I could not agree more! I am impressed by the unbelievable strength of the magnets in (srapped) hard disks and disappointed to find how much info is on internet on electromagnetism and how little if you scratch 'electro' off. I would say magnetism is one branch of physics, electro phenomena another, and they are differen but interrelated. I have made a setup to measure force versus distance, but since that works out to grams versus millimeters the accuracy is almost zero.
As unit of magnetism I would expect to be defined as force at a distance(wiki/oersted: The oersted is defined as a dyne per unit pole.[citation needed] The Oersted is 1000/4π (≈79.5774715) ampere per meter, in terms of SI units.[3][4][5][6]), but I agree that a magnet that produces 1 Newton at 1 meter distance must be a fiction.
That the relation must be similar to that of gravity ( F = m1 . m2 / r^2 ), which is sometimes, but seldom found in literature, is useless without the definition of 'centre of magnetism', but it did realize me that gravity if by far the most unstable process I know of. I tried to find a method to shield the North Pole from South without success. Obviously I tried copper. I am open for suggestions for other materials.
Can anybody explain to me the necessity to define H as distinguished from B? How can I measure the magnetic field strength H different from calculating it back from a measured 'Induction' ( without electicity ) B? I thought I had found one in wiki/Magnetic_field#Definitions.2c_units.2C_and_measurement::4.5 :Torque on a dipole: as H fields..., but when you read it you will see that the result is \tau = \mu_0 H ...., so that the title does not cover the conents, it is only B that counts. Does the field strength increase if I introduce a 5mm strong iron plate into the field?
What I am looking for is partners in a discussion to understand more of this I feel neglected subject in physics.
N
