Hi richar18,

The energy contained in the magnetic field of a magnetized core is not
represented by the energy consumed by the coil/circuit. For example,
consider material with twice the permeability & same dimensions and
you'll see it requires half the energy to bring such material to the
same magnetic field intensity.

Yes there is a change in specific heat due to MCE, but it is known
this can increase as well as decrease depending on the material and
conditions.

You cannot discount the fact there is energy release when the magnetic
moments align.

I'll add further comments below :

--- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@...> wrote:
> You know, it appears as if nature may have fooled us into incorrectly
> calculating the heat energy of the iron after magnetization. Read on
> to find out why.
>
> According to my sources on the subject, the magnetocaloric effect is
> due to a reduction in degrees of freedom of the iron molecules in the
> presence of a magnetic field, which causes an increase in entropy
> (and therefore temperature). The decrease in temp when the field is
> removed is due to the opposite. This mechanism is important to
> understand, because it gives a hint as to what is going on in the
> system from an energetic point of view.

The guy from NASA disagrees with the above theory and agreed with my
theory as to why it cools. He clarified that the vibrating atoms knock
the magnetic moments out of alignment, which requires energy and cools
the material.

Furthermore, your above theory does not work on nanocrystalline
magnetic materials, which indeed are saturated on the domain level,
but still exhibit strong MCE roughly 10,000 to 100,000 times stronger
than ferrites, iron, and other magnetic materials, and only 1/4th of
the best Gd alloys, which my theory all predicts.

If I am in error then please point out the error.

Regards,
Paul Lowrance