To go a bit further .. which is way out on a fragile limb <g>
… in thermodynamics, heat goes to a heat-sink but spin plays
no role. In spin-dynamics, spin goes to a spin-sink and heat plays no role.
The two should be combined, in order to accurately calculate CoE.
That is a bit naïve but essentially it summarizes this
hypothesis - as epitomized in the reality of a magmo which captures magnetic
spin by incorporating the spin-sink (macro-level of torque) as the essential
feature of its operation.
From: David Roberson
Jones,
If it performed that well, then it would be
interesting. That amount of power extracted over such a long time period
would represent a large amount of energy. I tend to think of the energy
stored in a magnet as being relatively small since you can take an
unmagnetized piece of material and magnetize it with a modest amount of
input energy. Since I have a hang up concerning COE, I assume that there is
the same amount of energy available as is needed to achieve that state.
Dave - Your point about CoE is exactly the one which I was
struggling to address in the first post. I think that energy (redefined) is
conserved.
If CoE is based on thermodynamics, and does not fully
account for spin energy, then it does not mean that we abandon conservation
of energy – only that we start including spin as part of the energy to be
conserved.
The end result is that far more energy can be derived from
certain specialty materials – especially when they are manufactured and
processed in a certain way (nano-geometry and magnetic conditioning come to
mind) … but when you account for (spin + thermodynamics) the that higher
value is still conserved.
Jones
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
