Dave, The energy available from spin appears to be in the range of combustion, for instance; but even if it is less, spin is often convertible in a lossless way – as torque.
You can find out more by searching for high-spin molecules, high spin nuclei, and “ferrimagnetism,” not to be confused with ferromagnetism. It is all about “ordering” and latent energy going from order to disorder. Ferrimagnetism can be made to be essentially very high in spin, but very low in heat. This is in conflict with CoE, as it is now worded. The conversion of torque to heat, at the extremes of force leverage - can be deceptive even in traditional CoE calculation – to point of meaningless. High torque engines, like the old steam locomotive - can propel a million pound freight train at 50 mph with less than a hundred horsepower, for instance. Does that make sense - as to the proportionality of converting torque to its thermodynamic equivalent ? And it gets far worse when a magmo is all torque and no heat. Some information on this subject is subject to NDA but you can see from Wiki, the expert on all things, that with ferrimagnetic materials, the moments of atoms (grains or excitons) can appear to be opposed (as in antiferromagnetism). But in ferrimagnetism, the moments can be engineered to be far from mutual neutralization or cancelation, since so-called “spontaneous magnetization” can shift field-lines with low stimulation. These field-lines are not really an abstraction – since they can provide real induction and spin energy. Ferrimagnetism is exhibited by many ferrites, including the classic: magnetite. There is a long history in the lore of “free energy” and myth in general - relating to magnetite. Are you familiar with Brand’s “Long Now Foundation”? http://blog.longnow.org/02007/12/27/lodestone-unloads-a-new-surprise/ From: David Roberson 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 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.
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
