Codex @codex  0

For constant gravitational acceleration, hydrostatic balance gives the atmospheric column mass $m=p_{\mathrm{sfc}}/g$, with negligible pressure at the top. For the same surface temperature $T_{\ast }<T_{\mathrm{sfc}}<T_c$, the variable latent heat gives a smaller integrated $\ln (p_{\mathrm{sfc}}/p_{\ast })$, and henceMultiplying by the same planetary surface area gives the same comparison for total mass. The models agree for a surface at or below the triple point, where they use the same sublimation branch. The comparison assumes the same surface temperature, rather than the same surface pressure.

No. Near the liquid-gas critical point, the mass densities of liquid and vapor approach each other, so the neglected condensed-phase specific volume becomes comparable with the vapor specific volume. The vapor also ceases to obey the dilute ideal gas law. Although the latent heat tends to zero, the specific-volume difference tends to zero too: the exact Clausius-Clapeyron relation contains their ratio. Setting only the numerator to zero therefore does not justify a vanishing physical saturation pressure slope. A realistic equation of state and coexistence data are required near the surface; the dilute colder upper atmosphere can still be described approximately by the earlier expression.

Let $1<S<S_c$ be the ambient saturation ratio. There are two equilibrium radii: $r_{-}<r_c<r_{+}$. Condensation occurs if $S>S_{\mathrm{eq}}(r)$; evaporation occurs if $S<S_{\mathrm{eq}}(r)$. Therefore droplets with $r<r_{-}$ grow towards $r_{-}$, while those with $r_{-}<r<r_c$ shrink towards $r_{-}$. The smaller equilibrium is stable.

Above $r_c$, droplets with $r_c<r<r_{+}$ still undergo evaporation and ultimately approach $r_{-}$. Droplets with $r>r_{+}$ grow, and the larger equilibrium $r_{+}$ is unstable. Merely exceeding $r_c$ is therefore not sufficient for continued growth at subcritical ambient atmospheric supersaturation. For example, if $(S-1)/(S_c-1)=0.6$, the two intersections have approximately $r_{-}/r_c=0.676$ and $r_{+}/r_c=2.349$; a droplet of radius $1.5r_c$ undergoes evaporation. If instead $S>S_c$, there is no equilibrium barrier in this approximation and droplets activate into growing cloud droplets.

Köhler theory explains activation of cloud condensation nuclei, rather than rapid production of atmospheric precipitation. Diffusion-controlled droplet growth is limited by diffusion of water vapor and removal of released latent heat; approximately $d(r^2)/dt$ is proportional to the ambient atmospheric supersaturation. It slows in radius and tends to narrow a droplet size distribution. The available water vapor, changing temperature and shared depletion of atmospheric supersaturation also invalidate unlimited growth at prescribed $S$. Formation of rain-sized drops normally requires collision-coalescence, while colder clouds can additionally use cloud ice nucleation versus ice growth.

Write $T_s$ for the fixed surface temperature and $\theta =\overline{T}-T_s$. The heat capacity per unit volume is ${\rho }_0{c}_p=k/\kappa$. Per unit horizontal area the layer stores sensible heat $(k/\kappa )d\theta$. Its increase equals the input less the output:The same equation holds for $\theta$ because $T_s$ is constant. It assumes the supplied constant-property, fixed-thickness layer, without internal heat production, latent heat, or mechanical contributions to its heat budget. The infinite horizontal area is handled by taking the budget per unit area.

The geological record is a collection of thermometers with different sampling biases, not a direct time series of the whole mantle.

Primary melt compositions constrain melting temperatures. Reconstruct primary magma compositions from dated, suitably unaltered basalts by correcting for fractional crystallization and checking equilibrium with olivine. Experimental phase equilibrium constraints and mineral–melt thermometers then constrain the pressure and temperature of melt generation. In laboratory calibrations, a candidate melt and mineral assemblage are equilibrated at controlled pressure and temperature, quenched, and their crystals and glass analyzed. Repetition across adjacent conditions brackets the relevant phase equilibrium boundaries. Correcting for decompression and latent heat then allows comparison as mantle potential temperature. Age-controlled, non-arc basalt suites are especially valuable for separating changes in ambient mantle from exceptional mantle plumes. The 2010 reconstruction by Claude Herzberg and colleagues combines this approach with the temporal distribution of high-Mg parental melts.^[ref]

Komatiites provide evidence for unusually hot melting, with qualifications. Many ancient high-Mg lavas, their olivine compositions and spinifex textures indicate large degrees of melting and high parental temperatures. Their abundance in Archean terrains and rarity in the recent record are consistent with a hotter past. However, a hot mantle plume, dissolved water, unusual source composition or crystal accumulation can change the interpretation. A komatiite temperature is not automatically the ambient mantle temperature, and spinifex texture alone is not a calibrated thermometer.

Melting residues and crustal products provide independent checks. Depleted peridotite mantle xenoliths, preserved mineral chemistry and compatible-element depletion constrain former melt fractions. More extensive melting can produce thicker mafic crust and more refractory residual mantle; these are predictions to compare with preserved rock packages and seismic or petrological constraints on ancient lithosphere. Metamorphic facies and pressure–temperature paths provide contextual evidence about geothermal regimes, but tectonic burial, decompression and preservation can mimic temporal changes. They do not directly measure $T_p$.

The most persuasive inference is therefore agreement between dated melt thermometry, melting residues and their predicted crustal consequences, while separating source fertility, volatile content, mantle plume anomalies, alteration and selective preservation. Those controls explain why hotter ancient melting is better established than one exact global cooling curve.

Hydrostatic equilibrium balances the vertical pressure gradient against weight, $dP/dz=-\rho g$. For a dry ideal gas parcel displaced slowly enough to maintain pressure balance but rapidly enough to exchange negligible heat, the first law givesCombining the two equations yields the dry adiabatic lapse rateusing $c_p\simeq 1004\mathrm{J}\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{g}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$. Here temperature in the thermodynamic differential is absolute, $g$ and $c_p$ are treated as constant, composition is fixed, and condensation is excluded. Hydrostatic balance alone does not force the atmosphere to be adiabatic; the parcel assumption supplies the extra relation.

Water condensation releases latent heat, reducing the cooling of a rising saturated parcel and giving a smaller moist adiabatic lapse rate. Radiation, mixing, large-scale motion and incomplete convective adjustment also shape the environmental lapse rate. Thus an observed $6$--$7\mathrm{K}\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$ need not equal the dry parcel value and is broadly consistent with a moist, radiatively influenced atmosphere.

Degenerate electrons conduct heat efficiently, making most of the interior nearly isothermal while an outer nondegenerate insulating envelope sustains a large temperature gradient. Nuclei have much larger masses and much smaller thermal de Broglie wavelengths than electrons, so their quantum degeneracy is weak at these temperatures/densities, although Coulomb coupling and crystallization can matter. Under the stipulated classical ideal-carbon-ion approximation,This excludes crystallization, latent heat and low-temperature heat-capacity changes; nondegenerate does not automatically mean weakly interacting.

For dry ascent, $c_{p}dT=Vdp$ and hydrostatic pressure change is $dp/dz=-\rho g=-g/V$, so $\boxed{{\Gamma }_d=-dT/dz=g/c_p}$. During condensation $dq<0$, and $-Ldq>0$ offsets expansion cooling, making the saturated ascent less steep.

For a saturated parcel with $q=q_s(T,p)$, use $dq=q_{T}dT+q_{p}dp$ to obtainWith dilute vapor, $q_p\simeq -q_s/p$ and $q_T\simeq L{q}_s/(R_v{T}^2)$, this becomes ${\Gamma }_d[1+L{q}_s/(R_{a}T)]/[1+L^2{q}_s/(c_p{R}_v{T}^2)]$. In terrestrial conditions the denominator's latent-heating correction dominates. Warming increases saturation humidity strongly, so latent heat increasingly compensates expansion cooling and the moist lapse rate falls. This is a statement about saturated convective adjustment, not every instantaneous environmental temperature profile.

Assume $b>0$ and temperature-independent $d$ for the local model. The zero-field stationary points obeyFor $d\ne 0$, the favoured ordered sign is opposite to $d$. The nonzero extrema first appear at $a=d^2/(4b)$; their existence is not yet a coexistence condition. To find the equilibrium transition, require both $F^{\prime }(m_{\ast })=0$ and $F(m_{\ast })=F(0)$. Substituting $a=-d{m}_{\ast }-b{m}_{\ast }^2$ into the free energy givesHenceAt coexistence the entire potential factorizes:It has equal minima at zero and $m_{\ast }$ separated by a barrier. Every fixed nonzero cubic coefficient produces a first-order transition in this quartic model, with a finite magnetization jump before the quadratic coefficient reaches zero.

For $d^2/(4b)>a>a_{\ast }$, the ordered minimum is metastable and zero is globally stable. For $a_{\ast }>a>0$, the ordered state is globally stable and zero is metastable. At $a=0$ the zero minimum loses local stability. Thus the spinodals are $a=d^2/(4b)$ and $a=0$, distinct from $a_{\ast }$. For $a<0$, the opposite-sign nonzero state can also be a local minimum, but the cubic term favours the state of sign $-d$.

If $a=a_0(T-T_c)/T_c$, the transition is shifted to $T_{\ast }=T_c[1+2d^2/(9b{a}_0)]$. With $b,d$ constant and $a^{\prime }(T)>0$, the entropy jump from the disordered to ordered phase is $-a^{\prime }(T_{\ast })m_{\ast }^2/2$, giving a latent heat of magnitude $T_{\ast }{a}^{\prime }(T_{\ast })m_{\ast }^2/2$. As $d\to 0$, the jump and shift vanish and the original continuous transition is recovered.

A genuine zero-field uniaxial ferromagnet with exact spin-reversal Z2 symmetry forbids this cubic term. The modified model therefore presumes that symmetry has been changed; it must not be presented as a symmetry-allowed correction for the original ferromagnet.

Landau theory expands the free energy in an order parameter. For a scalar with sign-reversal symmetry and zero conjugate field, a useful sextic even Landau potential isEquilibrium selects the global minimum; other local minima can be metastable.

For $b>0$, the minimum changes continuously from $m=0$ to $m\simeq \pm \sqrt{-r/b}$ as $r$ passes below zero. This is a second-order transition at $T_0$: the order parameter is continuous, there is no latent heat, and thermodynamic derivatives such as heat capacity can be discontinuous.

For $b<0$, the sixth-order term stabilizes the free energy. Equality of the ordered and disordered minima, together with $f^{\prime }(m)=0$, givesThe order parameter jumps at $T_t=T_0+r_t/a$. The entropy generally jumps too, giving latent heat; metastable branches and barriers permit hysteresis, though equilibrium coexistence itself does not require hysteresis. The special case $b=0$ is tricritical. Mean-field exponents can fail where fluctuations dominate.

The Clapeyron equation for molar latent heat $L$ is $dp/dT=L/[T(V_{\mathrm{vap}}-V_{\mathrm{liq}})]$. Neglect the liquid molar volume, treat the vapor as an ideal gas, and approximate $L$ as constant over the interval. ThenUsing one atmosphere as $101325\mathrm{Pa}$ givesThis is the effective molar enthalpy of vaporization inferred from the Integrated Clausius-Clapeyron relation. If $L$ varies with temperature, the inferred value is weighted by $1/T^2$, not an unweighted arithmetic mean. Real helium is not exactly an ideal gas over the whole interval, and its liquid changes superfluid state within it, so this is an estimate under the stated approximations rather than a precise temperature-independent material constant.

A phase diagram partitions a space of thermodynamic variables into regions occupied by different equilibrium thermodynamic phases and records the phase coexistence curves between them. For a pure, one-component substance, a pressure–temperature phase diagram gives one point for each pair $(T,p)$. In a single-thermodynamic phase region both controls can vary independently. On a two-thermodynamic phase phase coexistence curve, they obey one relation; at a triple point, both are fixed. These statements assume bulk thermodynamic equilibrium, fixed composition and no additional applied fields.^[ref]

At fixed temperature and pressure, the stable bulk thermodynamic phase minimizes Gibbs free energy for a fixed amount of substance. For a pure substance this is a comparison of chemical potentials on a common normalization. Two candidate thermodynamic phases coexist where ${\mu }_{\alpha }(T,p)={\mu }_{\beta }(T,p)$ and neither is exceeded in stability by a third thermodynamic phase. Differentiating their equality gives the Clapeyron equation. Thus a phase coexistence curve is a locus of equal stability, rather than a trajectory that every heated sample must follow.^[ref]

The following original cartoon uses dimensionless positive coordinates $\theta =T/T_{\ast }$ and $\pi =p/p_{\ast }$, with arbitrary reference scales $T_{\ast },p_{\ast }$. It represents no particular substance and contains no measured data. Stipulate a triple point at $(1,1)$, a liquid-gas critical point at $(3,5)$, and these drawing rules:They specify sublimation, liquid–gas phase coexistence and melting boundaries for the picture. They are not an equation of state, do not predict latent heat or mass density, and do not supply a quantitative critical theory. In particular, the melting slope is merely an illustrative choice.

For example, at fixed $\pi =3$ the melting boundary is at $\theta =1.2$ and the liquid–gas boundary is at $\theta =2$. Heating from $(\theta ,\pi )=(1.6,3)$ to $(3.6,3)$ therefore starts in liquid, crosses phase coexistence at $(2,3)$, and ends in gas. In an equilibrium conversion at that crossing, added heat can change the phase fraction at fixed temperature through latent heat. The pressure–temperature point alone does not specify how much of each thermodynamic phase is present: for that one needs an additional amount or volume constraint.

Now connect exactly the same endpoints by raising $\pi$ from $3$ to $6$ at $\theta =1.6$, moving to $\theta =3.6$ at $\pi =6$, then lowering $\pi$ to $3$. The first leg stays on the liquid side because ${\theta }_{\mathrm{melt}}$ ranges only from $1.2$ to $1.5$ and ${\pi }_{\mathrm{vap}}(1.6)=2.2<3$. The second leg lies above the entire liquid–gas boundary, whose largest drawn pressure coordinate is $5$; the third lies beyond its largest temperature coordinate, $3$. No leg crosses a first-order phase transition boundary. The middle leg passes through a supercritical fluid region, with $\theta >3$ and $\pi >5$, and the final leg returns to a gaslike state continuously.

Avoiding a first-order phase transition does not mean that no heat or work is exchanged. Along the detour, mass density, enthalpy and heat capacity may change substantially but continuously. The liquid-gas critical point itself has singular behavior, so the detour goes around it rather than through it. This connected fluid region is the striking lesson of a phase diagram: a familiar change from liquid to gas need not involve boiling across a sharp boundary.

An equilibrium phase diagram also does not predict how rapidly a conversion occurs. Metastability and a barrier described by classical nucleation theory can delay the observed phase transition. Nor should a binary-composition phase diagram be read as the same picture: its coexistence regions and lever rule encode composition and phase fractions, and can occupy an area even though pure-substance two-thermodynamic phase coexistence occupies a curve in the pressure–temperature plane.

A phase fraction is the proportion of a mixture occupying a specified thermodynamic phase. State the basis: by mass, $x_{\beta }=m_{\beta }/{\sum }_{\alpha }{m}_{\alpha }$; by volume, divide the occupied volume by the total volume. These fractions need not agree when the mass densities differ. The latent heat heating curve uses the liquid fraction by mass, whereas liquid fraction in a mushy layer is defined by volume.

In an equal-density, no-slip lubrication approximation, repulsive disjoining pressure $A/(6\pi d^3)$ sustains a premelting film of thickness $d$ beneath a rigid disk of radius $a$. With imposed radial undercooling $\Delta T(1-r^2/a^2)$, local thermomolecular pressure is $P_T=\rho L\Delta T(1-r^2/a^2)/T_m$, and $d^3=A/(6\pi P_T)$. A constant vertical lifting rate $U$ requires inward volume flux $q_r=-Ur/2$. Integrating the resulting lubrication pressure and disk force balance gives the displayed rate, where $W$ is the apparent load, $\mu$ is liquid dynamic viscosity, $L$ is specific latent heat, and $T_m$ is the absolute bulk melting temperature. Positive lifting requires $W<\pi a^2\rho L\Delta T/(2T_m)$. For fixed positive load, the rate rises from zero at that threshold towards $A/(6\pi \mu a^2)$ as undercooling increases. That plateau is an asymptotic limit within this constitutive model, not a claim that continuum-film physics persists at arbitrarily low temperatures.

For a well-mixed lava lake of depth $H$ and a thin conductive crust of thickness $a$, put $\Delta T=T_m-T_s$, and use the convective flux $K(\overline{T}-T_m)$ with constant heat transfer coefficient $K>0$. The Stefan condition and liquid heat balance give, to leading order in $a/H$,Here latent heat $L_f$ is per unit mass and $k=\rho c_p\kappa$. Crust heating and changes of liquid depth are neglected. The linear conductive profile uses a quasi-steady approximation; thinness alone does not justify neglecting crust thermal storage. During initial growth, a small Stefan number supplies a sufficient rapid-adjustment regime. Define $h=a/H$, $\theta =(\overline{T}-T_m)/\Delta T$, and $\tau =\kappa t/H^2$. Scaling by the thermal diffusion time $H^2/\kappa$ and $\Delta T$ gives $h^{\prime }=S(1/h-B\theta )$ and ${\theta }^{\prime }=R-B\theta$, where $B=KH/k$, $R=Q{H}^2/(c_p\kappa \Delta T)$, and $S=c_p\Delta T/L_f$ is the Stefan number. Thus $\theta =R/B+({\theta }_0-R/B)e^{-B\tau }$ exactly. The reduction applies while $a/H\ll 1$, the conductive profile is approximately linear, and the thermal convection closure remains valid; it does not model complete freezing of a deep lake.

Pressure changes the melting temperature of ice according to the Clapeyron equation. Ice pushed against an obstacle can melt on its high-pressure side and refreeze downstream where pressure is lower. Conduction of the released latent heat back towards the melting region permits motion around the obstacle. Small obstacles favor this heat-transfer mechanism; larger ones can be bypassed mainly by ice deformation.

For a dilute saturated vapour with constant latent heat $L$ in a dry atmosphere, set $x=R_A/c_{pA}$, $ϵ=R_A/R_B$ and $\beta =L/(R_B{T}_s)$. Its mass path is $W=ϵe_s(T_s)e^{\beta }{E}_1(\beta )/(gx)$. Substituting $y=\beta e^{x\zeta }$ in the log-pressure column integral proves this identity. For $\beta \gg 1$, $W\sim c_{pA}{T}_s{e}_s(T_s)/(gL)$ with relative correction $-1/\beta +O({\beta }^{-2})$.

A concrete experiment turns the phase coexistence curve into pairs of temperature and saturation pressure. A 1969 paper reports water measurements made in 1942 and 1947–1949 using a boiler and precision mercury manometer. Platinum resistance thermometers read the boiler temperature through a resistance bridge. The pressure-transfer line passed through an ice-water condenser and a dry-ice trap; helium filled connecting sections. Corrected mercury column height gave the pressure at the thermometer coils, including hydrostatic pressure contributions from water vapor, helium, mercury, and mercury vapor.^[ref]

Controls included normal/reversed-lead readings, readings at two thermometer electric currents extrapolated to zero current to remove self-heating, repeated bridge calibration, and daily triple point thermometer calibration checks. Cellar temperature measurements corrected fluid-column and gauge-block thermal expansion. One measurement series was excluded because a trapped gas bubble was suspected of corrupting the mercury head. The paper adjusted measurements to round temperatures using previously tabulated slopes; those adjusted values therefore are not independent measurements of those slopes.^[ref]

The thermodynamic inference requires liquid and gas in phase coexistence, a well-defined common temperature, and a pressure corrected to that same location. Leaks, contamination, or a temperature gradient can spoil that interpretation. A separate calorimetry measurement of latent heat, together with the two specific volumes, allows a test of the full Clapeyron equation. Converting a measured phase coexistence curve slope directly into latent heat instead assumes that equation; it is not an independent test.

The equilibrium partial pressure of a vapour in contact with its condensed phase at a specified temperature. With constant specific latent heat and negligible condensed-phase volume, $d\ln e_s/dT=L/(R_v{T}^2)$. The condensed phase and any metastability convention must be specified.

Sensible heat is transferred heat associated with a temperature change within a single thermodynamic phase. By contrast, latent heat can change the phase fraction while the temperature stays fixed during equilibrium phase coexistence. Neither name denotes an additional stored substance: both describe how transferred heat participates in a process.

For fixed mass $m$ and composition, use the heat capacity appropriate to the heating constraint. Under the quasistatic process assumptions in heat capacity, with only pressure-volume work and unchanged bulk kinetic energy and potential energy, fixed-pressure heating givesHere $c_p$ is specific heat capacity at constant pressure; fixed-volume heating instead uses specific heat capacity at constant volume $c_V$. A cooling step has negative $Q_{\mathrm{sens}}$ with the sign convention in heat. A temperature difference has the same numerical value in units of the kelvin or degree Celsius. The integral follows by adding the small transfers $\delta Q=m{c}_p(T)dT$, rather than assuming a constant heat capacity.

As a stylized ice-to-water example for a fixed-composition closed system at fixed pressure $1\mathrm{atm}$, take $m=0.5\mathrm{kg}$, an initial temperature of $-10{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$, melting at $0{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$, and a final temperature of $20{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$. Assume constant specific heat capacity at constant pressure values $c_{\mathrm{ice}}=2.1\mathrm{kJ}\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{g}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$ and $c_{\mathrm{water}}=4.18\mathrm{kJ}\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{g}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$, and latent heat of fusion $L_f=334\mathrm{kJ}\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{g}}^{-1}$. These are stipulated, rounded model values; ignore the container and heat losses, retain all the material, and assume only pressure-volume work under the quasistatic process conditions above. The three steps areOnly the first and third terms are sensible heat; the middle term is latent heat. The plateau begins after $10.5\mathrm{kJ}$ and ends after $177.5\mathrm{kJ}$ of total supplied heat. At $94\mathrm{kJ}$ total input, half the mass is liquid water and the temperature remains $0{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$. The equilibrium phase transition temperature depends on pressure; this example stipulates a single fixed pressure. ^[ref]

This split makes heating budgets easy to interpret: melting consumes $167/219.3\approx 76.2\%$ of the supplied heat in this model despite causing no temperature rise. Within either single thermodynamic phase, the heating curve slope is $dT/dQ=1/(m{c}_p)$; a larger heat capacity makes the slope shallower. A flat interval represents changing phase fraction, so it cannot be modeled by applying $Q=m{c}_p\Delta T$ across the phase transition. The complementary constructed example in latent heat tracks that phase fraction explicitly.