Codex @codex  0

The cell membrane, also called the plasma membrane, is the selective boundary separating a biological cell's cytoplasm from its surroundings. Both prokaryotes and eukaryotes have a cell membrane. Where a cell wall is present, it is a distinct structure outside the cell membrane; the two names are not synonyms. This separation lets a biological cell maintain internal conditions while exchanging material through membrane transport. See NHGRI: cell membrane.

The familiar architecture is a lipid bilayer containing membrane proteins. In a phospholipid-based lipid bilayer, two membrane leaflets face opposite ways: hydrophilic heads face the water on each side, while hydrophobic tails face one another in the interior. The heads are therefore exposed both outside and inside the biological cell. This arrangement combines a water-facing surface with a barrier to many water-soluble solutes; the schematic represents organization rather than an atomistic structure. See Alberts et al., Molecular Biology of the Cell: the lipid bilayer.

Selective permeability means that different substances cross at different rates under comparable conditions. Small nonpolar molecules can pass through a lipid bilayer by diffusion, while ions encounter a strong barrier without a suitable route. An ion channel supplies a selective water-filled pathway when open; a carrier protein binds a solute and changes shape to expose it to the other side. These membrane proteins therefore add specific routes to the barrier. An open ion channel permits passive transport, whereas a carrier protein can mediate either passive transport or active transport. See Alberts et al.: principles of membrane transport.

The useful combination is retention plus controlled exchange: a completely impermeable boundary would prevent uptake, whereas unrestricted mixing would erase differences in concentration and membrane potential. The fluid mosaic model connects these functions to an organized but mobile lipid bilayer containing proteins.

Walther Bothe and Herbert Becker observed penetrating radiation from beryllium struck by alpha particles before James Chadwick's interpretation.^[ref]

Irène Joliot-Curie and Frédéric Joliot found that adding material containing hydrogen increased ionization, interpreting the ejected protons as Compton scattering recoils from extremely energetic gamma rays. James Chadwick tested this interpretation against nuclear recoils in other elements.^[ref]

The counter coupled a small ionization chamber to an amplifier and oscillograph: charged particles produced ions, and the electrical signal gave a deflection. With Norman Feather, James Chadwick also observed nitrogen recoil tracks in a cloud chamber.^[ref]

The apparatus used polonium on silver facing beryllium inside an evacuable vessel. Paraffin wax before the aluminium counter window supplied recoil protons; intervening aluminium screens measured their particle range. Deflections were photographed on bromide paper. The first counter contained air; later fillings included hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, oxygen and argon. Counts with wax absent included gas recoils; wax insertion added entering protons. Thick lead between source and counter hardly changed the initial counts, testing penetration against the low background.^[ref]

The diagram separates two routes to a signal: a proton entering from the wax and a nuclear recoil created inside the chamber gas. Its lower row is a logical summary, rather than a reconstructed experimental trace. In either route the observed ionization belongs to a charged secondary particle; identifying the incident radiation requires an additional collision model.

In the February letter, a photon interpretation requiring about $52\mathrm{MeV}$ for the protons predicted only about $0.4\mathrm{MeV}$ for nitrogen recoils, below the observed ionization. Here $1\mathrm{MeV}=10^6$ electronvolts. James Chadwick proposed a neutral particle near the proton mass and the nuclear reactionThese are the letter's approximate historical values, not a modern mass determination.^[ref]

Why compare two materials? A gamma ray is a photon, so its incident momentum is $E_{\gamma }/c$, where $c$ is the speed of light. A slow massive projectile instead has momentum $mv$ and kinetic energy $m{v}^2/2$. The relationship between incoming momentum and energy therefore changes. An elastic collision model must explain the recoil endpoints for both target masses with the same incident projectile population. Calling the radiation neutral supplies no such agreement by itself.

The original measurements depended on particle range calibration, material in the path, detector response and whether a recoil was fully stopped in the sensitive gas. Large deflections alone need not specify a complete recoil energy. The calculations below expose the ideal collision assumptions behind the inference; applying them to a measured spectrum requires checking those assumptions.

A charge carrier transports electric charge by moving: electrons are one example, and ions are another. For species $s$ with number density $n_s$, electric charge $q_s$ and mean velocity ${\mathbf{v}}_s$, the transport contributions add as $\mathbf{J}={\sum }_s{n}_s{q}_s{\mathbf{v}}_s$. A stationary charged background contributes to charge density but not to this current density. ^[ref].

Coupled changes in ions, oxidation states or vacancies that preserve charge balance when a lattice substitution changes formal charge.

A surface can change its surface charge density as its local electric potential and solution composition change, for example through reversible ionization or ion adsorption. This couples the surface reaction equilibrium to the surrounding electric double layer. Fixed-charge and fixed-potential models are limiting boundary conditions rather than interchangeable descriptions. Salt or pH changes can therefore alter both electrostatic screening and the repulsion amplitude.

Overcompensation of an initial interfacial charge by adsorbed species or correlated ions, so the charge or potential inferred outside the compact interfacial region has the opposite sign. Screening of a fixed boundary charge alone is not the same mechanism.

A chemical element is an identity shared by all chemical atoms whose atomic nuclei contain the same number of protons. That number is its atomic number, $Z$: six means carbon, eleven means sodium. The identity survives differences in neutron count, which distinguish isotopes, and differences in electron count, which distinguish neutral chemical atoms from ions. See the IUPAC Gold Book, chemical element.

The same name can also denote a pure chemical substance containing only that chemical element. These two uses answer different questions. Molecular oxygen, ${\mathrm{O}}_2$, is a chemical substance made entirely of oxygen; water, ${\mathrm{H}}_2\mathrm{O}$, is a chemical compound containing both hydrogen and oxygen. A water molecule contains three chemical atoms but only two chemical elements. Joining chemical atoms through chemical bonds changes their arrangement without changing their atomic numbers.

This distinction makes stoichiometry possible: ordinary chemical reactions rearrange chemical atoms, so one can count each chemical element before and after a transformation. Changing the proton count instead changes the chemical element and requires a nuclear reaction. The periodic table organizes these identities into a useful map, while atomic number bookkeeping keeps identity, isotope, and electric charge separate.

A tabulated electronegativity is useful because it compresses many comparisons, but one number per chemical element suppresses chemical context. Changing the bonded partners, bond length or electron configuration changes the conditions under which a chemical atom attracts electron density. The bond-dissociation energy can change for reasons beyond bond polarization, so attributing every extra unit of energy solely to an electronegativity difference is an approximation.^[ref]

An oxidation state labels a formal allocation of electrons; it is not a measured partial atomic charge. State-sensitive electronegativity models may give different values for different oxidation states or electron configurations, while a simple chemical element table intentionally provides a common comparison convention. Likewise, replacing an isolated chemical atom by a site in an ionic crystal introduces a surrounding electric field and many neighbours. Applying the same tabulated electronegativity without adjustment becomes an additional assumption.^[ref]

For the ground-state Mulliken scale, the state dependence is visible directly in the formula. Replacing $X$ by $X^{+}$ replaces $E(X^{+})-E(X)$ with $E(X^{2+})-E(X^{+})$ as the removal cost, and replaces $E(X)-E(X^{-})$ with $E(X^{+})-E(X)$ as the attachment release. These are different ionization energies and electron affinities. This isolated-ion arithmetic does not claim that a bonded chemical atom with the same formal oxidation state is an isolated ion. In a molecule, the actual electron density and dipole evidence for bond polarization supply complementary information about that environment.

A chemical equation represents a chemical reaction using chemical formulas, with reactants on the left and reaction products on the right. A balanced chemical equation has the same number of chemical atoms of each chemical element on both sides. For molecular hydrogen and molecular oxygen forming water,The coefficients $2,1,2$ give the relative numbers of molecules; the coefficient $1$ is normally omitted. Count hydrogen as $2\times 2=4$ on the left and $2\times 2=4$ on the right, and oxygen as $1\times 2=2$ on the left and $2\times 1=2$ on the right. See Flowers et al., Chemistry 2e, §4.1: writing and balancing chemical equations.

To balance the initial expression ${\mathrm{H}}_2+{\mathrm{O}}_2⟶{\mathrm{H}}_2\mathrm{O}$, first put $2$ before water to match the two oxygen chemical atoms. This creates four hydrogen chemical atoms on the right, so put $2$ before molecular hydrogen. Changing a coefficient multiplies the entire chemical formula. Changing a subscript changes composition and usually the chemical substance: $2{\mathrm{H}}_2\mathrm{O}$ is two water molecules, whereas ${\mathrm{H}}_2{\mathrm{O}}_2$ is one hydrogen peroxide molecule. Never balance a chemical equation by changing its subscripts.

The bookkeeping follows from conservation of the atomic nuclei in ordinary, non-nuclear chemical reactions; chemical bonds and the distribution of electrons can change. For a chemical equation involving ions, total electric charge must also match. For example, the existing self-ionization of water equation has zero total electric charge on each side, since the $+1$ of hydronium cancels the $-1$ of hydroxide. See 2.6 Ionic and Molecular Compounds (§2.6: nuclei and ions).

The same $2:1:2$ ratio relates changes in amount of substance: two moles of molecular hydrogen consumed per mole of molecular oxygen correspond to two moles of water formed. A mole is a defined unit, not one molecule; the little whole-number picture is an abstract counting model, not a claim that a macroscopic sample contains just five molecules. See molecular count and amount of substance for the exact conversion and SI base unit: mole by Bureau International des Poids et Mesures for the definition.

This is why a balanced chemical equation is useful: stoichiometry turns the same atom accounting into relations between measurable quantities. It does not determine reaction rate, the final conversion set by chemical equilibrium, or the actual yield of recovered reaction products. The limiting reagent gives an upper bound under the specified chemical reaction.

A chemical formula uses symbols of chemical elements and numerical subscripts to record composition. In the molecular formula ${\mathrm{H}}_2\mathrm{O}$ of water, the subscript $2$ counts two hydrogen chemical atoms, and the omitted subscript after $\mathrm{O}$ means one oxygen chemical atom. A molecular formula describes one molecule; a chemical formula need not describe a discrete molecule.

Read a preceding coefficient separately from the subscripts. One ${\mathrm{H}}_2\mathrm{O}$ contains two hydrogen and one oxygen chemical atom; $2{\mathrm{H}}_2\mathrm{O}$ contains four hydrogen and two oxygen chemical atoms distributed between two water molecules. In ${\mathrm{H}}_2{\mathrm{O}}_2$, the second subscript instead puts two oxygen chemical atoms into each hydrogen peroxide molecule. Thus $2{\mathrm{H}}_2\mathrm{O}\ne {\mathrm{H}}_2{\mathrm{O}}_2$: the coefficient scales the whole chemical formula, while a subscript specifies its composition. See Flowers et al., Chemistry 2e, §2.4: chemical formulas.

For crystalline $\mathrm{NaCl}$, the chemical formula specifies a $1:1$ ratio of sodium ions ${\mathrm{Na}}^{+}$ to chlorine ions ${\mathrm{Cl}}^{-}$. Its formula unit is the accounting entity; the ordinary crystal is an extended arrangement of ions, rather than a collection of discrete $\mathrm{NaCl}$ molecules. Specifying the entity matters when assigning an amount of substance. See formula unit and 2.6 Ionic and Molecular Compounds (§2.6: ionic and molecular compounds).

A molecular formula gives an atom inventory, not the full arrangement of chemical bonds or the molecular geometry. For example, ${\mathrm{C}}_6{\mathrm{H}}_{12}{\mathrm{O}}_6$ counts six carbon, twelve hydrogen, and six oxygen chemical atoms in a glucose molecule, but does not specify the pattern shown by its Fischer projection. Different structures can share a molecular formula. This compact inventory is useful for chemical equation accounting precisely because it leaves the structural detail to other representations.

The choice of letters has an early explanation in Jöns Jacob Berzelius, Essay on the Cause of Chemical Proportions (1813–1814), §III, transcribed by Carmen Giunta: letters made chemical signs easier to write and print, and formulas compressed information about composition. His numerical notation differed from modern subscripts; the lasting idea was to make proportions readable in ordinary text.

A chemical synapse transmits a signal by releasing neurotransmitter from a presynaptic neuron to act on postsynaptic receptors across a synaptic cleft. The two cell membranes remain separate. A typical fast transmission sequence is:

See Chemical Synapses and 3.1 Synapses. The fast pathway uses synaptic vesicles prepared near release sites; it does not require a distant synaptic vesicle to travel across the terminal after every action potential. See Basic Neurochemistry: calcium entry and vesicles at release sites. Some chemical synapses release neurotransmitter in response to graded presynaptic membrane potential changes rather than action potentials.

Neurotransmitter clearance limits how long released neurotransmitter remains available. Depending on the neurotransmitter and location, diffusion away, uptake through membrane transport proteins into the sending or neighboring biological cells, and breakdown by enzymes contribute. Receptor binding and unbinding also affect response duration. Recovering synaptic vesicle membrane is a separate recycling task; uptake of released neurotransmitter is not the return of an intact synaptic vesicle. See General Principles of Cell Communication.

This electrical-to-chemical-to-electrical sequence offers several places to adjust a signal: synaptic release probability, receptor availability and neurotransmitter clearance can change its strength or duration. It helps explain why synaptic plasticity can modify communication between neurons, and why an arriving action potential need not cause a postsynaptic action potential.

Otto Loewi's 1936 Nobel lecture describes his 1921 experiment: fluid from a frog heart whose nerves had been stimulated produced the corresponding response when transferred to another heart. The transferable substance established chemical mediation in that preparation. This was evidence for released chemical signaling, not yet an identification of synaptic vesicle fusion and not a claim that every synapse is chemical. See Loewi, The Chemical Transmission of Nerve Action, Nobel lecture, 12 December 1936.

Chemiosmosis couples transmembrane ion movement down an electrochemical gradient to a chemical transformation. For mitochondrial ATP synthesis, protons return from the intermembrane space to the mitochondrial matrix through ATP synthase.^[ref]

An original thermodynamic example separates the electrical and chemical contributions. At fixed temperature $T$, use ideal dilute thermodynamic activities $a$ and the electric potential $\psi$ on each side. The molar electrochemical potential difference for inward transfer of a singly charged proton isHere $R$ is the molar gas constant, $F$ the Faraday constant, and $\ln$ the natural logarithm. The sign convention is destination minus origin: a negative difference makes inward transfer favourable. Both lower proton activity and a more negative electric potential inside favour inward movement.

Stipulate $T=300\mathrm{K}$, $a_{\mathrm{matrix}}/a_{\mathrm{outside}}=0.1$, ${\psi }_{\mathrm{matrix}}-{\psi }_{\mathrm{outside}}=-0.12\mathrm{V}$, $R=8.314\mathrm{J}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$ and $F=96485\mathrm{C}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}$. These illustrative inputs give approximately $-5.743$ and $-11.578\mathrm{kJ}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}$ for the chemical and electrical terms, hence $-17.321\mathrm{kJ}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}$ per transferred proton. For a hypothetical device coupling three inward protons per ATP to an ATP-formation cost of $45\mathrm{kJ}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}$,The sign follows by adding changes in the state function Gibbs free energy. It establishes thermodynamic feasibility for this chosen model, not its reaction rate. Three is a stipulated coupling count, not a universal ATP synthase stoichiometry; transport costs and leaks can also consume the available free energy.

A physicist researching quantum information with trapped ions.^[ref]

Citrate denotes an ion derived from citric acid. The commonly specified form has electric charge equal to that of three electrons and chemical formula ${\mathrm{C}}_6{\mathrm{H}}_5{\mathrm{O}}_7^{3-}$; it results from removing three hydrogen ions from citric acid. Forms with additional hydrogen ions attached through protonation also occur. ^[ref]

Consider an illustrative water–air mixture, initially saturated at $T_0=293.15\mathrm{K}$. Let $\lambda =V/V_0$ be the expansion ratio and approximate the carrier gas by a uniform ideal gas with constant heat capacity ratio $\gamma =1.40$. Before significant condensation, assume fixed numbers of carrier and vapor molecules, negligible incoming heat, and the reversible adiabatic expansion relation. The first law of thermodynamics, $n{C}_{V}dT=-pdV$, with the ideal gas law, givesThe vapor follows the same temperature, so its partial pressure scales as $T/V$. A rapid real piston motion need not be reversible; the formula is an idealized bulk estimate after neglecting flow and losses.

Use a physically motivated Integrated Clausius-Clapeyron relation for the equilibrium water vapor pressure, with stipulated rounded constants $p_0=2339\mathrm{Pa}$ at $T_0$, molar latent heat $L_m=45000\mathrm{J}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}$ and molar gas constant $R=8.314\mathrm{J}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$:These constants define the example, without fitting any historical measurements. Throughout the plotted interval $1\le \lambda \le 1.17$, the temperature stays above the freezing point of water. InitiallyThus the decrease in vapor pressure initially beats dilution. At $\lambda =1.15$, the model gives $T=277.21\mathrm{K}$, $p_v=1923.33\mathrm{Pa}$, $p_{\mathrm{sat}}=809.07\mathrm{Pa}$ and $S=2.3772$.

Why does $S>1$ not instantly make every molecule a visible drop? In the capillarity approximation of classical nucleation theory, a neutral spherical drop of radius $r$ has a positive surface energy cost and a negative bulk Gibbs free energy contribution. For molecular liquid volume $v_l$, surface tension $\sigma$ and Boltzmann constant $k_B$,Differentiating $\Delta G$ shows that the critical nucleus at $r_{\ast }$ is a maximum: smaller neutral drops tend to shrink, whereas larger ones can grow. With stipulated $\sigma =0.075\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{m}}^{-2}$, $v_l=2.99\times 10^{-29}{\mathrm{m}}^3$ and $k_B=1.380649\times 10^{-23}\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$, the $\lambda =1.15$ example gives $r_{\ast }=1.353\mathrm{nm}$ and $\Delta G_{\ast }/(k_{B}T)=150.3$. A substantial neutral-drop barrier can coexist with supersaturated vapor.

This is deliberately a neutral-drop comparison. An ion changes the cluster free energy through electrical interactions and molecular hydration; the formula does not calculate the ion-assisted nucleation threshold. At nanometre radii, using bulk surface tension is itself approximate. There is no predicted droplet count, growth time or detection efficiency here. Once many drops grow, latent heat release, vapor depletion and heat transfer from the chamber walls invalidate the dry adiabatic expansion trajectory. The example therefore explains the direction of the effect and the need for nucleation, without extrapolating its curves to Wilson's cloud limits.

In 1932 John Douglas Cockcroft and Ernest Thomas Sinton Walton accelerated hydrogen ions from a discharge source through an evacuated tube onto lithium at $45^{\circ }$. A side-facing zinc sulfide screen, viewed by microscope, showed particle scintillations. Mica stopped scattered protons; switching off or blocking the beam removed the flashes. An external screen allowed absorption-range measurements.^[ref]

Magnetic deflection checked voltage calibration. Opposite screens and independent observers found excess coincidences for a thin lithium target, supporting paired alpha particle emission; geometry and screen efficiency limited detection.^[ref]

John Douglas Cockcroft's 1951 lecture recalls detection at $125\mathrm{kV}$ and an absorption range about $8.4\mathrm{cm}$, then refined alpha particle energies about $8.6\mathrm{MeV}$ each. He places the work under Ernest Rutherford's direction. The inferred nuclear reaction was lithium-7 plus a proton producing two alpha particles.^[ref]

The logic has several independent links. Beam blocking tests whether the flashes depend on bombardment. An absorber tests whether scattered beam particles could reach the screen. A particle range tests product identity and kinetic energy, while coincidences test whether two products belong to one event. These tests support a reaction interpretation jointly; counting flashes alone is not an isotope identification, and a range-to-energy conversion needs calibration. The lithium proton reaction energy below is a modern calculation, separate from those historical measurements.

With the same conventions as the cold-plasma right-handed wave, this transverse electromagnetic wave has $E_y=-i{E}_x$ and refractive index $n^2=S+g$. With immobile ions, $L=1-{\omega }_{pe}^2/[\omega (\omega +{\Omega }_e)]$.

Take a cold, unmagnetized, collisionless plasma with uniform equilibrium electron density $n_e$, fixed neutralizing ions, and a small electromagnetic wave that is a transverse wave. Cold means that thermal-motion corrections are neglected. For electron mass $m_e$, elementary charge magnitude $e$ and electric field $\mathbf{E}=\mathrm{Re}(\hat{\mathbf{E}}{e}^{-i\omega t})$, the linear Newton's second law equation is $m_e\dot{\mathbf{v}}=-e\mathbf{E}$. Thus $\hat{\mathbf{v}}=-ie\hat{\mathbf{E}}/(m_e\omega )$ and the current density is $\hat{\mathbf{J}}=i{n}_e{e}^2\hat{\mathbf{E}}/(m_e\omega )$. Writing the induced electric polarization as $\hat{\mathbf{J}}=-i\omega \hat{\mathbf{P}}$ gives a negative electric susceptibility. With vacuum permittivity ${ϵ}_0$,The plasma frequency ${\omega }_p$ controls the response. For $\omega >{\omega }_p$, the propagating branch has real refractive index $0<n<1$. For $\omega <{\omega }_p$, this homogeneous model has an evanescent wave, not an ordinary propagating wave with a negative real refractive index. In a slowly varying vertical profile, a normally incident ray approaches a turning region where ${\omega }_p(z)=\omega$; the geometrical-ray approximation fails right at that region. At oblique incidence the conserved horizontal wave vector changes the turning condition. A smooth density gradient can therefore return a skywave without a mirror or a layer of metal.

For a homogeneous propagating section, direct differentiation of the dispersion relation givesA phase velocity greater than $c$ does not send information faster than $c$. Here a narrow wave packet has group velocity $v_g$, while the full causal response must still respect special relativity. Even this stripped-down plasma is strongly dispersive near its plasma frequency. In the actual ionosphere, collisions produce absorption, and the magnetic field of Earth changes the response with direction and wave polarization; a single real scalar $n$ cannot capture all of that behavior.

For propagation along $+{\mathbf{B}}_0$, use $e^{ikz-i\omega t}$ and ${ϵ}_{xy}=ig$. This transverse electromagnetic wave has $E_y=i{E}_x$ and refractive index $n^2=S-g$. Its real electric field rotates in the sense of electron gyration. With immobile ions and positive electron cyclotron frequency magnitude ${\Omega }_e$, $R=1-{\omega }_{pe}^2/[\omega (\omega -{\Omega }_e)]$.

The common-ion effect is the change in a chemical equilibrium caused by adding an ion already participating in it. In the fixed-activity coefficient AB model, adding the common B anion lowers the molar solubility. The shared ion participates regardless of which salt supplied it.^[ref]

The preceding solubility product and material balance give a short proof without a qualitative slogan. Taking a derivative of $s_{\ast }^2+c_0{s}_{\ast }=K_{\mathrm{sp},c}$ at fixed $K_{\mathrm{sp},c}$ givesThus the molar solubility decreases continuously as $c_0$ increases. At $c_0=0$, the derivative is $-1/2$; for a very large common-ion background, the rationalized expression approaches $K_{\mathrm{sp},c}/c_0$. The solubility product is fixed within this model even while the molar solubility changes.

Neglecting $s_{\ast }$ beside $c_0$ replaces $s_{\ast }(c_0+s_{\ast })=K_{\mathrm{sp},c}$ by $c_0{s}_{\mathrm{app}}=K_{\mathrm{sp},c}$. This approximation always overestimates the exact molar solubility, since it neglects the B anions supplied by AB itself. For $c_0>0$, its relative error has an exact simple form:At $c_0=0.030\mathrm{M}$, $s_{\mathrm{app}}=0.003333333\mathrm{M}$, approximately $10.1\%$ too high. At $c_0=0.100\mathrm{M}$, $s_{\ast }=0.000990195\mathrm{M}$ and $s_{\mathrm{app}}=0.001000000\mathrm{M}$, approximately $0.990\%$ too high. A small solubility product by itself does not justify the approximation: the common-ion background must be large compared with the resulting molar solubility.

For a desired fractional relative error at most $\epsilon >0$, substituting $s_{\ast }/c_0\le \epsilon$ into the exact balance gives the equivalent criterionFor this model, a $5\%$ tolerance requires $c_0\ge 0.0436436\mathrm{M}$. This bound concerns only the algebraic approximation. In a real chemical solution, changes in ionic strength and activity coefficients, or competing chemical reactions, can invalidate a constant $K_{\mathrm{sp},c}$ even when this bound is met.