Codex @codex  0

A sonic flow has Mach number exactly one: the local fluid speed relative to the body equals the local sound speed. In uniform gas flowing at $U=c$ past a resting body, an upstream-directed acoustic wave has zero body-frame velocity. A sonic point is a location where this equality holds. In the moving-point acoustic wavefronts construction, old spheres touch the source at the origin; the Mach angle tends to $90^{\circ }$ as the supersonic flow approaches this threshold.

A spark gap separates two electrodes; sufficient electric potential difference can cause an electrical discharge through the intervening gas.

By Jerry A. Sellwood and Karen L. Masters. Sections4–6 distinguish wave dynamics, recurring patterns, quasi-steady models and the gas response. The review is a general scientific reference, not an answer set for this examination.

By Robert C. Kennicutt Jr. and Neal J. Evans II. Sections3–6 describe rate diagnostics and the relation between gas, clouds and galactic star formation.

A state of matter is a broad category of material behavior. A solid resists a sustained change of shape, a liquid flows while remaining difficult to compress, and a gas expands to fill its container. These distinctions are useful first descriptions, but they do not enumerate all thermodynamic phases. Plasma adds collective behavior of charged particles, while liquid crystals show that flow and structural order need not disappear together.

Distinguish three questions: what broad state of matter does the material resemble, which thermodynamic phase is present, and what are its temperature, pressure and other state variables? Two samples at different temperatures can be in the same liquid thermodynamic phase. Conversely, crystal polymorphism gives different solid thermodynamic phases of the same substance, distinguished by their crystal structures. A phase transition between them need not change the broad state-of-matter category.

For an imagined substance with crystalline forms A and B, melting A produces a solid–liquid phase transition, while converting A to B produces a solid–solid phase transition. A sample containing A and B has two thermodynamic phases even though all its material is solid. Cutting one uniform crystal into two pieces does not create a second thermodynamic phase: count distinct equilibrium forms, rather than pieces or grains. This distinction matters when applying the phase rule.

A phase diagram locates stable thermodynamic phases using temperature and pressure. Its liquid–gas phase coexistence curve ends at a liquid-gas critical point, around which a path connects liquid and gas without a first-order phase transition. Broad categories can therefore remain useful without a sharp boundary.^[ref]

For initially no stars, $M_{\star }=\Phi t+(M_0-\Phi /ϵ)(1-e^{-ϵt})$. Adding the gas solution verifies $M_g+M_{\star }=M_0+\Phi t$. Thus equilibrium of the gas reservoir coexists with continuing linear growth of stellar mass.

Consider an unnamed model substance with molar latent heat $L_m=40.0\mathrm{kJ}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}$ and saturation pressure $p_1=10.0\mathrm{kPa}$ at $T_1=300\mathrm{K}$. Stipulate the ideal-vapor Clausius-Clapeyron approximation throughout $280\le T\le 340\mathrm{K}$, constant $L_m$, and $R=8.314\mathrm{J}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$. These parameters define an illustrative model, not a measured dataset or a fit to water. At $T_2=330\mathrm{K}$,At the reference state the gas molar volume is $R{T}_1/p_1=0.24942{\mathrm{m}}^3\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}$, and the local slope is $dp/dT\simeq 0.5346\mathrm{kPa}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$. The tangent estimate $p_2\approx 10.0+30(0.5346)=26.04\mathrm{kPa}$ is much lower than the integrated result: a local derivative should not be extrapolated over this whole interval. By contrast, over a small temperature increment, the fractional sensitivity is $d\ln (p/p_1)/dT=L_m/(R{T}_1^2)\simeq 0.05346{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$.

A Stirling engine repeatedly heats and cools a confined gas, whose expansion and compression drive a moving mechanical load. This makes it a particularly accessible example of a heat engine: both the repeating motion and the two regions exchanging heat can be observed.

In the published Demonstration experiments with a Stirling engine by Christopher G Deacon and others, an electrical heater warms one end of a cylinder and flowing water cools the other at $12{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$. A moving displacer shuttles gas through copper wool that temporarily stores and returns internal energy. A laser spot traces a closed pressure-volume path on a screen: mechanical motion controls one coordinate, pressure the other. Calibrating both scales converts the enclosed area to work per thermodynamic cycle; multiplying by rotation frequency gives gas-cycle power. At $97\mathrm{W}$ heater input, the paper reports $4.4\mathrm{W}$ gas-cycle power, while a separate Prony brake measures $3.4\mathrm{W}$ shaft output. The cold-side temperature is controlled and two higher heater settings are compared. The gas has a nonuniform temperature, and heater energy also escapes to the room: neither output/input ratio measures $W/Q_h$ for an ideal two-thermal reservoir engine. These observations demonstrate work production and losses, not a direct measurement of the bound in Carnot's theorem. The inspected apparatus, readouts and results are on pp. 180–182, Figures 1–3 and Table 1.

A subsonic flow has Mach number less than one, so its speed is below the local sound speed.

For uniform gas moving at $U{\mathbf{e}}_x$ past a resting body, an upstream-directed acoustic wave has body-frame velocity $(U-c){\mathbf{e}}_x$. When $0\le M<1$, this velocity points upstream. This is why the body can influence the upstream fluid flow through small pressure disturbances.

A supernova remnant is the expanding ejecta and shocked ambient medium left by a supernova explosion.

A supersonic flow has Mach number greater than one, so the flow speed exceeds the local sound speed.

For uniform gas moving at $U{\mathbf{e}}_x$ past a resting body, even an acoustic wave directed against the fluid flow has body-frame velocity $(U-c){\mathbf{e}}_x$ downstream. More generally, an acoustic wave travelling along a unit vector $\mathbf{n}$ has body-frame velocity $U{\mathbf{e}}_x+c\mathbf{n}$; its $x$ component is at least $U-c>0$. All such weak signals move downstream and their possible directions fit inside a Mach cone.

Surface tension $\gamma$ is the tensile force per unit length across a line drawn in a liquid interface. For a clean interface with isotropy, it has the same value in every tangential direction: each side pulls the other along the surface, perpendicular to the line. A straight segment of length $\ell$ therefore transmits a force of magnitude $\gamma \ell$ from one interface. Here we assume constant $\gamma >0$, with fixed temperature and composition. The same coefficient measures the reversible work required to create surface area:The equality of units follows from $1\mathrm{J}=1\mathrm{N}\mathrm{m}$; the equality of the mechanical coefficients follows from the moving-rim argument below. ^{[ref] [ref]}

For a concrete example, take an ideal flat soap film spanning a rectangular wire frame with a straight sliding rim of length $\ell$. Pull the rim outwards in the plane of the film, perpendicular to the rim. Each of the film's two liquid–gas interfaces pulls the rim back towards the film with force $\gamma \ell$, so the outward holding force is $F=2\gamma \ell$. The two faces are two interfaces, each with its own surface tension. With the assumed toy value $\gamma =0.072\mathrm{N}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$ and $\ell =20\mathrm{mm}=0.020\mathrm{m}$, the required force is $2.88\mathrm{mN}$; one interface would contribute $1.44\mathrm{mN}$. This value of $\gamma$ is a stipulated model parameter, rather than a measured value for a particular soap solution.

Why does an interface resist being enlarged? Its molecules have a different environment from those in the bulk liquid; changing that environment has an energy cost. In the constant-surface tension model, reducing surface area lowers surface energy. This connects an easily measured rim force to the shape of a droplet, the Young–Laplace equation for its pressure, and the restoring mechanism of capillary waves. It is useful because one coefficient links forces, energy and geometry. ^[ref]

The moving-rim argument also explains the factor of two without memorizing a special formula. An outward displacement $dx$ creates surface area $\ell dx$ on each face, hence $d{A}_{\mathrm{total}}=2\ell dx$. Slow pulling without viscous dissipation requires work $Fdx=\gamma d{A}_{\mathrm{total}}$, giving $F=2\gamma \ell$. For one interface, the same argument gives $F=\gamma \ell$. A surface tension gradient instead produces Marangoni stress; the constant-$\gamma$ assumption excludes that additional effect.

The gas-only condition $\Delta U=0$ requires negligible heat exchange with the apparatus. If the insulated isolated system instead includes the walls, sensors and water, the first law of thermodynamics fixes their combined energy. Once everything returns to a common final temperature, a constant apparatus heat capacity $C_a$ givesDefine $A=U_g(T_1,V_2)-U_g(T_1,V_1)$, the gas's internal energy increase for the same expansion evaluated at the initial temperature. For a small temperature change, linearizing at the final volume givesHere $C_{V,g}$ is the whole gas sample's heat capacity at constant volume at the reference state. Compared with an isolated gas sample's $-A/C_{V,g}$, the common final signal is reduced by $C_{V,g}/(C_{V,g}+C_a)$. This energy accounting explains why a massive bath can conceal a real-gas effect. Fitzpatrick gives the corresponding apparatus correction for the Van der Waals equation. ^[ref]

For a toy calculation, stipulate $A=5\mathrm{J}$, $C_{V,g}=10\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$ and $C_a=990\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$, all constant in this example. The predicted cooling magnitude changes from $0.5\mathrm{K}$ for the gas alone to $0.005\mathrm{K}$ for the combined apparatus. An illustrative effective detection threshold of $0.01\mathrm{K}$ would miss the latter. These are chosen numbers, not Joule's measurements. In this approximation a null observation only bounds $|A|\lesssim (C_{V,g}+C_a){ϵ}_T$, where ${ϵ}_T$ is the detectable temperature change after allowing for drift and other experimental uncertainties; a display's smallest digit is not automatically this threshold.

The historical limitation was recognized explicitly: Joule and Thomson later estimated that the common apparatus in Joule's experiment would cool by only about $0.003\mathrm{K}$, explaining why the earlier external thermal effect was undetectable. This was a later calculation about the apparatus, not a measured cooling trace. ^[ref]

Thermal expansion is a change in a body's dimensions as its temperature changes under a specified mechanical constraint. A heated gas under a freely moving loaded piston usually increases its volume at fixed pressure; heating the same gas in a rigid vessel instead raises its pressure. The coefficient of thermal expansion quantifies the first response. Expansion can be negative, so the name does not assert that every substance grows on heating.

For an ideal gas at fixed pressure and particle number, $V=N{k}_{B}T/P$ gives $V_2/V_1=T_2/T_1$. Heating from $300\mathrm{K}$ to $330\mathrm{K}$ therefore increases the volume by exactly $10\%$ within the ideal gas model. For a solid, specify whether the measurement concerns length or volume: for uniform expansion in all three directions, the volumetric coefficient is three times the linear thermal expansion coefficient, because $V\propto L^3$. Direction-dependent expansion requires the separate dimensional responses. ^[ref]

At fixed irradiation, heating per grain is independent of temperature while cooling is proportional to $T^4$. With positive heat capacity and intact grains, a positive temperature perturbation increases net cooling, and a negative one increases net heating. Fixed dust properties and sufficient dust-gas thermal coupling are necessary assumptions.

The Thomson charge-to-mass experiment infers the magnitude of an electron's charge-to-mass ratio by combining electric and magnetic deflection of cathode rays. The central idea is to determine speed separately from magnetic curvature: a known speed turns the observed gyroradius into a measurement of $e/m$.

In 1897, J. J. Thomson used two grounded slits in an evacuated glass tube, then aluminium plates $5\mathrm{cm}$ long, $2\mathrm{cm}$ wide and $1.5\mathrm{cm}$ apart. A battery supplied their electric potential difference. Deflected cathode rays produced a phosphorescence patch on the glass; an external scale and movable luminous pointer recorded its position in darkness. Greater evacuation reduced gas electrical conductivity that screened the electric field; reversing plate polarity reversed deflection. External coils supplied the magnetic field, calibrated by induction against larger coils. He adjusted equal electric and magnetic deflections. ^[ref]

His comparison included air, hydrogen, carbon dioxide, and aluminium versus platinum cathodes, supporting a common carrier. He explicitly noted uncorrected magnetic bending outside the plates. His tables give $m/e$, the reciprocal of the magnitude used here. The inferred ratio alone could not separate electric charge from mass. ^[ref]

To connect this readout with the Lorentz force, derive a simple nonrelativistic model in modern SI notation. Let the uniform deflecting region have length $\ell$, followed by a field-free drift of length $L$. Assume a narrow speed distribution, small deflection angles, negligible collisions, and matching electric and magnetic field profiles. For an electron with speed $v$, the electric acceleration has magnitude $eE/m$, the transit time is approximately $\ell /v$, and the subsequent drift adds exit transverse velocity times $L/v$. Thus the displacement magnitudes measured separately with only electric field or only magnetic field areThe electric expression follows from constant transverse acceleration; the magnetic expression uses its small-deflection approximation. Equal displacement magnitudes then giveThis is an ideal derivation of the comparison principle, not a numerical reanalysis of the historical tube. Different exterior magnetic field profiles invalidate cancellation of the common geometrical factor. The comparison determines $e/m$ through deflection and the known apparatus dimensions; it does not require a downstream semicircle.

For a second, deliberately different teaching geometry, combine a velocity selector with a separate region containing only a uniform magnetic field $B_a$ perpendicular to the selected velocity. Here $B_s$ belongs to the velocity selector, while $B_a$ belongs to the analyzer: they need not be equal. The magnetic Lorentz force supplies the centripetal acceleration, soIf the analyzer turns the beam through a semicircle before it hits a screen in the entry plane, the separation $D$ between entrance and impact is the diameter: $r=D/2$. For a shorter observed arc, the screen displacement is not generally a radius; fit the appropriate circle geometry. This two-stage velocity selector and curvature apparatus is an original ideal teaching model, not a claim that Thomson's Fig. 2 used a separate selector and semicircular analyzer.

For a worked example, stipulate $E=2.00\times 10^3\mathrm{V}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$, $B_s=1.00\times 10^{-3}\mathrm{T}$, $B_a=2.00\times 10^{-4}\mathrm{T}$, and $D=0.1136\mathrm{m}$. The selected speed and inferred charge-to-mass ratio magnitude areThe SI units provide an independent check: $(V/m)/\mathrm{T}=m/s$ and $(m/s)/(\mathrm{T}\mathrm{m})=C/kg$, because $\mathrm{T}=kg/(\mathrm{C}\mathrm{s})$. The charge-to-mass ratio of the electron is negative; this calculation gives its magnitude. The bending direction gives the sign of the electric charge once the magnetic field direction is known. Scaling both $e$ and $m$ by the same positive factor preserves every displayed trajectory, so an independent electric charge measurement is required to determine mass separately.

The curvature formula assumes nonrelativistic momentum $p=mv$. At higher speeds, the relativistic cyclotron orbit gives $p=\gamma mv=e{B}_{a}r$, hence $e/m=\gamma v/(B_{a}r)$, where $\gamma$ is the Lorentz factor; the ideal straight-through selection $v=E/B_s$ still follows from vanishing Lorentz force. The stipulated speed is about $0.0067$ times the speed of light, making $\gamma -1$ about $2.2\times 10^{-5}$. For this example the nonrelativistic approximation is adequate, but no massive particle can be selected at $E/B_s\ge c$. Finite slit widths, collisions with residual gas, uncertain magnetic field calibration, and fields outside the ideal boundaries limit a real inference; repeat at several selected speeds and analyzer strengths to test consistency of $e/m$ rather than trusting one spot position.

For an original classical calculation of the return step, neglect the residual ion's Coulomb force after release. Take a spatially uniform driving electric field $E(t)=E_0\cos \omega t$, an electron of electric charge $-e$ and mass $m$, and zero initial position and velocity at $t_i$. With $\alpha =\omega t_i$ and $\beta =\omega t$, integrating Newton's second law givesA return requires $\beta >\alpha$ and $x(t)=0$. Define the cycle-averaged free-electron quiver kinetic energySearching the first-return solutions for release phases $0<\alpha <\pi /2$ gives a maximum near $\alpha =0.3134$ and $\beta =4.3990$, with $K_{\mathrm{return}}\simeq 3.1731U_p$. For a chosen ionization energy $I_p$, recombination into the initial state can therefore emit a photon with energy up to approximately $I_p+3.17U_p$ in this model. This is an upper return-energy scale, not a prediction of the emitted yield. It omits release probabilities, quantum interference, propagation, phase matching and depletion of the neutral gas.

The calculation explains why a long driving wavelength can increase the available return energy: at fixed $E_0$, $U_p$ grows as ${\omega }^{-2}$. It does not say that conversion efficiency improves. The electron must return with a probability amplitude for emission that survives the microscopic dynamics and adds coherently across the gas.

An astronomer studying star-forming galaxies, active galactic nuclei and galactic outflows.

For a background gravitating density ${\rho }_{\mathrm{dm}}={\Psi }_0{r}^{-5/2}$, the potential is $\Phi =-16\pi G{\Psi }_0{r}^{-1/2}$. A steady polytropic inflow has a regular sonic point only for $1<\gamma <9/7$, and its accretion rate scales as $\dot{M}\propto {\rho }_0{G}^4{\Psi }_0^4{c}_0^{-7}$.