Let’s connect two conductors made of different metals in series, with different conductivity, for example, twice! In other words, this means that the concentration of free electrons in one conductor will be twice as high as in the other.

We apply a voltage (constant) and current begins to flow through both conductors connected in series. Since the current is the same in magnitude, this means that ALL FREE ELECTRONS are drifting in the conductors, but at DIFFERENT DRIFT RATES! In a “bad” conductor with a “low” concentration, they will drift at TWICE the SPEED (in order to ensure a constant current value). In a “good” one, on the contrary, since the concentration of electrons there is twice as high, they will drift more slowly in the applied field, corresponding to a given current value.

This immediately explains why heating elements use conductors with poor conductivity, that is, with high resistivity: In them, electrons drift at a much higher, although still very low, speed, which means that their magnetic moments actively “lock” with the magnetic fields of atoms in the lattice sites and deform them more strongly. electronic orbits, which leads to intense heating.

Question: Does the movement of electrons change their concentration in a certain unit of time?

Does not change!

But then there is a “fork”:

On the one hand, it is possible that the movement of electrons STILL causes them to move away from each other, which means that it reduces the concentration in a given volume.

Why?

Let’s imagine a chain of mutually repulsive balls that do not fly apart only because they are surrounded by the walls of a certain box. As long as this chain is stationary, the balls have nowhere to go. They have already “pushed apart” to the maximum distance from each other, but the walls hold them back.

Now let’s imagine that the walls, the pinning axes of the chain, disappeared and the whole chain began to move. Then the “head” balls can “escape” more and move away from the ones following them. And so all the balls are in a chain, so the chain lengthens and the specific density of the balls in it decreases! In the case of a concentration of electrons moving along a conductor, this means a decrease in concentration in a drifting stream of electrons compared to a “stationary cloud” of electrons.

On the other hand, it is still possible that it is the current drift that turns their backs in a STRICTLY DEFINED WAY in the form of concentric rings, and thereby generates thermal deformation or “idealization” of atomic orbits, that is, “correction of deformation” and their return to an ideal undeformed status. Because if concentration plays such a big role in the deformation of orbits, then the question arises again: Why does the metal not self-heat up to millionth degree temperatures?

This means that in purely chaotic motion, electrons do not affect the orbits of atoms at all, while other electrons do, but in two ways and in a balanced way, as much as they are accidentally “warmed up” atoms, as much as they are “cooled” them too. It follows from this that “ideal atoms” are constantly and purely randomly formed in the metal, cooling atoms, and hence their “children” – Cooper electron pairs of superconductivity. And they also contribute to the overall conductivity.

The question remains: Why do “cooled” atoms form constantly and steadily during the junction current?

In the presence of current, a circular rotation of the spins of free electrons occurs (by the eddy magnetic field of the current), and this rotation into concentric rings of the spins of drifting electrons always DEFORMS ATOMIC ORBITS AND CAUSES HEATING.

BUT in the junction of two different metals, for some reason, the opposite and competing process occurs – COOLING.

AT THE EXPENSE OF what?

Let’s recall the beginning: in a “bad” conductor, the concentration of electrons is lower, which means that in the presence of current, they must move faster (due to the rule of constant current!) But as they move faster, the magnetic field of their drift will be LARGER. But this again contradicts both the Biot-Savard law and a variety of experimental facts: For a given current, there must be a magnetic field of the same magnitude in a single conductor around it! The only explanation that removes this contradiction is that the DENSITY and concentration of electrons are LOWER.

So far, all that has been said DOES NOT AT ALL EXPLAIN THE MAIN THING – COOLING the junction by CURRENT!!!

BUT!!!

One more try…

The only difference between electrons moving from a bad conductor to a good one is THEIR INDIVIDUAL drift velocity, which is higher than that of “natural” good electrons. It is this specific velocity that generates (within certain limits) a larger concentric ring rotation of their spins (again, compared to “natural” electrons), and this phenomenon may “CORRECT” DEFORMED ATOMIC ORBITS, making them more “ideal”, that is, causing the ATOMS to COOL DOWN!

A similar phenomenon will occur in the opposite case, when slow electrons, entering a bad conductor, replace its NATURAL electrons, which must move at a higher speed than that of the “aliens”. It should be emphasized again that NOT ANY orientation of the spin of free electrons in relation to the spins of the orbiting ones causes deformation or correction of the orbits, but only a concentric ring and, moreover, a very specific one, on the nature of which the heating or cooling of the metal depends.

That is, generalizing, we can assume:

In each conductor, the electron drift velocity must correspond to a certain “natural” velocity of THEIR own electrons. And then the substance heats up with an electric current.

But if “Alien” electrons enter the conductor, whose velocity and magnetic moments DO NOT CORRESPOND to “natural” ones, they can (within certain limits) “correct” the deformed orbits of atoms and bring them closer to ideal ones, that is, cause cooling of matter!

This is another forced hypothesis of the cooling mechanism of a single junction in the Peltier effect.

I’m forced to, because I’m not rushing into all sorts of “subversives”, but only because university textbooks and the Physical Encyclopedia do NOT give honest explanations for this effect, but a set of contradictory statements, and with an interval of several lines: The kinetic (zero) energy of free electrons IN NO WAY DEPENDS ON the TEMPERATURE IN In the WIDEST RANGES from almost Absolute zero to ten thousand degrees, then, suddenly, the “heated” electrons transfer this energy further along the metal. Sometimes they do some kind of “work”, overcoming something and cooling at the same time, then they give stored energy to something and therefore heat it up. But it has just been firmly stated, and not once, but all the time, that their energy does NOT DEPEND on temperature! So they can’t be either “hot” or “cold”!

Or that free electrons, like “elastic balls”, collide with atoms and ions in the nodes of the crystal lattice, or that drifting current electrons are “scattered” by impurity and thermal defects of the lattice.

Either the lines of force of the anode’s electric field in vacuum tubes with a maximum length of a couple of tens of centimeters “end” at clouds of thermoelectrons, or the fields applied to copper conductors, where the electron density is many orders of magnitude higher than in a “cloud of thermoelectrons”, do an excellent job (NOT “ending”!) with dense thicknesses of electrons with a length of thousands of kilometers away.

A set of meaningless phrases and statements that constantly contradict each other, and this is not accidental, but permanent self-refutation, not only in explaining the Seebeck and Peltier effects, but also in “explaining” the connection between the electrical and thermal conductivity of metals and thermoelectronic emission.

Or the “paradox of two electrons”, which is initially ABSURD, but nevertheless is seriously considered in university textbooks and even books on electrodynamics. Two electrons at rest relative to each other and at a relatively short distance from each other are in motion relative to a certain laboratory frame of reference. The question is, what kind of magnetic interaction forces will exist between them and what is their magnitude? And serious physicists cleverly calculate these NON-EXISTENT forces of magnetic interaction and come to the conclusion that the force of magnetic attraction will become equal to the force of Coulomb repulsion at a speed equal to “C” – the speed of light!

But since these and many other absurdities are DOGMAS of the HOLY PHYSICAL SCRIPTURES, they are the ULTIMATE TRUTH, and those who doubt them are heretics who are subject to the sedition court of the Physical Inquisition, followed by strict sending to the stake!

I haven’t thought of anything better yet.

Faciant meliora potentes.

If I’m wrong, let my seniors correct me.

25 XI 2025