Is there a method by which we can measure the amount of energy contained within the spin sources and sinks? In principal I agree with you that there are alternate sources of energy that can be tapped. A good example is the storage of gravitational energy when a mass is placed higher in the field. Every force supports energy storage when work is done against the field and not dissipated as heat.
The big question is how much energy can be stored by the spin magnet and how efficiently can it be absorbed and extracted in a cycle? A related question would be: do certain materials contain natural large levels of spin energy that can be extracted leaving them depleted? It appears that you are more interested in developing materials that are designed with spin energy storage in mind. This would be an excellent goal if the energy density can be sufficient and the storage and extraction processes kept efficient. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, Apr 13, 2013 10:05 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down 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
