Talk:Degaussing/Archive 1

Archive 1

November 2004

This should probably be merged into Degauss as a historical or original use of the term. -- Ilya 03:08, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

May 2005

Repeated internal degaussing does NOT damage monitors. --Qifan 20:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Fun fact: you can temporarily "sabotage" a CRT monitor by holding a magnet near the screen when the internal degauss is triggered. This will magnetise the shadow mask, and the degauss circuit will be inactive for some time while the PTC cools, so you can't get rid of the distortion for a while (unless you have an external degausser at hand).GalFisk 15:47, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Not only is degaussing good for the monitor, it is greatly enjoyed by many high school students who relish the euphoric projection and kaledeiscopic magic produced as a result of degaussing.

how exactly is this specific to high school students? --213.66.39.247 16:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that the comment regards burning out the PTC device with repeated use. Gah4 (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Thunking sound

High current doesn't make a thunking sound. Does anyone know what it is exactly that makes the sound? Heating of some device? A physical switch?

The sound is the individual wires in the coil vibrating due to mutual repulsion.

Wouldn't that produce a buzz? I have two theories - a mechanical relay solenoid operates to close the circuit (I don't know if this happens, but they do make a similar thunk); or perhaps there is a large magnetostrictive effect - the metal near the deguassing coil therefore strains rapidly, causing the thunk. The magnetostrictive effect more commonly produces a buzz, as in transformers, but perhaps the sudden rush of current causes a thunk instead. LightYear 03:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to assume that magnetostriction would only be audible in a transformer, perhaps one used to feed the degaussing coil in the monitor. There is also definitely an electromagnetic relay being used, as you can hear it in isolation after the thermistor has been tripped once. Here is an article I found

http://www.federalpacific.com/university/transnoise/chapter2.html 208.102.207.201 12:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The sound is a "buzz" , but it is brief, so it may appear to be a single "thunk". It is much more prominent on monitors/TVs which have a metal shield around the CRT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitcwa (talk • contribs) 11:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Carl Friedrich Gauss

Shouldn't there be a link to Carl_Friedrich_Gauss, since he probably is the source of the name Gauss. --Ole-p 15:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It Looks that way - I cannot think of anyone else. Reference added. --ChrisJMoor 22:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It became known as 'de-gaussing' because when Lt Cdr John Ouvry from HMS Vernon defuzed the German magnetic mine recovered at Shoeburyness in 1940 upon inspecting the magnetic influence fuze it was discovered that the magnetic scale of the fuze used to set the fuze's magnetic sensitivity was marked in 'Gauss'. So the countermeasure then became 'de-gaussing'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.221.94 (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

See here: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.20 (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

BTW, when Ouvry walked out to the mine it wasn't known by what principle the mine operated. It was only on seeing the scale marked 'Gauss' that he became aware the mine was in fact a magnetic one. Previously nothing had been known about the new German mine except that it detonated under the ships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.190 (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Is this correct?

"The mines detected the increase in magnetic field when the steel in a ship concentrated the Earth's magnetic field over it. Goodeve developed a number of systems to induce a small "N-pole up" field into the ship to offset this effect, meaning that the net field was the same as background." Shouldn't be "S-pole up" instead of "N-pole up" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.61.206 (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it's correct as stated. In the Northern Hemisphere a Dip needle will normally point N-pole down, so to neutralize it you need to supply some N-pole-up. Pete G. (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The north pole of the earth is a magnetic south pole. Magnet poles are named after the direction they seek. Gah4 (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

And yes, one way of describing the effect of ferromagnetic materials is concentrating the field. Gah4 (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Degaussing ships -- Coil Current Type

I'm guessing the 2000 amp coil is DC (can't think of a reason it would be AC as that would alternate the magnetic field as well as the electricity flow) However, as my only source of the information on degaussing ships is this article, I don't feel like making the edits based upon my assumptions and deductions. I think the current type ought to be noted. BTW, dealing with 2000 DC amps flowing through a coil is a bit freaky, so I'm sure there's some rather interesting side stories that could go along with it. Root⁴(one) 04:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

As I read it, the 2000A flows through a straight cable, not a coil. It seems pretty clear to me (from the wording in the article) that this would be DC, since it is designed to produce a bias field. The coiling technique does not specify a current, and I suspect it can be much lower. LightYear 04:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It is always a coil, though might be a one-turn coil. (You can't make a circuit otherwise.) The actual unit for such is the ampere-turn, where a multiple turn coil with a lower current can used. Usual degaussing now uses a decreasing AC field. I believe that was also used during WW2, but maybe not at the beginning. Gah4 (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Alternative methods

Monitors without a degauss function can be degaussed by placing a degauss-enabled monitor face-to-face with the target monitor. Activating the degauss function on the enabled monitor can help degauss the other. .

I see a reference for this at here possibly: ( How to cite properly, I'm not sure. ) http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/monfaq.htm#mondegaus CRT Basics > Degaussing (demagnetizing) a CRT >
( see paragraph beginning with: "Another alternative..." )

--Joe 166.70.81.97 (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation of the word

Can some one who knows put the pronunciation up. thank you Antiedman (talk) 12:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

de-gawss-ing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.239.203.207 (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The term is derived from the name of C.F. Gauss, which is pronounced like "house," so "degaussing" rhymes with "dee house sing" with accent on the "house." Dstub (talk) 04:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

August 2012

It might be possible to reference the Coleco Adam in some respects here. Supposedly there was an electromagnetic wave when turned on maybe a degauss that wiped out the cassette software dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.144.208 (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Reverting LightYear's Changes

LightYear made some changes to my changes in the cause of being "more precise". Here's why I reverted them.

• "Persistent magnetic field generated by a permanent magnet" changed to "remnant magnetic field." I borrowed my terminology from magnetism; "persistent" and "permanent" are the terms used there; "remnant" doesn't even appear. It might seem counterintuitive to refer to a few magnetized dots on a CRT, easily zapped by a degausser, as "permanent" but that's the standard terminology, and on Wikipedia you're supposed to use words that are the most common, which are often not the ones that feel right to you.

• "Erase magnetic media" changed to "destroy the data on magnetic media". Lightyear feels that "erase" is wrong because degaussing "scrambles the bits". I don't see why "destroy" is a better way to describe bit-scrambling than "erase" — and in fact the word "erase" is widely used to describe bit scrambling in secure erasure of disk files. Also, "data" is inappropriate here, because magnetic media can contain things other than data.

--Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 07:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

"Remnant" is common terminology within the field. Don't assume that WP is a good source for anything.

"Erase" (for digital media) often means setting a couple of bits to "deleted" within a formatted disk image, leaving the formatting structure of the disk intact, and often even the data content of the files. Degaussing though is far broader than this: it removes the file contents, the flags, the formatted structure, everything. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

More specifically, remanence. Gah4 (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Deperming, the act of degaussing marine craft, be merged into Degaussing. This is as deperming is defined within it's own article as the act of degaussing and then goes on to describe the same deperming/degaussing process detailed within the larger Degaussing article, an article which is more comprehensive as it also outlines the applications of degaussing outside of being applied as a tool of naval stealth and evasion. In this way, while I believe that both articles have valuable information, I do not believe that deperming deserves to have it's own separate article. If there is any information that is judged to be valuable within Deperming which is not found in Degaussing, including or appending it would result in an increase in this article's size of a few sentences, or a paragraph at most. 124.149.89.43 (talk) 08:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Split and Merge?

It has been suggested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships that this article and Deperming be reviewed for a possible split and/or merge. - ^theWOLFchild 01:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Merge They're the same thing. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. The only reason I mentioned 'splitting' was if we wanted to separate the degaussing of ships from the degaussing of electronics, such as computer monitors. - ^theWOLFchild 22:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense too, but it's a job for disambiguation such as degaussing (ships) and degaussing (CRT). "Degaussing" has clear primacy over deperming, even in the US Navy. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Works for me. - ^theWOLFchild 22:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Deperming and degaussing are not precisely synonymous. Deperming is one method of degaussing, the modern and preferred method. Deperming is degaussing by adjusting the magnetic field of the thing itself. The other (earlier) method of degaussing was to string cables around the thing and run a current through them in an effort to counteract the magnetic field of the thing. “Deperming” is to “degaussing” as “Windows” is to “operating system.” Dstub (talk) 05:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. Degaussing is now used in the sense of zeroing the field of a ferromagnetic (permanent magnet) material. As I understand it, the early WW2 ships used coils with a continuous current to either cancel or reverse the polarity, as seen by the mine. Later, they used removable coils to either zero or set an appropriate value of the remanence field. It might be that the German mines measured a specific polarity, such that the opposite polarity would not set them off. Gah4 (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't see the gigantic coil outside of the ship

I can't see it, can there be a diagram? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0A:A542:BA3:0:B11D:2C3:455C:58E6 (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Article has said "Until recently" for 10+ years

The article says "until recently" in the context of color CRT monitors and TVs being used, but it's been 10+ years since that wording was added to the page. The widespread presence of CRTs is not so recent at all anymore. Maybe reword to give specific time period?

E1b40d38d9c0b718 (talk) 09:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)