Comparison of noise levels of two magnetometer types and their suitability for different space environments

Timmermann, Gerlinde; Fischer, David; Auster, Hans-Ulrich; Richter, Ingo; Grison, Benjamin; Plaschke, Ferdinand

doi:10.5194/gi-14-447-2025

Articles | Volume 14, issue 2

https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-14-447-2025

© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-14-447-2025

© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 14, issue 2

Research article

|

08 Dec 2025

Research article |

| 08 Dec 2025

Comparison of noise levels of two magnetometer types and their suitability for different space environments

Gerlinde Timmermann, David Fischer, Hans-Ulrich Auster, Ingo Richter, Benjamin Grison, and Ferdinand Plaschke

Download

Final revised paper (published on 08 Dec 2025)
Preprint (discussion started on 02 Sep 2025)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-4095', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Oct 2025

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-4095/egusphere-2025-4095-RC1-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4095-RC1
- AC2:
  'Reply on RC1', Gerlinde Timmermann, 10 Nov 2025
  
  Please see attached document.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4095-AC2
  - AC3: 'Reply on AC2', Gerlinde Timmermann, 10 Nov 2025
    
    I attached the same answer document, but this time with the original comments included for more clarity.
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4095-AC3
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-4095', Anonymous Referee #2, 25 Oct 2025

General note
The work is devoted to investigation of noise characteristics of FGM and AMR sensors designed for onboard satellite installation. Suitability of these sensors for different measurement scenarios is analyzed.
Manuscript is well written. Scientific approach is rigorous. Conclusions are proved by results of analysis performed.
Specific note
My only note concerns presentation of the results in Table 1. Usually, experimental data figures are presented in such a way that last significant digit corresponds to the confidence level of the measurement result. I wonder if an accuracy of results presented in Table 1 corresponds to seven significant digits.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4095-RC2
- AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Gerlinde Timmermann, 30 Oct 2025
  
  We thank the referee for reviewing the paper and for the valuable feedback! Concerning the specific note about the accuracy of the measurements given in Table 1, that is a valid point and now everything is rounded to full pT.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4095-AC1

Peer review completion

AR – Author's response | RR – Referee report | ED – Editor decision | EF – Editorial file upload

AR by Gerlinde Timmermann on behalf of the Authors (10 Nov 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (19 Nov 2025) by Valery Korepanov

AR by Gerlinde Timmermann on behalf of the Authors (19 Nov 2025)

Short summary

We've compared the amplitude spectral densities of a fluxgate magnetometer (FGM) and an anisotropic magnetoresistive (AMR) magnetometer during ground testing with the amplitude spectral densities obtained in different regions of near-Earth space. The FGM can measure the fields in the different space regions and their fluctuations within a frequency range of 1 mHz to 2.5 Hz. The AMR magnetometer is only suitable for more turbulent regions such as the magnetosheath due to its higher noise levels.