In the first experiments, as resistance, I used incandescent lamps (calculated for a voltage of 2.5 V and a current of 0.15 A). Turning on the current (its source was a reducing stabilizing transformer and a rectifier included in a household circuit with a voltage of 220 V), I measured the temperature in thermostats for an hour; then changed the lamps in places and repeated the measurements. Five series of similar experiments showed that the metallic resistances gave off the amount of heat in full accordance with the classical laws of electrical engineering, and no matter where these resistances were located.
I did not make measurements using resistances of other types, but I performed the experiment using electrolytic cells as a resistance in which ordinary tap water was decomposed on stainless steel electrodes; the result again did not reveal any anomalies.
But if electrolysis of water was carried out in a porous, heterogeneous medium, the picture turned out to be different.
I filled the electrolytic cells with a mixture of quartz sand and tap water, acidified for better electrical conductivity by several drops of hydrochloric acid (which, generally speaking, is not necessary). And the first experiments gave amazing results, not corresponding to the classical laws of electrical engineering.
Namely, the temperature in the thermostat located in the course of the motion of the electrons turned out to be much higher than the temperature in the next thermostat! At a voltage of a current source of 220 V and its strength of 0.5 A, the difference was 90°C, which significantly exceeded the error value of previous experiments. In total I performed 10 similar experiments and noticed that the difference in temperature between cells clearly depends on the current strength in the circuit and can reach even a few tens of degrees.
I also noticed that on the first cell the voltage drop was higher than the second one (150 and 70 V, respectively), which explains the increased heat release. But the main question remained without an answer: why is there such a noticeable asymmetry, if before and after the experiments the resistance of the cells were the same? After all, this effect should not be!
It can be assumed that in the first cell the electrons for some reason lose some of their internal energy and therefore in the second cell they are no longer able to interact with ions as intensively. But in fact the second cell too (though not style strongly) heats up. True, in the sand-water electrolytic cells there are many local and rather sharp differences in the resistance of the medium, as a result of which the electrons in it are sharply accelerated, then they are sharply slowed down. Is not this the reason for the effect that I observed?
Of course, my assumption that after passing a certain device, the electrons can seem to get tired, giving the environment some special energy, contradicts the laws of nuclear physics, according to which the electron does not have an internal structure and has only a reserve of external kinetic energy. But if I’m wrong, then let me point out the error, preferably by repeating my experiments.
1—4. electrodes made of stainless steel
5. thermometer sensors
6. The first sand-water cell
7. The second sand-water cell
8. Thermostats
9. DC power supply
…The original idea of the experiment is an anomalous heat release in a granular medium. It turned out not quite what was supposed to be found, but still, the result is interesting. It looks as if the charge carrier, ions and electrons, interacting tightly with each other in the first cell along the current, lose some of their internal energy. And, of course, all this happens in an internally divided, more or less ordered environment.
Unfortunately, the lack of calorimeters, tools for accurate determination of the amount of heat released do not allow to receive data at a quantitative level. But the qualitative result is also a good result.
In the first approximation, the generator of electromagnetic energy can look like a slurry of magnetic microscopic balls in an external medium. According to all the above, the ordered array should periodically change its properties (and hence the magnetic flux) in time. It remains to add to it a coil with a wire to get a more or less perpetual generator.
In the case of a teapot, things are as follows. Let the table on which it is left to cool – a highly ordered structure of many identical elements, in a closed volume (it can be large). The energy of boiling water is first distributed throughout the volume. Then, macroscopic temperature fluctuations will arise in the system. The period of their appearance in this or that place can be calculated or even organized. We put the cooled vessel at the right time in the right place – and it boils.
This structure can work in an open space, attracting the energy scattered in the medium, raising it to the previous high level.
To such systems, undoubtedly, one can class living beings, beginning with the simplest unicellular ones. The body consists of billions, trillions of pores, membranes opening and closing according to a certain rhythm. For its life, it attracts more energy than it consumes when digesting food, which is proved by some scientific studies. Obviously, living, ordered matter is a kind of perpetual motion machine – however, not quite perfect yet. At the very least, food is needed for metabolism, cell replacement, and the like.
High orderliness is possessed by forest massifs, crops of crops, ice cover, possibly, deserts and dried salt lakes. Here, first of all, it is necessary to look for anomalous heat releases, and even radiation.
The energy (thermal, electromagnetic) that passes through the massif of matter evenly brings order into it. A standard example is the Benard cells, hexagonal honeycombs emerging in the oil layer on the heated surface. Thus, systems reanimating energy can be created, including a melt, from a solidification, under conditions of thermal energy inhomogeneity.
Interaction of similar forms
It is intuitively clear that two identical objects are linked in some way; Further on this inner conviction layered the well-known physical formulas and principles.
Any physical body has a strictly set of levels of absorption-radiation of electromagnetic waves. The location of the energy bars is affected by the structure, shape, chemical composition, temperature, etc. In other words, the spectrum, in its entirety, is the name of the thing, the set of drawings, the code.
What will happen if, in a closed volume, two identical things are located next to each other? They will start exchanging radiation. The system will tend to come to a stable equilibrium. This is possible when the lines of the spectra of both bodies coincide.
In other words, the spectrum of the body A will tend to impose itself on the body B, and vice versa. Electromagnetic radiation is not purely informational, it has a certain power component. If the bodies A and B (at least one of them) are sufficiently plastic, they will tend to change – in the direction of maximum mutual similarity.
Here, presumably, at a macroscopic level, Pauli’s principle (prohibition) can come into force – two objects can not be (nearby, in the same system) at a single energy level. Thus, around the body A there are concentric zones in which its action on B will be destructive, or creative. The likeness of A and B depends on exactly how far apart they are separated. It is possible to determine this distance only empirically (ie, experimentally).
We will refer to the act of additional assimilation by exchanging our own radiations – Synchronization. As a result, we get two physical bodies, each of which has microparticles having their reflection, a synchronized pair, in another object. And, these particles interact by exchanging electromagnetic quanta (and, perhaps, somehow in some other way).
Here, the Heisenberg uncertainty relation (principle) comes into play. Roughly speaking, two microparticles in a relatively small region, having