Geoscientific Instrumentation, Methods and Data Systems
Geoscientific Instrumentation, Methods and Data Systems
GI
Articles | Volume 6, issue 2
Articles | Volume 6, issue 2
https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-6-419-2017
© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Special issue:
https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-6-419-2017
© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Articles | Volume 6, issue 2
Research article
 | 
17 Oct 2017
Research article |  | 17 Oct 2017

U.S. Geological Survey experience with the residual absolutes method

E. William Worthington and Jürgen Matzka

Viewed

Total article views: 2,286 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
1,284 857 145 2,286 117 129
  • HTML: 1,284
  • PDF: 857
  • XML: 145
  • Total: 2,286
  • BibTeX: 117
  • EndNote: 129
Views and downloads (calculated since 07 Apr 2017)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 07 Apr 2017)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 2,286 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 2,175 with geography defined and 111 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Latest update: 30 Dec 2024
Download
Short summary
We have compared two methods of performing Absolute observations of the Earth's magnetic field. The newer, Residual method was evaluated for use at USGS geomagnetic observatories and compared with measurements using the traditional Null method. A mathematical outline of the Residual method is presented, including more precise conversions of the Declination angles to nanoTeslas (nT). Results show that the Residual method is better than the Null method, especially at high latitude.
Read more
Special issue
The Earth’s magnetic field: measurements, data, and applications...