Opening in the Sphere of Molecular Physics.

Here I quote my idea, claiming to be discovered. In any case, I have not even met a hint of it anywhere. The idea refers to the phenomenon of evaporation, namely, it opens up a completely new factor as the main reason for cooling the liquid during its evaporation. The classical explanation is that only the fastest molecules emerge from the liquid, those that are able to overcome the forces of intermolecular attraction. As a result, the average velocity of the remaining molecules decreases. Consequently, the temperature of the body decreases, depending on the speed.

But if you take a closer look at the evaporation process, you see one more, more important, if not the main, cooling factor. This phenomenon (factor) is not written in any manual on physics. From the classical theory follows the logical conclusion that the evaporating molecule does not reduce its velocity and the speed of the molecule that pushed it to near zero. And this is not true.

In the surface layers of the liquid, the molecules are located at greater distances than in the deep layers. This causes the phenomenon of surface tension.

The surface of a liquid

Molecule 1 V1

V2

Molecule 2

V3

Molecule 3

Fig. 1.

The most likely for the evaporation-ejection of molecule 1 (see Figure 1) is its collision with molecule 2, which lies together with molecule 1 perpendicular to the surface of the liquid and has a minimal tangential component of velocity. After a collision at a distance greater than two radiuses of the molecule, the forces of mutual repulsion are replaced by growing forces of mutual attraction. These forces reduce almost to zero the rate and temperature on the Kelvin scale not only of the outgoing molecule 1, but also of the molecule 2 that remained in the liquid. Molecule 2 does not have time to transfer its kinetic energy to the neighboring molecule 3: it is "stopped" by the evaporating molecule 1. Cases of simultaneous attraction of molecule 1 by a molecule of vapor are probable. In this case, molecule 1 can only have an average velocity. But in the final phase of the exit of molecule 1, molecule 2 will lower its velocity and temperature along the absolute Kelvin scale almost to zero. It is also probable that the side molecules adjacent to molecule 2, which reduce the slowing effect, "save" the kinetic energy of molecule 2, are also possible. But on the whole, the effect of almost complete inhibition should be significant because the distances between molecules in the surface layers of the liquid are sufficiently large. The fact that the forces of mutual attraction are comparable to the forces of inertia of evaporating molecules is evidenced by the phenomenon of surface tension, owing to which the bulk of the molecules of the surface layer of the liquid are retained inside it until the moment of the stronger pushing collision with molecule 2 is equally probable for all molecules. Consequently, the evaporating molecule 1 reduces Its velocity and the speed of molecule 2 to almost zero.

The phenomenon of evaporation must be taken into account in all the sciences that study the material world. The new explanation given above of the reason for the cooling of the liquid during its evaporation should make useful refinements in all calculations in which this effect must be taken into account.

With my idea I refute the classical theory of evaporation, namely:

1. "The velocity of a molecule evaporated from a liquid is above average." For more than 15 years I've been sending my idea to various scientific organizations without a response. With the same success he wrote to V. V. Putin and D. A. Medvedev with a request to send it for analysis to a competent scientific organization. From this I concluded: there is nothing to refute, but to confirm - the risk for the career of a scientist. On April 28 of this year I introduced my idea to a candidate of technical sciences, a specialist in molecular physics. To my first question: "What is the velocity of the evaporated molecule?", He replied: "Very high, above average." After getting to know my idea, he lowered this speed: "Yes, maybe some molecules slow down. But there are a lot of molecules in the liquid of the molecules, accordingly, there are so many possibilities to disperse the evaporating molecule to a high speed. " I objected to this: "In order to accelerate to a higher than average the evaporated molecule" 1 ", it is necessary to accelerate the evaporating molecule" 1 "to a speed greater than the average, more than twice. And this event, if possible, but so unlikely that they should be neglected. Molecules - "Millionaires" for kinetic energy should be very rare. " Like a financial pyramid, the energy that, by a chain of causes and effects from the depth of the liquid, comes to accelerate the evaporating molecule "1" - can be represented as a cone of molecules with a vertex in molecule "1". The deeper the layer of molecules, the more likely the scattering of this hypothetical energy. The most likely event is a molecule with an average speed. Molecules that have a speed slightly larger or slightly smaller than the average are also not uncommon. The velocity of the evaporating molecule, which is much higher than the average, should theoretically be caused by a complicated scheme of previous collisions in the deep layers. But since in depth all molecules under equal conditions and all directions of energy transfer are equally probable, the probability of setting a set of molecules per direction and per molecule "1" is just as low as the probability of spontaneously obtaining in an arbitrary non-isolated portion of the fluid volume different from other regions Temperature. The most likely event is the velocity of the evaporating molecule, slightly more than the average (or equal to it if in the final phase of the evaporation of the molecule is "1", when it is going to return back at flight: the velocity is zero - a molecule of vapor or air attracts it. The time of the wind, but with less probability is possible even in a standing atmosphere).

2. It is logical to assume that the surface tension holds all molecules that have a medium and a lower velocity inside the liquid (except for the cases of drawing molecules of steam or air that fly parallel to the surface of the liquid). Then it must be concluded that the most likely event is the evaporation of a molecule having a velocity that is at least above the average. That is, the difference in the kinetic energy of molecule "1" and the potential energy of its attraction by neighboring molecules is minimal. This means that after overcoming this potential energy, the speed - and the temperature on the absolute Kelvin scale - of the emitted molecule "1" will be about zero. "And where does the kinetic energy of the outgoing molecule go?" This question was asked to me by an expert in molecular physics. I answered (thought about it earlier) - apparently, it turns into the energy of excitation of atoms, a shorter-wavelength, not perceived by a person as a temperature; Can be partially radiated in a nonthermal short-wave electromagnetic spectrum.

3. The rate of the remaining molecule in the liquid "2" after the collision of the molecule "1" does not remain the same as it follows from the classical theory, but decreases almost to zero.

4. According to the scheme of my opponent (he took it from the textbook), "The superficial layers are very close to each other. The distances between the molecules in each layer are great. " He expressed this in refuting my assertion that the molecule "2" in Fig. "1" does not have time to transfer its energy to the underlying one. But from simple considerations, the position of the layers in the "checkerboard order" should be energetically stable: that is, under each (and "above") 2, 3, 4, 5 layers there must be a "hole". From Fig. 1, the position of the molecules "2" and "3" is more energetically more probable through the layer of molecules. Molecule "2" lies in the third layer, molecule "3" - in the fifth layer, and molecule "1" - in the first layer. In this case, the molecule "2" after the collision of the molecule "1" that pushes out the molecule - flies through the gap between the molecules of the nearest lower fourth layer to the next, fifth, layer of molecules - and it has enough distances to reduce the velocity and temperature almost to zero. Evaporating molecule "1". Slowing down almost to zero itself, has time to slow down almost to zero molecule "2". This is a highly probable event.

5. In science, experience and theory go hand in hand. I have no doubt that the "Gibbs energy", which is estimated by the rupture of atomic and molecular bonds, accurately reflects real phenomena. But if I could convince my molecular physicist with my idea (he slowed down after our dispute, although not to zero, but much lower than average), then there are weaknesses and gaps in the theory of cooling evaporating liquids. Apparently, this is due to the fact that the forces of molecular interaction are short-range, and the accelerations and decelerations are short-lived. They are neglected, using the average velocity of the molecule for calculations. This is true for molecules inside a liquid. But this approach led to errors in the study of the behavior of evaporating molecules.

6. My idea removes this gap. Perhaps a deeper understanding of the causes of cooling evaporating liquids will open up a new field of activity for inventors of more efficient refrigerators, portable air-conditioners and. Tp

7. The release of textbooks used to be more rigorous. There was one official version and everything in it corresponded to the opinion of official science.

8. Here is the textbook of 1976, Grade 9, 68 pages: "If the temperature is constant, the transformation of the liquid into vapor does not lead to an increase in the kinetic energy of the molecules, but is accompanied by an increase in their potential energy. After all, the average distance between gas molecules is many times greater than between the molecules of the liquid. In addition, an increase in volume upon the transition of matter from the liquid state to the gaseous state,

9.

10. requires the performance of work against the forces of external pressure. Here the exact direction of calculations is indicated: "The amount of heat necessary for conversion at a constant temperature of 1 kg. Liquid in steam, called the specific heat of vaporization. " Apparently, in the absence of external thermal sources, this amount is affected by energy (and - temperature) upon evaporation of each kilogram of liquid.

11. But nowhere is my - not a rare, but highly probable option: my molecule evaporated, its velocity and the velocity of the molecule left in the liquid were almost zero, the potential energy of their interaction disappeared. Where did the energy go? This question of my interlocutor is not only and not so much it, as - all the physics that is not worked out from my probable point of view. In the excitation energy of an atom, in electromagnetic radiation can not it pass? In the handbook on physics, on which I was preparing to enter the Polytechnic Institute, (graduated in 1983), the same scheme is drawn and the same explanation given to me recently by a specialist. But my school textbook gives a detailed explanation and the scheme is somewhat different: page 84. From this explanation it turns out that the forces of interaction with the molecules of vapor can be neglected, since its density under usual conditions is many times less than the density of the liquid. "A repulsive force on the molecule 2 side acts on the molecule 1 on the surface of the liquid and the attractive force on the side of the molecules lying in the depth of 3.4.5, and so on. Etc. Molecule 2 is affected by the attractive force from the molecules lying in the depths 4, 5, 6, and. Etc., and the repulsive force on the part of molecule 3. But, in addition, the repulsive force on the side of molecule 1 also acts. As a result, the distances between molecules 1 and 2 are on the average larger than the distance between molecules 2 and 3 (molecules 1, 2, 3 , 4, 5, etc., lie on the perpendicular to the surface of the liquid, and the numbering, as in Figure 1, increases in depth). The distance 2 - 3 is more than the distance 3 -4 and. Etc., until the affinity of the molecule to the surface ceases to affect. " In this convincing detailed proof, it turned out that the distance between molecule 1 of the upper "layer" and molecule 2 below it is Fig. 1-most of all. This is more than enough to inhibit molecule 2 from Fig. 1 - to zero. 404118 г. Волжский, 30 м - он, дом40, кВ. 17.