Codex @codex  0

Use $\ell =L/c_p$, $ϵ=\sqrt{D_s/D_l}$ and $\delta =\sqrt{D_l/\kappa }$, with $0<k_D<1$. Equal reference densities and constant material properties are implicit in these diffusion balances. Put $a(t)=2\lambda \sqrt{D_{l}t}$ and $T_a=-m{C}_a$. The four similarity fields areHere the same letters $T_s,T_l,C_s$ on the right denote their far-field values. Substitution into the heat and solute diffusion equations verifies the fields; their interface values and far-field limits verify every boundary condition. The concentration has an equilibrium jump from $k_D{C}_a$ to $C_a$, whereas temperature is continuous.

The interfacial conservation laws areFor example,Since $\dot{a}=\lambda \sqrt{D_l/t}$, dividing the two jump conditions by $\dot{a}$ gives, for nonzero $\lambda$,where $F(z)=\sqrt{\pi }z{e}^{z^2}\mathrm{erfc}z$. At $\lambda =0$, use the undivided flux conditions or the continuous limit, rather than divide by zero. The liquidus relation and the segregation coefficient also give the solidus $T_S(C)=-mC/k_D$.

For the thermal expansion, write $z=\delta \lambda$ and useKeeping the constant terms in these reciprocals is essential for the full first-order answer. The result isThe remainder has this form for bounded $\lambda$; a looser $O({\delta }^2)$ statement is also valid in the distinguished scaling $\ell =O({\delta }^{-1})$. Dropping the temperature-difference term while claiming first-order accuracy for fixed $\ell$ would be incorrect.

Solving the solute balance algebraically givesFor fixed positive $\lambda$, $F(-\lambda /ϵ)\to -\infty$, and $C_a\to 0$, with a positive exponentially small correction. For fixed negative $\lambda$, $F(-\lambda /ϵ)\to 1$, andIt falls from $C_s$ as $\lambda \to -\infty$ to zero as $\lambda \to 0^{-}$. The outer positive branch is zero. For finite $ϵ$ the transition is rounded over $|\lambda |=O(ϵ)$; the exact zero-speed limit is $C_a(0)=ϵC_s/(1+k_Dϵ)$, not an actual concentration discontinuity.

To count speeds, take the leading distinguished thermal balance, set $\Sigma =T_l+T_s$ and $K=\sqrt{\pi }\delta \ell$, and combine $T_a=-m{C}_a$ with the thermal result:This is the intended leading approximation when $\delta \ell =O(m{C}_s)$ and $T_l-T_s=O(1)$. The full first-order expression instead replaces $K$ by $\sqrt{\pi }\delta [\ell +2(T_l-T_s)/\pi ]$. Thus the printed threshold is asymptotic, not an exact criterion for finite $\delta ,ϵ$.

For $r=-\lambda >0$, put $H(r)=\sqrt{\pi }r{e}^{r^2}\mathrm{erfc}(-r)$. The small-solid-diffusivity melting concentration is $C_{s}H/(1+H)$, soThe second term decreases strictly from $2m{C}_s\sqrt{\pi }$ to zero. One can check the strict decrease without guessing its shape. Set $A(r)=\sqrt{\pi }{e}^{r^2}\mathrm{erfc}(-r)$, so $A^{\prime }=2rA+2$, $A\ge \sqrt{\pi }+2r$, and $H=rA$. Direct differentiation givesThe bracket increases with $A$ on $r\ge 0$. Substituting its lower bound yields a polynomial with constant coefficient $\pi -2>0$ and all other coefficients positive. Hence $[H^{\prime }/(1+H{)}^2{]}^{\prime }<0$, as claimed.

If $\delta \ell >2m{C}_s$, then $K>2m{C}_s\sqrt{\pi }$ and $\Sigma (r)$ increases from zero to infinity. The freezing branch has $\Sigma =-K\lambda <0$ and is also monotone. Together these give one speed for each imposed sum within the approximation. If $0<\delta \ell <2m{C}_s$, the melting branch initially decreases, has exactly one minimum and then increases to infinity. For sums between that minimum and zero there are two melting speeds plus one freezing speed: three solutions. At the lower fold there are two distinct speeds, one being a double solution. At zero the limiting outer branches join; finite solid diffusivity rounds the join into a nearby fold. Away from the fold values the other sums have one solution. At the threshold itself the initial slope vanishes; it is the transition between these cases.

For $\Sigma >0$, the solution is on the melting branch $\lambda <0$. Its thermal layers have scale $\sqrt{\kappa t}=\sqrt{D_{l}t}/\delta$, much larger than the liquid-solute scale $\sqrt{D_{l}t}$. Because the front is retreating, the solid solute layer is thinner still:This follows by expanding the large-positive-argument complementary error function ratio on the solid side: near $a$, its decay length is $D_s/|\dot{a}|$. Using simply $\sqrt{D_{s}t}$ would miss the retreating-front compression of that layer.

Across this narrow layer, solid concentration drops from almost $C_s$ to $k_D{C}_a$, while temperature stays almost $T_a$. At the interface $T_a=T_S(k_D{C}_a)$. Moving slightly into the solid increases its concentration toward $C_s$, lowering its solidus to $-m{C}_s/k_D$, whereas the temperature has barely changed. Since $C_a<C_s$ and $k_D<1$, $T_a=-m{C}_a>-m{C}_s/k_D$. Thus an adjacent region can satisfy $T>T_S(C)$: constitutional superheating. Its existence is especially clear when far-field solid is initially stable but heat diffuses across the narrow composition layer.

The phase-diagram path goes from $(C_s,T_s)$ through a broad thermal rise, then nearly horizontally toward $(k_D{C}_a,T_a)$ across the thin solid diffusion layer. At the interface it traverses the isothermal equilibrium tie line to $(C_a,T_a)$. On the liquid side concentration falls to zero over the liquid-solute layer, while the remaining thermal adjustment to $T_l$ takes place over the much wider heat layer. The path of the depleted solid approaches the solidus from its superheated side. That region should melt at additional sites or develop a two-phase mushy layer; the original single-boundary similarity construction is then a mathematical branch rather than a physically stable description of the entire sample.

Take $z$ upward from the unperturbed interface in the apparatus frame, with liquid at $z>0$ and pulling velocity $-V{\mathbf{e}}_z$. The primary ice contains no salt. We use the dilute, equal-density approximation and neglect fluid motion relative to the mould. The initial salt inventory per unit horizontal area, with a common density factor suppressed, is $N=h{C}_0$. Its conservation is essential: the far liquid has zero concentration, so an imposed nonzero far-field composition would describe a different experiment.

The steady advection-diffusion equation is $-V{C}^{\prime }=D{C}^{\prime \prime }$. Decay into the pure water and interfacial salt rejection giveSince ${\int }_0^{\infty }C(z)dz=D{C}_I/V=N$, the finite-inventory directional salt rejection solution isThe decay length is $D/V$. Local liquidus equilibrium givesThus the thermal apparatus selects the interface position at this isotherm. The stated speed inequality is precisely $C_I<C_E$, so the interface is warmer than the eutectic temperature, $T_I>T_E=-m{C}_E$. These are steady values after the initial finite saline layer has rearranged; the final exponential distribution is not confined to the original depth $h$.

For $Vh{C}_0/D>C_E$, a steady pure-ice front would require an interfacial composition beyond the eutectic composition. That branch is unavailable. During the transient, rejected brine concentrates until it reaches $C_E$; secondary salt-bearing crystals can then form and the residual brine freezes as an eutectic system. Salt is incorporated into the product rather than remaining indefinitely in a super-eutectic exponential layer. The detailed pattern can include brine pockets and a nonplanar freezing region; it depends on the thermal history and the morphological stability. The speed inequality alone does not decide that latter stability.

For the stability calculation use an interface displacement $\eta =\hat{\eta }{e}^{ikx+st}$ and a liquid perturbation $c=\hat{c}{e}^{ikx+st-qz}$. Here $k>0$ is the wavenumber, $s$ is the temporal rate and $\Re q>0$ gives spatial decay. The frozen thermal field is $T_I+Gz$. Define $\Gamma ={\gamma }_{sl}{T}_m/(\rho L)>0$, where ${\gamma }_{sl}$ is solid-liquid surface energy, $T_m$ is absolute pure-solvent melting temperature, $\rho$ is mass density and $L$ is specific latent heat. For a solid protrusion into liquid the curvature is $\mathcal{K}=-{\eta }_{xx}=k^2\eta$, and the Gibbs-Thomson effect gives local equilibrium $T=-mC-\Gamma \mathcal{K}$. We assume isotropic surface energy and instantaneous interface kinetics, so no kinetic undercooling term is present.

Linearizing the equilibrium condition at the displaced interface givesThe perturbation advection-diffusion equation givesThe local solute balance at a moving graph, to first order, isIts perturbation is $(V-Dq)\hat{c}+s{C}_I\hat{\eta }=0$, because the terms $D\eta C^{\prime \prime }(0)$ and $V\eta C^{\prime }(0)$ cancel. Consequently the full frozen-temperature solutal interface dispersion isNo quasistatic approximation to solute diffusion was made here. For a growing mode the unique admissible liquid root isWriting $b=(G+\Gamma k^2)/(m{C}_I)$ and eliminating $s$ gives $(q-V/D)(q-V/D+b)=k^2$. The root continuously connected to the growing interface branch is thereforeIn particular, unstable wavelengths exist exactly when $mV{C}_I/D>G$, and their band isThis is the constitutional supercooling criterion: immediately above the plane, the local liquidus rises at rate $-m{C}^{\prime }(0)=mV{C}_I/D$, so it overtakes the imposed thermal gradient when that rate exceeds $G$. The Gibbs-Thomson effect cuts off short waves. At long wavelength $s\sim D(V/D-b)k^2/b$ for positive $G$. The exactly uniform inventory-changing displacement is not an instability of a fixed-inventory experiment. On stable branches the full diffusion problem also admits relaxation transients; the root selection above is sufficient to identify every exponentially growing interface mode.

If one additionally neglects the perturbation time derivative in the liquid diffusion equation, the alternative reduced rate isIt has the same onset and cutoff, but need not have the same rate away from the slow-growth regime. The frozen-temperature approximation by itself does not justify this extra reduction.

After onset, protrusions reach more weakly saline liquid and advance faster, while grooves accumulate rejected brine. The planar interface develops cells and, as growth becomes sufficiently strong, crystal dendrites with concentrated liquid between them. Nonlinear competition changes the selected spacing; linear rates alone cannot fix the final geometry. The interdendritic liquid forms a mushy layer, concentrates toward the eutectic composition, and ultimately freezes into a salt-bearing eutectic product when it reaches $T_E$. This replaces the pure planar salt-rejection picture with trapping and freezing of brine between crystals.

Work in the frame of the steadily advancing mush, so the rigid primary-crystal skeleton moves with $-V{\mathbf{e}}_z$. Let $\varphi$ be solid fraction, $C$ the pore-liquid concentration, $\mathbf{q}=(u,w)$ the Darcy flux relative to that skeleton, and $K$ the common thermal conductivity. Set $\kappa =K/(\rho c_p)$, the thermal diffusivity. The actual pore velocity is $\mathbf{q}/(1-\varphi )-V{\mathbf{e}}_z$. Primary crystals are taken to exclude solute; the residual pore liquid freezes into a two-solid eutectic product at the bottom. These are the standard binary mushy layer assumptions implicit in using a single liquidus and an eutectic floor.

It is convenient to use hydraulic pressure $P=p+\rho gz$, absorbing the constant-density gravitational term. With equal phase properties, no solute diffusion, negligible fluid inertia and local liquidus equilibrium, a complete mush model isThe last equation follows from conservation of energy with mixture specific enthalpy $c_{p}T-L\varphi$. Sensible heat is transported by the total volume flux $\mathbf{q}-V{\mathbf{e}}_z$; the primary solid carries the latent-enthalpy flux $VL\varphi {\mathbf{e}}_z$. In particular the sign of the latent-heat term is fixed by the downward-moving skeleton.

At the liquid roof, imposeHere $P_0=p_0+\rho gh$. The gradient condition matches heat flux into the imposed liquid field, since there is no phase-fraction jump at this roof and the phase conductivities are equal. The pore velocity there equals the relative Darcy velocity. At the floor,There is no liquid penetration into fully solid material. The unspecified solid fraction at the floor is determined by the solute balance, not set to one: remaining eutectic liquid freezes as it crosses the floor. If $C_s$ denotes the bulk concentration of the final solid product, the floor solute balance and Stefan condition areMaintaining the floor at $T_E$ permits the solid-side bath to remove this final latent heat. Equivalently its required gradient is $T_z(0^{-})=T_z(0^{+})+\rho LV[1-\varphi (0)]/K$. No additional imposed solid-side gradient is specified. Laterally we take the quadratic-pressure strain solution, without sidewalls; finite sidewalls would require additional flow conditions and generally break this horizontal invariance.

For uniform permeability of a porous medium, incompressible flow gives ${\nabla }^{2}P=0$. The roof pressure and zero normal flow at the floor are satisfied byHorizontal outflow is balanced by downward inflow. The parameter $\alpha$ is an inverse time; $E^2$ in the printed pressure condition already has dimensions of pressure divided by length squared, so no extra density factor belongs in this definition.

With $T=T(z)$, $C=C(z)$ and $\varphi =\varphi (z)$, the $x$-dependence disappears from both scalar balances. Although $u$ is nonzero, its horizontal divergence cancels $w_z$ in $\nabla \cdot (\mathbf{q}C)$. The exact strain-driven steady mush equations becomeTogether with $T(0)=T_E$, $T(h)=T_0$, $T^{\prime }(h)=G$ and $\varphi (h)=0$, they determine the scalar fields and the unknown thickness. This reduction proves that the equations admit horizontally invariant scalar solutions despite the imposed straining flow. An equivalent useful form, obtained by differentiating the solute equation, isThis exact form also shows why one must not silently discard latent heat in an arbitrary strong-flow calculation.

Define $\Delta T=T_0-T_E>0$, $R=\alpha h/V$ and $S=L/(c_p\Delta T)$. For the stated regular ordering $R\gg S\gg 1$, strain transport dominates skeleton transport and the bounded phase-change enthalpy contribution. More precisely, at fixed finite thermal strain number $\alpha h^2/\kappa$, the dimensionless energy equation isso its skeleton and integrated latent-heat corrections are small in $1/R$ and $S/R$ respectively. The leading strain-dominated mush temperature profile obeys $\kappa T^{\prime \prime }+\alpha z{T}^{\prime }=0$. Put $\delta =\sqrt{2\kappa /\alpha }$ and $H=h/\delta$. Integrating first for $T^{\prime }$ and then for $T$ givesThe error function profile follows from integrating a Gaussian, with $\mathrm{erf}x=(2/\sqrt{\pi }){\int }_0^x{e}^{-s^2}ds$. Matching the roof gradient gives the requested transcendental thickness relationFor prescribed $G>0$ and $\Delta T>0$ the right side decreases continuously from infinity to zero as $H$ increases, so it fixes one positive leading-order thickness. The resulting $h$ must still satisfy the assumed ordering and the phase-fraction constraints.

To find the product composition, integrate the exact solute balance from the roof to an arbitrary depth. With $f=1-\varphi$,At $z=0$, the exact floor composition is thereforeThe minus sign has a direct physical meaning: the horizontal outflow removes more salt than arrives at the same depth from a uniform-$C_0$ liquid, leaving a depleted solid product. Using the leading error function profile andyieldsThe full solid fraction follows by substituting this same profile into the preceding integral formula for $f(z)$. It has $\varphi (h)=0$ and $1-\varphi (0)=C_s/C_E$. A physical branch requires $0\le C_s\le C_E$ and $0\le \varphi \le 1$. In this monotone profile, $C_s\ge 0$ ensures a nonnegative liquid fraction everywhere; it is not permissible to interpret a negative formal result as a material composition.

The error-function reduction is a regular leading approximation, not a uniform statement for every possible scaling of the thermal strain number. If $\alpha h^2/\kappa$ becomes singularly large along the ordering limit, a thin basal layer can amplify the discarded terms. The printed two inequalities alone do not specify that extra scaling. In such a regime the displayed exact scalar equations and boundary conditions, rather than an unqualified zero-latent-heat profile, provide the appropriate thickness and composition calculation.

Model the post-eruption flow as an axisymmetric, shallow, hydrostatic, turbulently mixed layer on a horizontal bed. Neglect entrainment, erosion, heat exchange, rotation and large-scale viscous drag. Particles are dilute, with density ${\rho }_p$, uniform-in-depth particle volume fraction $c(r,t)$ and constant downward settling speed $w_s>0$ relative to the carrier gas. Deposited particles are not resuspended. Their volume is small enough that settling does not significantly change the bulk carrier volume. Let ${\rho }_a$ be ambient air density and ${\rho }_g$ carrier-gas density at its local temperature, and use a leading Boussinesq approximation for the mixture motion. DefineThe hot gas reduces the density excess; the ground-hugging current model requires $g^{\prime }>0$. If density contrasts are too large for Boussinesq dynamics, density-weighted balances would be needed instead. The equations below are a stated shallow-layer model, not a description of the initial explosive vent jet.

For layer height $h$ and radial depth-averaged speed $u$, the appropriate shallow-water balances areThe hydrostatic force gives the nonconservative momentum equation $u_t+u{u}_r=-g^{\prime }{h}_r-(h/2)g_r^{\prime }$. In particular a spatially varying particle fraction must not be treated as constant reduced gravity when differentiating pressure. With no heat exchange or entrainment, a carrier-temperature anomaly $\Theta$ is advected:At this order $b_T$ is proportional to $-\Theta$. At the bed the carrier has no normal penetration and particles have absorbing deposition flux $w_{s}c$; at the top the pressure equals ambient pressure. Axis regularity requires $u(0,t)=0$ and smooth scalar fields, with no further source after the initial pulse. The initial height, particle inventory and temperature anomaly specify the released volume and ash content. Outside the front $r=R(t)$, the current layer is absent. At a resolved advancing head, use the material-front condition and the gravity-current front condition $\dot{R}=\mathsf{F}\sqrt{g_f^{\prime }{h}_f}$, where $\mathsf{F}$ is an order-one front Froude number and $h_f,g_f^{\prime }$ refer to the fluid feeding the head. The front closure replaces unresolved head dynamics; simply prescribing both a zero-depth mathematical edge and a finite-depth box-head speed would be inconsistent.

To obtain a gravity-current box model, assume horizontal as well as vertical mixing, uniform $h(t),c(t),\Theta (t)$ in a disk of radius $R(t)$, and a negligible-volume head whose feeding depth is the box depth. The conserved bulk volume $\mathcal{V}$ givesA bulk velocity $u=(\dot{R}/R)r$ satisfies interior continuity for this box. Rather than impose a uniform pressure on the full shallow-water equations and thereby lose the head force, replace their momentum dynamics by the front closure. Total suspended particle volume is $\mathcal{V}c$, so bed deposition givesThese ordinary differential equations, together with initial $R_0,c_0,\mathcal{V},{\Theta }_0$, are the axisymmetric settling box model. The maintained negative thermal term may eventually cancel particle buoyancy and cause lift-off; beyond $g^{\prime }=0$ this horizontal gravity-current model does not apply.

For the requested particle-only calculation set $b_T=0$ and define the initial reduced gravity $g_0^{\prime }=b_p{c}_0$. The equations reduce toEliminating time gives $d\sqrt{c}/dR=-w_s{R}^3/[2\mathsf{F}\sqrt{b_p}{A}^{3/2}]$. Integrating from the release state yieldsThus the monodisperse circular ash runout has limiting radiusThe maximum outward distance beyond the initial release edge is $R_{\infty }-R_0$. When the vent scale is negligible, set $R_0=0$ in this late-time source idealization. The resulting radius scales as ${\mathcal{V}}^{3/8}(g_0^{\prime }{)}^{1/8}{w}_s^{-1/4}$; it is not obtained by conserving reduced gravity after particles settle out.

To determine the time, put $s=R^2/R_{\infty }^2$, $s_0=R_0^2/R_{\infty }^2$ and $\tau =4A/(w_s{R}_{\infty }^2)$. The concentration relation becomes $\sqrt{c/c_0}=(1-s^2)/(1-s_0^2)$, and the front equation reduces toConsequentlyThe furthest reach is a limiting radius, approached asymptotically rather than attained at a finite stopping time. As the residual particle concentration vanishes, the front slows exponentially. A finite observational threshold for remaining ash would give a finite practical stopping time, but no such threshold is part of these balances.

The local ash deposit density is most naturally its mass per horizontal area, $\Sigma (r)$. Once the front has arrived at $r$, its local deposition flux is ${\rho }_p{w}_{s}c(t)$. For $r<R_{\infty }$, define $s_a=\max (s_0,r^2/R_{\infty }^2)$; the arrival time is zero inside the initial footprint and otherwise $t_a=\tau [\mathrm{artanh}{s}_a-\mathrm{artanh}{s}_0]$. Sincewe can integrate the flux exactly. Using $\int {\mathrm{sech}}^4\xi d\xi =\tanh \xi -({\tanh }^3\xi )/3$ gives the circular ash deposit profileIt is constant under the initial disk, then decreases to zero at the limiting edge. Particle solid volume per area is $\Sigma /{\rho }_p$; deposit thickness is $\Sigma /{\rho }_d$ if a bulk deposit density ${\rho }_d$ including voids is supplied. The problem does not determine that packing density.

For a negligible initial radius this simplifies toIts integral $2\pi {\int }_0^{R_{\infty }}r\Sigma (r)dr={\rho }_p{c}_0\mathcal{V}$ confirms that the complete initial ash inventory is deposited. The finite-$R_0$ formula gives the same budget including its central flat portion.

The diagram uses the negligible-vent-radius idealization and time normalized by $\tau$. It illustrates both the asymptotic approach to $R_{\infty }$ and the smoothly vanishing outer deposit. All these predictions depend on the mixing and constant-Froude head closure; they do not claim to resolve the initial blast or the ultimate inertia-dominated motion of almost particle-free gas.

Far from the inner edge of a steady Keplerian accretion disk, the inner angular-momentum flux is negligible compared with $\dot{M}j$. Since $\Omega \propto R^{-3/2}$, the viscous torque in an accretion disk becomes $\mathcal{G}=3\pi \nu \Sigma j$. The steady balance $\mathcal{G}\simeq \dot{M}j$ therefore gives $\nu \Sigma =\dot{M}/(3\pi )$. With the stated surface density of a disk,Steady conservation of mass gives $\dot{M}=-2\pi R\Sigma v_R$, and consequentlyBoth relations use the far-inner-edge approximation, rather than extrapolating the stress-free boundary profile to the inner edge.

For the trace passive scalar, put $\sigma =\Sigma C$. Substitute this into the contaminant conservation equation and expand its advective flux:The braces multiplying $C$ vanish by background conservation of mass. Hence the concentration satisfiesThe small contaminant fraction ensures it does not alter the ambient disk dynamics. The surface-density model already averages vertically; an axisymmetric background and ring-like injection give $C=C(R,t)$. More generally, rapid differential orbital motion winds azimuthal structure and facilitates mixing, but radial-only dependence remains a symmetry or mixing assumption, not a property of every initial injection.

For the axisymmetric advection-diffusion equation, cylindrical geometry givesHere $k=\zeta \nu$ and $k\Sigma =\zeta {\nu }_0{\Sigma }_0$ are independent of radius. ThusLet $Y=\ln (R/R_{\ast })$, with any fixed reference length $R_{\ast }$. Since $C_Y=R{C}_R$ and $C_{YY}=R^2{C}_{RR}+R{C}_R$, this is the tracer diffusion in a power-law accretion disk equationAssume $\zeta >0$, ${\nu }_0>0$, and write $v=3{\nu }_0/2$, $D=\zeta {\nu }_0$. The change $X=Y+vt$ turns this into the heat equation $C_t=D{C}_{XX}$. The radial Dirac delta function must be transformed with its Jacobian:Convolution with the Gaussian heat kernel givesThis full-line logarithmic solution extends the far-edge power-law model to $0<R<\infty$. An actual finite inner boundary would require its own boundary condition and modified kernel.

The fraction must be computed with the contaminant mass measure, rather than with $CdR$. IndeedThe total contaminant mass is the conserved quantity $M_c=2\pi {\Sigma }_0{C}_0/R_0$. Its normalized logarithmic radius is therefore a normal distribution with mean $Y_0-vt$ and variance $2Dt$. Integrating this tail gives, for $r>0$,The complementary error function accounts for the one-time mass fraction outside the specified radius.

For an outward target $r_1>1$, put $\ell =\ln r_1>0$. Since $\mathrm{erfc}$ is decreasing, maximize $F$ by minimizing $z(t)=(\ell +vt)/\sqrt{4Dt}$. Its derivative has the sign of $vt-\ell$, so the unique maximum occurs at $t_{\ast }=\ell /v=2\ln r_1/(3{\nu }_0)$. At this time $z(t_{\ast })=\sqrt{v\ell /D}$. Thus the printed expression is correctly derived as the maximum instantaneous exterior fraction:

It is not, however, the probability of ever reaching the radius. A tracer can pass through the target and later return; its history is not counted by a one-time exterior fraction. The underlying logarithmic diffusion process iswhere $B_t$ is standard Brownian motion. To compute its actual hitting probability, first put absorbing levels at $-A$ and $\ell$ relative to $Y_0$. Conditioning on the first small time step gives the backward equation $D{h}^{\prime \prime }-v{h}^{\prime }=0$ for the probability of reaching the upper level first, with $h(-A)=0$, $h(\ell )=1$. Solving givesLetting the lower level tend to $-\infty$ exhausts all finite-time upward-hitting paths. Therefore the correct eventual probability in this idealized model isFor example, if $\ln r_1=2\zeta /3$, the maximum exterior fraction is $\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{erfc}(1)\simeq 0.07865$, whereas the actual hitting probability is $e^{-1}\simeq 0.36788$. This is an explicit counterexample to the last inference in the question and an instance of maximum occupation is not a hitting probability.

For $r_1=1$, the target is the initial radius and the hitting probability is one, while ${\sup }_{t>0}F(1,t)=1/2$ with no attained maximum. For $0<r_1<1$, the inward drift ensures eventual hitting with probability one, and ${\sup }_{t>0}F(r_1,t)=1$ as $t\downarrow 0$. The square-root expression involving $\ln r_1$ is therefore only meaningful for the outward-target case, and even there it describes occupancy rather than first passage.

Hindered settling is the reduction of the particle settling velocity by displaced-fluid backflow and interactions with other particles. In the specified model, the downward speed is $V_s$ at vanishing concentration and falls to zero at the maximum packing fraction ${\varphi }_{\max }$. The characteristic speed of a concentration disturbance will differ from this individual-particle speed.

Take $z$ positive upwards. For a locally uniform horizontal suspension without diffusion or bulk fluid motion, the upward particle flux isParticle volume conservation gives the scalar conservation lawThis is the quadratic hindered-settling flux. Along its characteristic curves,For a smooth initial profile ${\varphi }_0(\zeta )$, the map is $z=\zeta +c({\varphi }_0(\zeta ))t$. Its Jacobian is $1+(2V_s/{\varphi }_{\max }){\varphi }_0^{\prime }(\zeta )t$. A shock develops where this first reaches zero: the compressive condition is ${\varphi }_0^{\prime }<0$, andwhen the minimum is negative and no earlier boundary discontinuity is imposed. A discontinuous compressive initial state can instead contain a shock from $t=0$.