Having two functions (prism_magnetic and prism_magnetic_component) for forward modelling magnetic fields of prisms (and dipoles) is not the best. It's somewhat confusing and also it breaks the design we already have for the gravity forward functions.
We should merge them together, having a single magnetic forward function for prisms (and a single magnetic forward function for dipoles) that can compute a single component or the three components.
The new merged function should keep the name of the first one (prism_magnetic and dipole_magnetic) and should ask for a required field argument. This field argument should be able to take:
field
b_e
for the easting component of the magnetic vector
b_n
for the northing component of the magnetic vector
b_u
for the upward component of the magnetic vector
b
for the three components of the magnetic vector (returned as a tuple)
In the future, this function could be expanded to magnetic gradiometry fields:
field
b_ee
for the easting-easting component of the magnetic vector
b_nn
for the northing-northing component of the magnetic vector
b_uu
for the upward-upward component of the magnetic vector
b_en
for the easting-northing component of the magnetic vector
b_eu
for the easting-upward component of the magnetic vector
b_nu
for the northing-upward component of the magnetic vector
Are you willing to help implement and maintain this feature?
Yes! But anyone wanting to tackle this is more than welcomed!
We should work on this before the next release, so we don't release the new magnetic functions with an interface that will be deprecated. Probably it would be easier to tackle this at the same time as #446
Description of the desired feature:
Having two functions (
prism_magneticandprism_magnetic_component) for forward modelling magnetic fields of prisms (and dipoles) is not the best. It's somewhat confusing and also it breaks the design we already have for the gravity forward functions.We should merge them together, having a single magnetic forward function for prisms (and a single magnetic forward function for dipoles) that can compute a single component or the three components.
The new merged function should keep the name of the first one (
prism_magneticanddipole_magnetic) and should ask for a requiredfieldargument. Thisfieldargument should be able to take:fieldb_eb_nb_ubIn the future, this function could be expanded to magnetic gradiometry fields:
fieldb_eeb_nnb_uub_enb_eub_nuAre you willing to help implement and maintain this feature?
Yes! But anyone wanting to tackle this is more than welcomed!
We should work on this before the next release, so we don't release the new magnetic functions with an interface that will be deprecated. Probably it would be easier to tackle this at the same time as #446