I know, what I typed in was the image >>2041854 but it got corrected to post number 3, plus "dpg" on the end. Just like >>2041875.
>I thought field strength was determined entirely by current and turns and area of the loop
Double the current and half the number of turns, you'll have the same volume of windings and the same power wasted.
>every new reply I get, I have to hit the textbook or Wikipedia
That's why coming here was such an educational experience for me in the first place. Don't even have to ask questions, if you see someone talking about something, give it a google. It might be way over your head, it might be just right. I just keep learning.
Hope you enjoy your new scope, as an opportunistic poorfag I managed to snatch an old CRT hybrid (i.e. both direct analog and ADC > storage > DAC) scope for free from my uni's physics department, and a ~30MHz function generator to go with it. Still no PSU though. Before that I was just using a $20 single-channel aliexpress scope kit (DSO138?), a cheap multimeter, 5V from a chopped-off USB lead, and a couple of breadboards. Now days I just simulate almost all of my ideas.
>it's kind of surreal in a way that the better a component is at its task, the higher their parasitic elements
It isn't just parasitic elements, it's all design parameters. If you look at similarly priced MOSFETs from around the same year, you'll probably be able to draw a pretty consistent power trend between gate charge, on-resistance, and breakdown voltage, all compromising with one another. The nature of pushing materials science to its limits results in these compromises. Then there's price compromise too, naturally. Only rarely do you get a technology that's objectively better in all ways, that's the sort of thing that brings about revolutions. Revolutions like the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th generations of computing, caused by the invention of transistors, ICs, and microprocessors respectively.