Talk:Gauss (unit)

message: This article says "one ampere per meter is ten thousand oersted". The Oersted article says "One oersted equals 1000/4π, or 79.58 ampere-turns per meter". They can't both be right.
:The first is wrong. One ampere per meter is 0.01257 oersted.  76.185.59.253 (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Is this always short for ampere-turn per meter ? - Rod57 (talk) 15:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Ampere per meter

message: Gauss may not have been a prolific publisher but to say he didn't write much is misleading. His correspondence was voluminous. He wrote many letters to other mathematicians, and wrote often to his sons in Missouri. His private journals were later published and ran to many volumes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathsinger (talk • contribs) 04:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  /* Personality */ 

message: Article should say when the term was defined or came into use, and when it was superceded and when it was used until or if it is stil used in some fields or regions ? - Rod57 (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The gauss appears to be used more commonly for weaker fields since the tesla is so large. I don't have a reliable source for this, but note for example that Ross 154 cites the strength of that star's magnetic field at its surface as 2.2 kilogauss (~ 0.22 tesla), suggesting that it sees some use in astrophysics. And magnetometers tend to be called gaussmeters more often than teslameters, perhaps (I'm speculating here) for the historical reason that Gauss invented them. There's also apparently some terminological difference, in that gauss measures "magnetic induction" while tesla measures "magnetic flux density", though these are the same thing, and furthermore the unit analysis is different in SI vs cgs. Hairy Dude (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  When in use 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Gauss (unit). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101220023615/http://www.medicaldaily.com/news/20101217/4716/first-measurement-of-magnetic-field-in-earths-core.htm to http://www.medicaldaily.com/news/20101217/4716/first-measurement-of-magnetic-field-in-earths-core.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070611144512/http://solomon.as.utexas.edu/~duncan/magnetar.html to http://solomon.as.utexas.edu/~duncan/magnetar.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This is not only wrong, but written by someone who doesn't work in the magnetic industry. Lots of people use cgs in magnetics because it actually makes the units easier in some cases. Either which way, both systems are still used heavily. This is like saying "the inch as been superseded by the cm". It's an opinion based circlejerk.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.46.212.170 (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed (I hope). The relevant sentence now reads,  However, it would be nice to have some references for the engineering and industry part of the statement. --Reuqr (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The cgs system has been superseded by the International System of Units (SI)" 

message: Perhaps someone would find it useful to add the equivalence 1 G= <math>\approx  2\cdot 10^{-2} ~eV^2$ used in  HEP.Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: In rationalized (Lorentz-Heaviside) units