SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY

MEDIA TECHNOLOGY

MEDIA TEST SPECIALISTS

MEMOREX

MEMORY CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

MICROPOLIS

MIT

MOBIL OIL

MOLYCORP

MOTOROLA

MUSHIELD

NARCO AVIONICS

NASA GODDARD

NASHUA CORPORATION

NATIONAL MICRONETICS

NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR

NATIONAL CORPORATION

NATIONAL MICRONETICS

NAVY NRL

NAVY SURFACE WEAPONS CENTER

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

NEVADA STATE UNIVERSITY

NEW ENGLAND NUCLEAR

NICOLET

NOGO CORPORATION

NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY

NORTHERN TELECOM

NORTRONICS

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY

NYU

0. S. WALKER

OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY

OMI INTERNATIONAL

B2
OPTICAL INDUSTRIES

OPTICAL PERIPHERALS LABORATORY

OTTAWA CHEMICAL

P&R MOTORS

PA INCORPORATED

PENN STATE

PERFECTDATA

PERKIN-ELMER

PERMABYTE MAGNETICS

PERMANENT MAGNET COMPANY

PERTEC COMPUTER

PFIZER

PIONEER MAGNETICS

POLAROID

POLYMER CORPORATION

POTTER INSTRUMENTS

PRATT & WHITNEY

PRECISION COIL PROCESSING

PRIAM

PROCTOR COMPANY

Q.

V.S. INCORPORATED

QUANTEX

R. B. ANNIS COMPANY

RAWSON-LUSH

RAYMOND ENGINEERING

RAYTHEON

RCA

REMEX

REPUBLIC STEEL

RESEARCH ASSOCIATES

RESONEX CORPORATION

ACTIVE RETIRED

RFL INDUSTRIES

ROCKWELL

ROGERS CORPORATION

S. G. FRANTZ COMPANY

SALA MAGNETICS

SANDIA LABORATORIES

SCHONSTEDT INSTRUMENT COMPANY

SCOT INCORPORATED

SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY

SEIMENS-ALLIS

SENSORMATIC

SHUGART

SIMMONDS PRECISION

SINGER COMPANY

SOUTHWALL

SPANG INDUSTRIES

SPARC X3B8 LIAISON

SPERRY

SPIN PHYSICS

STANFORD UNIVERSITY

STAR HILL

STORAGE TECHNOLOGY

STEARNS MAGNETICS

STROMBERG-CARLSON

STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

SUPERCON

SOUTHWEST RESEARCH

SYNTHETIC CRYSTAL PRODUCTS

SYNCOM

TANDON CORP

TANDY

TDK ELECTRONICS

TECHNITROL

THOMAS & SKINNER

TIBBETTS INDUSTRIES

TRANSMAG CONSULTING

TRI

TRW-VIDAR

TYLER POWER

UNIV. OF CALIFORNIA AT IRVINE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

UNION CARBIDE

UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

VA

VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY

VARIAN

VERBATIM

VERTIMAG

VETCO SERVICES

VOLLBRECHT ASSOCIATES

VP-ENGINEERING

WASSON ASSOCIATES

WATKINS-JOHNSON COMPANY

WELCH ENTERPRISES

WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY

WESTINGHOUSE

WHITES ELECTRONICS

WPAFB

WRIGHT INDUSTRIES

XEROX

XIDEX

XTALONIX

YALE UNIVERSITY

ZAMBRE COMPANY

ZENITH TRANSFORMER.

B3
NBS-114A (REV. 2-80

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET (See i nstructions)

1. PUBLICATION OR

REPORT NO.

NBSIR 84-3018

2. Performing Organ. Report No, 3. Publication Date

October 1 984

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Magnetic Measurements, Calibrations, and Standards: Report on a Survey

5. AUTHOR(S)

F. R. Fickett

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than NBS. see in struction s) 7. Contract/Grant No. national bureau of standards

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 8. Type of Report & Period Covered

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street. City. State. ZIP)

10.

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

11.

ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here)

The report summarizes the analysis of responses to a survey of industrial needs

for magnetic services and research.

12.

KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolon s) calibrations; instrumentation; standard reference materials; standards; survey.

13. AVAILABILITY 14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

Uni imited

| | For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS 28

[ J Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. 15. Price

] Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

USCOMM-DC 6043-P80