Talk:Natural remanent magnetization

Geology Low‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Natural remanent magnetization is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Redirect? edit

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Wow. My move to Natural remanent magnetization was undone fast. Sorry I didn't ask for opinions on the move - I thought nobody cared about this page. I moved it because all the major textbooks on paleomagnetism and rock magnetism use remanent magnetization. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry 'bout that. I saw what appeared to be a cut-n-paste move which didn't preserve the article history - so I redid it as an article move. Seems I missed the "magnetization" vs "magnetism" part. Vsmith (talk) 02:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Glad to hear I'm not stepping on any toes. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

In marine oil-bearing sandstones edit

This free OUP academic paper (doi:10.1046/j.1365-246x.1999.00850.x, archived on July 23, 2021) deals with the irreversible damages that oil perforations can cause to the magnetical properties of marine oil-bearing sandstones. The articles on the right side suggest implicitly possible seismological consequences.

The conclusions state:

The observed increases in low-field susceptibility and IRM acquisition are contrary to Nagata's (1971) conclusions that all magnetic changes resulting from mechanical shock can be removed by AF demagnetization.

The WP article affirmed: "to separate these components, the NRM is stripped away in a stepwise manner using thermal or alternating field demagnetization techniques to reveal the characteristic magnetic component". One statement partially contraddicts the other one. To isolate is a necessary precondition for reverting a component.

Moreover, professor Nagata is cited in biliography without punctual footnotes in the article. For those two reasons, the additional source resulted to be useful for the WP article. I apologize for the not idiomatic English. I am doing my best to improve it. Regards, Theologian81sp

Add topic