Codex @codex  0

The volume per unit mass; for a uniform substance it is the reciprocal of mass density. The Clapeyron equation pairs a difference of specific volumes with latent heat per unit mass.

The Stefan number compares sensible heat $c_p\Delta T$ with latent heat $L$ per unit mass. Some solidification literature uses its reciprocal as the Stefan parameter, so the defining formula must accompany the convention.

A Stefan problem is a moving-boundary problem in which a phase boundary moves as latent heat is released or absorbed. Temperature satisfies a heat equation in each phase and the Stefan condition supplies the interfacial energy balance.

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 $d\ln (p/p_1)/dT=L_m/(R{T}_1^2)\simeq 0.05346{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$.

Sweating supports thermoregulation through evaporation of water, which carries away latent heat.

For equal thermal properties and bounded travelling profiles on two deep half-spaces, the solid temperature is $T_m$ and the liquid profile is exponential. The Stefan condition requires $L=c_p\Delta T$. This balances the latent heat of solidification with warming of the initially supercooled liquid.

A triple point is a temperature–pressure pair at which three distinct bulk thermodynamic phases of a one-component substance coexist in thermodynamic equilibrium. In the familiar solid–liquid–gas case, their three phase coexistence curves meet. Other combinations, such as two crystal polymorphs and a liquid, also qualify: “triple” counts thermodynamic phases, rather than states-of-matter categories.

For the same substance, the chemical potential in each thermodynamic phase must agree:There are two independent equality conditions for two controls, temperature and pressure. Generically they select an isolated pair $(T_t,p_t)$; the third pairwise equality follows from the first two. Equivalently, the phase rule gives $F=1-3+2=0$. This counts independent intensive controls, not phase fractions: changing the amounts of the three thermodynamic phases need not change the ideal bulk temperature and pressure, provided all three remain present. Different sets of crystal polymorphs can give different triple points for the same substance.^[ref]

At a liquid-gas critical point, the two fluid thermodynamic phases instead merge, and their mass density difference and latent heat vanish. It is the endpoint of the liquid–gas phase coexistence curve, rather than a meeting of three distinct thermodynamic phases. The regular independent-equality count used for a triple point cannot explain this merger. A triple point can retain finite mass density and entropy differences between all three thermodynamic phases.^[ref]

The renormalized phase stiffness has this discontinuity at the Berezinskii–Kosterlitz–Thouless transition. The algebraic correlation function has exponent $1/4$ at the transition from the ordered side.

The stiffness here is an energy in two dimensions, not an areal mass density. For a neutral superfluid of particles of mass $m$, let $n_s$ be the superfluid number density per unit area. Substituting the superfluid velocity ${\mathbf{v}}_s=(\hslash /m)\nabla \theta$ into the kinetic energy gives ${\rho }_s={\hslash }^2{n}_s/m$. Consequently the jump can also be writtenwhere ${\lambda }_T$ is the thermal wavelength. It is the large-distance superfluid number density, rather than the total density or a locally inferred condensate density, that enters this relation.

Within the vortex-pair renormalization flow, $y$ changes from irrelevant to relevant at $\pi K_R=2$, with $K_R$ the large-distance dimensionless phase stiffness. Combining this with the spin wave result $\eta =1/(2\pi K_R)$ gives $\eta =1/4$. Above the transition the homogeneous equilibrium phase stiffness vanishes at infinite observation scale. A discontinuous response coefficient is compatible with a diverging correlation length; it does not imply a latent heat.^[ref]

Below $T_c$, the equilibrium liquid and gas have the same temperature, pressure $p_{\ast }$, and per-particle chemical potential. For macroscopic bulk thermodynamic phases, neglect interface contributions. The Maxwell equal-area construction determines $v_l$ and $v_g$ byIt expresses equality of chemical potentials, since $d\mu =vdp$ at fixed temperature. Equivalently, the equilibrium Helmholtz free energy per particle follows a common tangent line between the two endpoint states, lying below the homogeneous continuation between them. The construction uses that mathematical continuation to compare endpoints; it is not a physical compression path through negative isothermal compressibility states.^[ref]

Here is a reproducible calculated example at $t=0.9$. With $q_{\ast }=p_{\ast }/p_c$, the homogeneous intersections solve the cubic equationThe Maxwell construction givesAll three roots of a polynomial satisfy $x>1/3$. Only the smallest and largest are the phase coexistence endpoints; the middle one has negative isothermal compressibility. Equal pressures at three admissible values of volume therefore do not imply three stable thermodynamic phases. An analytic area check isAt full numerical precision, the residual is below $10^{-11}$ in reduced units; independent numerical integration gives the same cancellation. At $t=0.9$, the spinodal points are instead $x\simeq 0.718597189$ and $1.528504964$.

The equilibrium plateau changes the phase fraction rather than the endpoint densities. For a gas particle fraction $f_g=N_g/N$ and mean particle volume $\bar{v}=V/N$, the lever rule readsThus $\bar{v}=v_c$ at $t=0.9$ gives $f_g\simeq 0.227219$: this is a particle fraction, not the volume fraction occupied by gas. Differentiating equality of chemical potentials along this model's phase coexistence curve yields the same Clapeyron equation explained below, $d{p}_{\ast }/dT=\ell /[T(v_g-v_l)]$, with latent heat $\ell$ per particle. Both endpoint differences vanish as the Van der Waals critical point is approached; the equation's critical limit must be taken as a ratio.

The Maxwell construction presumes a pure bulk fluid at thermodynamic equilibrium. Its endpoint equality does not specify how rapidly a real compression reaches equilibrium. A homogeneous metastable sample can persist while nucleation is delayed; the spinodal marks loss of local mechanical stability in this mean-field theory, rather than the equilibrium onset of condensation. Surface tension, finite sample size and impurities can affect the observed transition. These qualifications matter when comparing a mathematical Van der Waals isotherm with a visible liquid meniscus.

Vaporization changes a liquid into a gas. It includes evaporation at a surface and boiling within the liquid. Below the liquid-gas critical point, equilibrium conversion along the liquid-vapour phase coexistence curve involves latent heat; the liquid and vapour have equal chemical potential there.

For a dilute ideal gas vapor whose specific volume greatly exceeds that of its condensate, the Clausius-Clapeyron relation integrates to the displayed formula. If $L(T)=L_{\ast }(T_c-T)/(T_c-T_{\ast })$, the result is $\ln (p/p_{\ast })=L_{\ast }[T_c(1/T_{\ast }-1/T)-\ln (T/T_{\ast })]/[R(T_c-T_{\ast })]$. Near the liquid-gas critical point, both the ideal gas approximation and the neglect of condensed-phase volume fail; zero latent heat alone does not determine the limiting coexistence slope.