SovietRxiv

The Magnetic Campaign of 1914 of the Physics Laboratory of the Tomsk Technological Institute: Abstract

B. P. Weinberg.
Submitted 1923 | SovietRxiv: ru-192301.07347 | Translated from Russian

Abstract Generated abstract

This article summarizes the 1914 magnetic campaign conducted by the Physics Laboratory of Tomsk Technological Institute, reporting magnetic observations across 118 points in Siberia and related reductions of declination, horizontal intensity, and inclination. It outlines the organization of the expeditions, the instruments and observing procedures, and gives particular attention to comparisons of the laboratory’s Bauer magnetometer with instruments at Irkutsk, Ekaterinburg, and Pavlovsk observatories. The analysis derives revised corrections for the magnetometer constants, evaluates temperature and induction coefficients, and estimates the probable errors of the resulting magnetic elements. The text also introduces a supplementary effort to compile magnetic declination data for the Yenisei Province from administrative, surveying, mining, river, and forestry records, despite their uneven reliability.

Full Text

B. P. Weinberg.

The 1914 Magnetic Campaign of the Physics Laboratory of Tomsk Technological Institute (Author’s Abstract)

The article (April 1918), comprising about 6 printed sheets, consists of the following chapters: 1. Organization of the expeditions and the measurements made; 2. Instruments and their constants; 3. Testing of the instruments and their comparison; 4. Astronomical determinations; 5. Rate and corrections of the chronometers; 6. Determinations of declination; 7. Results of the determinations of declination; 8. Determinations of the horizontal component with Bauer’s magnetometer; 9. Determinations of the horizontal component with the coils of Bauer’s instrument; 10. Results of the determinations of the horizontal component; 11. Determinations of inclination and their results; 12. List of observation points.

The article contains a description of determinations made by me and by student A. A. Belov (†) at 94 points (not counting the Irkutsk and Ekaterinburg observatories, and counting observations at 17 places around the rock “Second Pillar” in the environs of Krasnoyarsk and on it as 1 point), by laboratory assistant M. I. Meshcheryakov—at 8 points; by student I. A. Molchanov—at 2; by student V. I. Gonsiorovsky—at 6; by student D. V. Butakov—at 26; and by attendee of the Siberian Higher Women’s Courses L. A. Misureva—at 6; in all, at 118 points, of which 85 were new, and at 28 of them observations were made two or more times.

The results of the determinations were printed as a separate offprint in 1919 (placed above in the present issue), and also—with reduction to 1910—in my summary of magnetic determinations in Siberia, printed in Izv. Inst. issl. Sib., 1, 1–69, 1920.

Of the extensive material given in the article concerning the observations themselves and the method of processing and reducing them, we shall dwell here, as on what is most essential, on the checking of Bauer’s magnetometer—the principal instrument in our laboratory, which served for determinations also on the trips of 1915 (mine), 1918 (V. D. Dudetsky’s), 1918 (S. I. Shubin’s), 1920 (mine), 1921 (mine and N. D. Chesnokov’s), and 1922 (mine).

The constants of this instrument were determined before it was sent to Tomsk at the Carnegie Institution in Washington in May–June 1913, and during the first two years of work with it in Russia it was compared by me with the instruments of the Irkutsk Observatory on 5 May 1914; then—by me also on 2 July—with the instruments of the Ekaterinburg Observatory, and then—by A. A. Belov on 18 July—again with the Irkutsk instruments. Before the 1915 trip I compared it with the Pavlovsk instruments in February and left it in Pavlovsk until May, when V. D. Dudetsky subjected it to a series of comparisons under various conditions from 30 April to 9 May. After the 1915 trip I compared it again with the Pavlovsk instruments on 23 and 24 August and on 27 September.

The results of these comparisons—insofar as this concerns the determination of the horizontal component—are expressed by Table I, in which “time” denotes the mean instant of the observations, \(T\)—the period of oscillation of the magnet, \(t'\)—the temperature during these observations; \(u_{20}\) and \(u_{25}\)—the angles of deflection at small and medium distances between the magnets, \(t_{20}\) and \(t_{25}\)—the temperature during the observations of the deflections.

Table 1.

Time T t′ u₂₀ t₂₀ u₂₅ t₂₅ H observed H obs. Δ
8.5.14 Irkutsk
10 33 3.3109 10.9 — — — — — — .19650 .19653 −3
11 33 — — 22 30.0 12.7 — — — .19658 .19655 +3
11 38 — — — — — 11 13.1 12.8 .19661 .19656 +5
12 23 3.3127 14.0 — — — — — — .19663 .19666 −3
14 09 — — 22 30.0 13.1 — — — .19678 .19682 −4
14 09 — — — — — 11 12.4 13.2 .19677 .19682 −5
14 27 3.3090 12.7 — — — — — — .19693 .19683 +10
2.7.14 Ekaterinburg
11 36 3.5687 20.4 — — — — — — .17224 .17196 +28
11 42 3.5687 20.3 — — — — — — .17216 .17197 +19
11 58 3.5695 20.2 — — — — — — .17217 .17198 +19
12 25 — — 25 27.3 21.0 — — — .17218 .17199 +19
12 35 — — — — — 12 38.0 21.0 .17189 .17199 −10
12 56 — — 25 26.6 20.8 — — — .17229 .17201 +28
13 21 3.5685 20.6 — — — — — — .17229 .17202 +27
13 27 3.5682 20.4 — — — — — — .17231 .17203 +28
13 50 — — 25 24.0 20.5 — — — .17259 .17205 +54
13 50 — — — — — 12 36.2 20.5 .17236 .17205 +31
14 14 3.5683 20.4 — — — — — — .17230 .17207 +23
15 03 3.5676 19.4 — — — — — — .17226 .17214 +12
15 09 3.5682 19.4 — — — — — — .17224 .17215 +9
18.7.14 Irkutsk
11 17 3.3510 24.6 — — — — — — .19617 .19617 0
11 34 3.3462 25.0 — — — — — — .19677 .19616 +61
11 47 3.3484 24.8 — — — — — — .19649 .19615 +34
11 54 3.3494 24.5 — — — — — — .19631 .19614 +21
13 22 — — 22 05.0 25.0 — — — .19618 .19616 +2
13 24 — — — — — 10 58.8 25.0 .19666 .19616 +50
15 05 — — 22 03.6 25.8 — — — .19632 .19632 0
15 05 — — — — — 10 57.6 25.7 .19698 .19632 +66
17.2.15 Pavlovsk
12 51 — — 27 04.6 18.7 — — — .16232 .16225 +7
13 06 — — 27 05.3 18.7 — — — .16226 .16225 +1
13 16 — — — — — 13 22.5 18.7 .16223 .16225 −2
13 26 — — — — — 13 22.1 18.7 .16227 .16225 +2
13 40 3.6799 18.7 — — — — — — .16228 .16225 +3
13 49 3.6801 18.6 — — — — — — .16226 .16225 +1
15 12 3.6788 18.3 — — — — — — .16234 .16231 +3
15 36 — — 27 04.4 18.8 — — — .16233 .16232 +1
15 44 — — — — — 13 21.7 18.8 .16237 .16233 +4
16 03 3.6795 18.7 — — — — — — .16231 .16234 −3
16 26 — — 27 05.6 18.0 — — — .16227 .16231 −4
16 26 — — — — — 13 22.1 18.0 .16235 .16231 +4
1.5.15
16 41 3.6776 14.6 — — — — — — .16245 .16236 +9
16 49 3.6775 14.3 — — — — — — .16242 .16234 +8
5.5.15
15 11 3.6813 16.6 — — — — — — .16226 .16228 −2
15 27 3.6808 16.7 — — — — — — .16230 .16227 +3
15 59 — — 27 02.2 17.9 — — — .16234 .16233 +1
16 28 — — — — — 13 21.3 18.4 .16223 .16229 −6
17 02 3.6817 18.5 — — — — — — .16236 .16234 +2
17 38 — — — — — 13 21.6 18.7 .16215 .16235 −20
17 52 — — 27 01.0 19.2 — — — .16239 .16239 −10
18 18 3.6805 18.5 — — — — — — .16248 .16240 +8

Continuation of Table I.

Time T t′ u₂₀ t₂₀ u₂₅ t₂₅ H observed H calc. Δ
6.5.15 Pavlovsk
15 34 3.6741 9.2 — — — — — — .16233 .16228 +5
15 50 3.6741 9.0 — — — — — — .16232 .16228 +4
16 05 3.6756 9.1 — — — — — — .16219 .16229 −10
16 21 3.6745 9.1 — — — — — — .16229 .16230 −1
16 53 — — 27 09.8 9.2 — — — .16221 .16230 −9
17 15 — — — — — 13 23.7 9.6 .16231 .16229 +2
17 49 3.6747 9.3 — — — — — — .16229 .16226 +3
18 13 — — — — — 13 24.8 10.0 .16207 .16224 −17
18 36 — — 27 10.4 10.2 — — — .16207 .16225 −18
19 00 3.6756 10.5 — — — — — — .16229 .16222 +7
21 04 (3.6906) 31.8 — — — — — — (.16260) .16248 (+12)
21 34 3.6924 32.0 — — — — — — .16237 .16234 +3
21 53 3.6926 32.1 — — — — — — .16236 .16236 0
22 11 3.6924 32.3 — — — — — — .16239 .16241 −2
22 35 — — 26 47.8 32.6 — — — .16273 .16243 +30
7.5.15
9 01 — — 26 50.8 35.0 — — — .16230 .16198 +32
9 21 — — — — — 13 15.5 35.0 .16232 .16198 +34
9 42 3.7001 35.0 — — — — — — .16201 .16198 +3
10 03 3.7004 34.8 — — — — — — .16196 .16198 −2
10 28 3.7011 34.7 — — — — — — .16190 .16194 −4
13 10 (3.6905) 21.2 — — — — — — (.16176) (.16204) (−28)
13 30 — — — — — 13 20.9 23.5 .16199 .16207 −8
13 48 — — 26 59.6 23.8 — — — .16221 .16210 +11
14 08 3.6889 24.0 — — — — — — .16215 .16221 −6
14 24 3.6889 24.0 — — — — — — .16215 .16217 −2
23.3.15
19 07 3.6944 17.0 — — — — — — .16205 .16212 −7
19 13 3.6948 16.7 — — — — — — .16199 .16213 −14
24.8.15
5 33 3.6932 14.7 — — — — — — .16198 .16203 −5
5 40 3.6918 14.6 — — — — — — .16210 .16202 +8
5 46 3.6933 14.5 — — — — — — .16196 .16202 −6
6 01 3.6909 14.4 — — — — — — .16216 .16201 +11
6 07 3.6927 14.4 — — — — — — .16200 .16200 0
6 37 — — 26 59.5 15.0 — — — .16185 .16198 −13
6 52 — — 26 57.9 15.5 — — — .16198 .16197 +1
7 05 — — 26 57.1 15.0 — — — .16198 .16195 +3
7 26 3.6938 14.7 — — — — — — .16190 .16193 −3
7 32 3.6945 14.7 — — — — — — .16186 .16193 −7
7 38 3.6947 14.6 — — — — — — .16185 .16192 −5
8 03 — — 26 58.6 14.8 — — — .16195 .16190 +5
8 14 — — 26 58.6 14.9 — — — .16194 .16188 +6
8 33 3.6947 14.9 — — — — — — .16187 .16185 +2
8 39 3.6937 14.7 — — — — — — .16194 .16183 +11
8 45 3.6944 14.6 — — — — — — .16186 .16184 +2
27.9.15
12 16 — — 27 01.4 12.0 — — — .16187 .16184 +3
12 40 3.6903 11.6 — — — — — — .16200 .16191 +9
12 47 3.6899 11.4 — — — — — — .16202 .16192 +10
12 52 3.6895 11.2 — — — — — — .16203 .16193 +10
13 17 — — 26 59.7 11.2 — — — .16208 .16197 +11
13 33 — — 26 59.4 11.3 — — — .16210 .16198 +12

The Carnegie Institution supplies its instruments with data and tables concerning their constants, making it possible to draw up formulae for calculating separately \(\lg m : H\) and \(\lg mH\), where \(m\) is the magnetic moment of the magnet and \(H\) is the horizontal component. In Table I, “\(H\) obs.” is the value of the horizontal component in C.G.S. units according to the above-mentioned formulae, with a correction \(p_1 = +0.00066\) to the values of \(\lg m : H\), obtained from certain preliminary computations; “\(H\) obs.” is the value of the horizontal component according to the observations of the observatories; and \(\Delta\) is the difference of these values in \(\gamma\).

In order to obtain final values, both the correction \(p_1\) and the correction \(p_2\) to the values of \(\lg mH\), obtained with the aid of the constants given in the certificate of the instrument, were computed on the basis of the last column of Table I—the mean differences \(|\Delta|\) of the values of \(H\), determined by means of the Bauer instrument, from the values obtained by the instruments of the observatories—for various groups of determinations, together with the mean deviations (one difference of each kind) from the corresponding mean. These mean differences \(|\Delta|\) are given in Table II.

Table II.

Time Place and observer \(|\Delta T|\) \(|\Delta u_{20}|\) \(|\Delta u_{25}|\) \(|\Delta|\)
8.5.14 Irkutsk, B. P. Weinberg \(+1 \pm 6\) \(-1 \pm 4\) \(+0 \pm 5\) \(+0 \pm 6\)
2.7.14 Ekaterinburg, B. P. Weinberg \(+21 \pm 7\) \(+34 \pm 15\) \(+10 \pm 21\) \(+21 \pm 12\)
18.7.14 Irkutsk, A. A. Belov \(+29 \pm 22\) \(+1 \pm 1\) \(+58 \pm 12\) \(+29 \pm 28\)
17.2.15 Pavlovsk, B. P. Weinberg \(+1 \pm 2\) \(+1 \pm 4\) \(+2 \pm 2\) \(+1 \pm 3\)
1–7.5.15 Pavlovsk, V. D. Dudetsky \(+1 \pm 5\) \(+7 \pm 17\) \(-2 \pm 18\) \(+2 \pm 11\)
23–24.8.15 Pavlovsk, B. P. Weinberg \(-1 \pm 8\) \(+0 \pm 7\) — \(-0 \pm 8\)
27.8.15 Pavlovsk, B. P. Weinberg \(+10 \pm 0\) \(+9 \pm 4\) — \(+9 \pm 3\)
Mean \(+1 \pm 6\) \(+2 \pm 10\) \(-1 \pm 13\) \(+1 \pm 9\)

The comparisons in Ekaterinburg, in view of local disturbances in the region of the observatory, cannot be regarded as especially convincing for changing the constants of the Bauer instrument as determined in Washington; the determinations of A. A. Belov, who during the expedition was occupied chiefly with astronomical determinations and not magnetic ones, agree little with one another. If, therefore, these comparisons are discarded and the mean of the remaining ones is taken, we obtain, on the average, the values placed in the last line of Table II. From these mean values it may be concluded that complete agreement between the means from the determinations of \(H\) on the Bauer instrument and the means from the values of \(H\) according to the records of the instruments of the Russian observatories would correspond to the values

\[ p_1 = +0.00063,\qquad p_2 = -0.00003. \]

That is, the correction to the values of \(H\) will not be \(+0.00153\,H\), as the certificate of the instrument gives, but

\[ \Delta \lg H = +0.00030,\qquad \Delta H = +0.00069\,H. \]

This quantity differs greatly from the value indicated in the certificate, but the error of this correction is in no way greater than \(0.0001\,H\).

I shall note, incidentally, that the almost identical agreement of the values of H calculated from the Pavlovsk observations of V. D. Dudetsky, both at low and at high temperatures, with the aid of the temperature coefficient given in the instrument certificate, with the values of H according to the observatory instruments, may be regarded as an independent determination of this temperature coefficient, which yielded the same results as the Washington measurements.

Four series of determinations of the induction coefficient, made by V. D. Dudetsky in Pavlovsk, gave for the quantity h the values 0.0104, 0.0104, 0.0109, and 0.0095, very close to the value 0.0107 indicated in the instrument certificate.

In conclusion I shall point out that a detailed analysis of all sources of errors leads to the conclusion that the error in the values of declination, reduced to the mean for 1914, is of the order of 2′—4′, depending on how accurately the latitude of the point is known; that the error in the values of H is equal to 0.0001 C.G.S. for points where, with Bauer’s instrument, both oscillations and deflections were observed; 0.0002—for points where only observations of oscillations were made; 0.0002—for the determinations of Meshcheryakov and Butakov; and 0.0004—for the determinations of the remaining observers, whose instruments were less carefully compared with Bauer’s instrument; finally, that the error in the values of inclination does not exceed 2′.

B. P. Weinberg.

Distribution of Magnetic Declination in the Yenisei Province.

In view of the extreme insufficiency of magnetic determinations made and published in Siberia in general, and in the Yenisei Province in particular, in 1914–15 I made an attempt to collect the results of determinations of magnetic declination made for the practical purposes of various departments and expressed, in most cases, as notations of the magnitude of declination on plans and maps of one or another tract. Although often such notations are not the results of actual measurements, but only repetitions of similar notations on old plans of the same tract or on plans of neighboring tracts, and, even if based on actual determinations, are of low accuracy, nevertheless I resolved upon this attempt in view of the absence of any other data for many parts of the Yenisei Province (especially before my determinations of 1914 and 1915) and in the hope that a large number even of little-reliable declination values would compensate for their poor quality and even, in some cases, their doubtful character.

Thanks to the courtesy of representatives of various departments, I succeeded in collecting, apparently, all materials of this kind that were available, in the form of 365 values of magnetic declination taken from the documents of the boundary archive by the Yenisei provincial land surveyor P. S. Onyshchenko, 177 values of declination supplied by the head of the technical section of the Yenisei Resettlement Administration, Ya. Braikovsky, 36 values of declination according to data presented by district mining engineers, 7 values determined by parties for the survey of the Yenisei River, and 2 values reported by the Mana forestry officer.

In view of the impossibility of separating those of these data that represent the results of direct determinations from those that are not such, and also because of the impossibility of making a comparative assessment of their accuracy, I decided to make use of all these values—

Submission history

[v1] 1923

Access Paper

Citation

Share

Feedback

The Magnetic Campaign of 1914 of the Physics Laboratory of the Tomsk Technological Institute: Abstract