Codex @codex  0

Use the well-mixed natural ventilation model for a distributed floor source. Let the building height be $H_b$, its volume be $\mathcal{V}$, its temperature excess be $\theta$, and the exterior mass density be $\rho$. Let ${\alpha }_T$ be the coefficient of thermal expansion, so reduced gravity is $g^{\prime }=g{\alpha }_T\theta$. Convert the total heat input $Q$ to the temperature-volume flux $\mathcal{H}=Q/(\rho c_p)$, where $c_p$ is specific heat capacity. If the quoted heat flux is per floor area, first multiply it by that area.

For effective opening area for pressure-driven ventilation, define the equal-opening hydraulic coefficient $K_A$ such that the signed throughflow $q$ obeys $q|q|=K_A\Pi$, with $\Pi$ the total driving pressure divided by mass density. In the effective-area convention of question 6, each opening has discharge $A\sqrt{\delta p/\rho }$, so $K_A=A^2/2$. The usual physical-area orifice law instead gives $K_A=C_d^2{A}^2$; that prefactor does not affect the stability conclusions.

Set $W=\Delta P/\rho >0$ and $G_T=g{\alpha }_T{H}_b$. Positive $q$ denotes entry at the floor and exit at the roof. hydrostatic pressure and wind combine to giveBecause the inflowing air is at exterior temperature in either direction, the heat budget isThe well-mixed ventilation temperature balance at steady state is thereforeAll roots must satisfy $\theta >0$ and their appropriate flow-direction inequality; squaring a pressure relation without imposing those conditions could add spurious branches.

The assisting case has a unique positive solution and it is stable. For opposing wind, define ${\theta }_w=W/G_T$. There is always one solution with $\theta >{\theta }_w$, a buoyancy-dominated upward flow. Below ${\theta }_w$, the heat-removal curve is $R(\theta )=\sqrt{K_A}\theta \sqrt{W-G_T\theta }$. It is zero at both endpoints, and its maximum occurs at $\theta =2{\theta }_w/3$:For $0<\mathcal{H}<R_{\max }$ there are two downward-flow roots as well as the upward-flow root. Equivalently, setting $y=G_T\theta /W$ and $\epsilon =G_T\mathcal{H}/(\sqrt{K_A}{W}^{3/2})$, the equilibrium curve isFor linear stability analysis of the opposing-wind ventilation bistability, linearize the heat budget: the eigenvalue is $-R^{\prime }(\theta )/\mathcal{V}$. The cooler downward root has $0<\theta <2{\theta }_w/3$ and $R^{\prime }>0$, so it is stable. The warmer downward root has $2{\theta }_w/3<\theta <{\theta }_w$ and $R^{\prime }<0$, so it is unstable and separates the two basins. The upward root has $R^{\prime }>0$ and is stable. At $\mathcal{H}=R_{\max }$ the two downward roots merge at a saddle-node bifurcation; above that value only the upward equilibrium remains.

For ventilation switching under wind and heating changes, increasing wind pressure or decreasing heat input both reduce $\epsilon$, so both can create the pair of wind-driven equilibria. They nevertheless have different physical and transient effects. On the hot upward branch, implicit differentiation of $\mathcal{H}=\sqrt{K_A}\theta \sqrt{G_T\theta -W}$ shows that increasing $W$ increases $\theta$, while decreasing $\mathcal{H}$ decreases $\theta$. Both reduce the upward ventilation rate, but only a wind change shifts ${\theta }_w$.

Under slow parameter variation, a state follows its current stable branch while that branch persists; the upward branch does not disappear when wind increases or heating decreases. A sufficiently large abrupt wind increase can raise ${\theta }_w$ beyond the current temperature and place that state below the new unstable threshold, causing flow reversal and cooling towards the wind-dominated equilibrium. A jump insufficient to cross its basin boundary returns to the upward equilibrium.

At fixed $W$, reducing a still-positive heat input cannot force an initially upward-flow state through ${\theta }_w$: at that boundary the temperature balance has $\dot{\theta }=\mathcal{H}/\mathcal{V}>0$. Thus heat reduction alone does not cause that reversal in this model. Conversely, decreasing wind or increasing heat from the stable downward branch eventually destroys it at the fold and forces a switch to the upward branch, giving history dependence. Wind strengthening and heat reduction have the same effect on the steady dimensionless control parameter, but not the same temperature change or switching dynamics. These stability statements use quasi-steady opening flow and a single well-mixed temperature; other stratification or airflow-inertia models require their own stability analysis.

Let $q_b$ be floor inflow and $q_t$ roof outflow. Use effective-area discharge $A\sqrt{\delta p/\rho }$, matching the factors in the supplied relations. With negligible source volume, both equal $q$. The lower region has exterior mass density while the warm upper layer has reduced gravity $g^{\prime }$ and depth $H-h$. hydrostatic pressure therefore supplies a total opening pressure head $g^{\prime }(H-h)$. Equal openings sharing equal discharge take half each, givingSteady lower-layer volume conservation sets this ventilation rate equal to the entrained turbulent plume flux at the interface, $q=\lambda B^{1/3}{h}^{5/3}$. Upper-layer buoyancy conservation gives $B=q{g}^{\prime }$. These are the required balances for displacement ventilation:Eliminating $g^{\prime }$ and $q$ gives the displacement-ventilation interface height equationThe left side is strictly increasing from zero to infinity, so there is one interface height. It depends on opening geometry and plume entrainment, not on $B$; the resulting $g^{\prime }=B^{2/3}/(\lambda h^{5/3})$ and throughflow do depend on $B$.

For finite source volume $Q$, conservation instead gives $q_t=q_b+Q$. The two pressure drops are no longer equal:Let $q_p(h;Q)$ be a physically entraining source plume: $q_p(0;Q)=Q$ and $q_p(h;Q)>Q$ for $h>0$. Its interface balance is $q_p=q_t=Q+q_b$. Therefore, as $q_b$ reaches zero, a positive-depth lower layer has no replenishment and cannot remain steady: this is no steady displacement layer without ambient supply. The limiting interface is $h=0$. At the threshold $q_t=Q$ and $g^{\prime }=B/Q$, and the entire hydrostatic head drives the roof discharge. HenceThis is source-volume blocking of displacement ventilation. The half-head factor of the negligible-source state must not be kept after the floor inflow vanishes. In the usual physical-area convention $q=A_{\mathrm{phys}}{C}_d\sqrt{2\delta p/\rho }$, the equivalent formula is $Q_c=(2C_d^2{A}_{\mathrm{phys}}^{2}BH{)}^{1/3}$.

The quoted pure-plume law cannot be used unmodified down to the origin for a source with nonzero volume: it would incorrectly give zero flux there. A compatible finite-source example uses a virtual origin,It recovers the supplied pure-plume limit when $Q\to 0$, and gives the same blocking threshold. The complete finite-$Q$ interface trajectory depends on that plume model, but the threshold needs only source-volume conservation and positive entrainment. For $Q>Q_c$, the assumed steady regime with a lower inflow no longer exists.

Use a planar saline Stefan problem with upward coordinate $z$, the initial contact at $z=0$, and phase boundaries $z=a(t)$ and $z=b(t)$ enclosing pure ice, where $a<b$. Fresh liquid occupies $z>b$ and brine occupies $z<a$. We assume negligible bulk flow, equal constant mass density $\rho$, specific heat capacity $c_p$ and thermal diffusivity $\kappa$ in all regions, and zero salt content and salt transport in the ice. Equal densities remove phase-change volume flow; suppressing convection isolates the molecular-transport mechanism. Different material properties would change the numerical coefficients. Set $K=\rho c_p\kappa$ for the common thermal conductivity and $\Delta T=T_m-T_{\infty }>0$. Denote the brine salt diffusion coefficient by $D$.

Use a linear ice liquidus, $T_L(C)=T_m-mC$, with $m>0$ and $C$ the salt mass fraction. Assume the initial brine is a stable liquid, $T_{\infty }>T_L(C_0)$, and all concentrations considered are below the eutectic composition. Thus $R=m{C}_0/\Delta T>1$. These assumptions exclude independent nucleation in a supercooled brine or an eutectic system event, neither of which is specified by the initial data alone. Start with a negligible seed of ice and use local phase equilibrium without interfacial kinetics or curvature. Temperature differences may be in Celsius, since only differences enter this calculation.

WriteThe paper calls $S$ a Stefan number; it is the latent-to-sensible heat ratio, reciprocal to another common Stefan number convention. At the lower phase boundary, define $T_i=T_L(C_i)$ and letThe liquidus relation is $\vartheta =Rc$.

A similarity solution gives an explicit calculation of the two positions. Putand use $u=z/(2\sqrt{\kappa t})$, $v=z/(2\sqrt{Dt})$. The temperatures and salinities areThese error function and complementary error function profiles satisfy the heat equation and the salt diffusion equation, their far-field conditions, and the interfacial temperature conditions. The fresh-water temperature is constant because the interface and the far field are both at $T_m$.

Salt conservation at the moving lower phase boundary requiresFor upward motion this is dilution by melting salt-free ice, rather than salt rejection by freezing brine. Substitution gives the dilution function for a melting saline Stefan front:For $A>0$, $0<c<1$, so the interfacial brine is fresher than the remote liquid.

The Stefan condition at the upper boundary is $\rho L\dot{b}=K{T}_{s,z}(b)$, since the fresh liquid has no temperature gradient. At the lower boundary it isThese signs follow from the jump in enthalpy: the upper front freezes liquid while a positive $\dot{a}$ melts solid. With $E=\mathrm{erf}B-\mathrm{erf}\delta$, they reduce toTogether with $\delta =ϵA$, these equations determine $A,B,\vartheta$, and hence both positions, without discarding the salt-diffusion correction.

For the stated large latent-to-sensible heat ratio, the layer is thin relative to the thermal diffusion length. Expanding the thermal equations for $B,\delta \ll 1$ givesConsequently a useful leading calculation iswhere the positive $A$ is obtained fromThe left side decreases with $A\ge 0$ while the right side increases, and their values at zero and infinity guarantee a unique positive root for large $S$. Thus this leading calculation includes the translation of the lower boundary as well as the increasing thickness.

If the scale separation also obeys $ϵSA\ll 1$, the familiar simpler result iswithThis last simplification needs the logarithmic refinement $ϵS\sqrt{\log (RS)}\ll 1$. The algebraic ordering $ϵ\ll S^{-1}$ alone should not be used to discard an arbitrarily large logarithmic correction; the preceding coupled equations remain the appropriate calculation when that refinement is unavailable. This distinction is captured by large latent heat in a freezing and melting ice layer.

The illustration uses $S=40$, $ϵ=2.5\times 10^{-4}$ and $R=2$. Solving the full equations gives $A=1.73707$, $B=0.0143053$ and $\vartheta =0.0158766$. It shows the ice layer between freshwater and cold brine, with both fronts advancing upward and a strongly diluted lower liquid boundary.

The phase diagram shows the spatial path from remote brine to the lower interface: temperature first changes over $\sqrt{\kappa t}$ at almost unchanged salinity, then salinity changes over its much smaller diffusion scale at nearly constant temperature. The liquid path ends on the liquidus at $(C_i,T_i)$; the solid has $C=0$ and its temperature rises from $T_i$ to $T_m$. The eutectic position is schematic, with $C_E=2C_0$ in the illustration, and is not used in the calculation. A point initially in the fresh layer freezes when $b$ reaches it, cools in the ice, and later melts when $a$ reaches it. The inset indicates this temporal path in the opposite direction through the solid branch and into the liquid.

The mechanism is simultaneous upper freezing and lower melting, with net growth of the ice thickness. Cold brine accepts most of the latent heat released by upper freezing. Salt reaching the lower contact lowers its equilibrium melting temperature, and melting freshens that liquid until its liquidus is close to $T_m$. The heat delivered through the ice supplies the much smaller melting demand there. The remote brine remains liquid even though it is below the pure-water melting temperature, because it lies above its own saline liquidus. Thus “cold” does not by itself decide which phase is stable. These conclusions apply while the layers remain effectively deep and the stated no-convection, pure-ice and phase-equilibrium assumptions hold.

Take $A>0$ for the repulsive molecular interaction, $p_0$ as the common reference pressure, and let $T_i=T_m-\delta T$ be the ice-film temperature. All ratios involving $T_m$ use its absolute value, approximately $273.15\mathrm{K}$, rather than the numerical Celsius value zero. The premelting film permits water to reach and freeze at the bottom of the ice while the upper surface is displaced upward without freezing there.

For equal phase mass densities, equality of the solid and liquid chemical potentials gives the Clapeyron pressure relation for equal-density phases. Indeed, $d\mu =-sdT+dp/\rho$ and $s_l-s_s=L/T_m$, so expansion around coexistence at $(T_m,p_0)$ yieldsThis is a pressure difference between phases, not a same-pressure Clausius-Clapeyron slope. The molecular disjoining pressure supports this difference:Treat the normal solid load as its effective pressure in this planar model. The gravitational load corresponding to hydrostatic pressure is $p_s=p_0+\rho gh$, so $p_l=p_0+\rho gh-p_T$. Refer the bath pressure to the sheet's upper gravitational datum, or neglect the sheet-scale hydrostatic head. The Darcy flow law then gives the upward supply and the ice growth rateHere $\Pi$ is permeability of a porous medium, $\mu$ is dynamic viscosity, and equal densities identify supplied liquid volume with added ice volume to leading order in $a/h$.

To recover the printed law, use the usual hydraulic control of frost heave idealization: the sheet's top is at $T_m$, the liquid film and ice have a common thermal conductivity $K$, and the flow is slow enough that latent-heat production is small compared with the conductive heat passing through the layer. In addition to a quasi-steady ice temperature field, this needsThe leading heat flux is consequently continuous through the film and ice. Their thermal resistances giveLet $B_T=\rho L\Delta T/T_m$, a pressure scale. The thermomolecular pressure and the molecular law then giveSubstitute this pressure into the Darcy flow law:The first term draws water toward the undercooled ice; the increasing gravitational load eventually cancels it.

Quasi-steady temperature alone is not sufficient to fix this exact prefactor. With film conductivity $K_l$, ice conductivity $K_s$, and nonnegligible latent heat, the appropriate additional balance isTogether with the Darcy equation, this is the implicit growth model. Even in the slow-flow limit, a conductivity ratio $K_s/K_l=r$ changes the leading driving pressure by $r^{3/4}$. Taking $r=2$ is a counterexample to obtaining the printed prefactor from quasi-steadiness alone. Thus the boxed equation is the intended equal-conductivity, thin-film, hydraulically limited model, rather than a consequence of only the stated quasi-steady assumption. This distinction is the heat-balance correction to a premelted-film growth model.

For that reduced equation defineThe scale $h_{\ast }$ balances $F{h}_{\ast }^{-3/4}$ against $\rho g{h}_{\ast }$; $F$ has units of pressure times length to the power $3/4$, so $h_{\ast }$ is a length and $t_{\ast }$ is a time. They yield

Set $u={\eta }^{7/4}$. The equation becomes linear:For initial thickness $\eta (0)={\eta }_0\ge 0$, the explicit solution of gravity-limited frost heave isThe usual zero-initial-thickness sketch usesIts early and late behaviour areFor $0<\eta <1$, the derivative is positive and ${\eta }^{\prime \prime }=(-\frac{3}{4}{\eta }^{-7/4}-1){\eta }^{\prime }<0$, so the curve is increasing and concave downward. It approaches the stable thickness $h_{\ast }$ exponentially. Initial thickness above $h_{\ast }$ instead relaxes downward; at $h_{\ast }$ it is stationary.

The singular slope at zero belongs to the formal reduced solution. Since $a/h\propto h^{-3/4}$, the thin-film assumption eventually fails as $h\to 0$. The early power law therefore describes an intermediate continuum regime after any microscopic startup, not arbitrarily early physical times. A finite positive ${\eta }_0$ supplies a regular initial condition when that regime begins. Gravity limits the ultimate thickness; molecular suction and the Darcy resistance set the growth toward it.

Use seawater specific heat capacity $c_w\simeq 4.0\times 10^3\mathrm{J}\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{g}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$, which is an additional standard material approximation: the paper supplies the ice heat capacity, not the seawater heat capacity. Relative to freezing, the assumed uniform column has $\Delta T=7-(-1.8)=8.8\mathrm{K}$. Its ocean heat content per horizontal area isThis is heat above the reference freezing state, not the absolute internal energy of seawater.

If all this heat reaches ice already at its fusion temperature, divide by the supplied latent heat:For a chosen ice mass density ${\rho }_i=917\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$, this corresponds to about $5.86\mathrm{m}$ of ice. Density was not specified for this conversion, so the mass per area is the result that needs no further ice-density assumption.

Cold ice must first be warmed. If its initial temperature is $T_i<T_m$, the corresponding ideal melt mass is $Q/[L_f+c_i(T_m-T_i)]$, using the supplied ice specific heat capacity $c_i=2100\mathrm{J}\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{g}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$. No initial ice temperature or salinity-dependent fusion temperature is supplied. The latent-only result is therefore an upper bound; actual melting is smaller when sensible warming, ocean or atmospheric losses and incomplete heat transfer matter.

Let $a_{\xi }=\mathbf{\xi }\cdot \nabla \Psi$, $d_{\xi }=\nabla \cdot \mathbf{\xi }$ and ${\rho }_{\Psi }=d\rho /d\Psi$. Since $\nabla p=-\rho \nabla \Psi$, the pressure and mass density perturbations are $\delta p_{\xi }=\rho a_{\xi }-\gamma p{d}_{\xi }$ and $\delta {\rho }_{\xi }=-\rho d_{\xi }-{\rho }_{\Psi }{a}_{\xi }$. Integrating the pressure-gradient term by parts in the mass density-weighted inner product givesThe boundary term vanishes for regular admissible displacements because $p,\rho$ vanish there and $\delta p=\rho a-\gamma pd$. Completing the pressure square giveswhereThis effective-potential stratification coefficient is real. All coefficients of the bilinear form are real, so $⟨\eta ,\mathcal{F}\xi ⟩=⟨\mathcal{F}\eta ,\xi ⟩$: the operator is symmetric on the stated boundary domain, giving the usual self-adjoint realization of the stellar normal-mode problem.

Set $\eta =\xi$ and use $\mathcal{F}\xi =-{\omega }^2\xi$. The Cowling energy principle for a rotating barotropic star isThe Rayleigh quotient $Q[\xi ]/\int \rho |\xi {|}^2$ tests stability. If $Q\ge 0$ for every admissible displacement, no mode has ${\omega }^2<0$, so there is no exponentially growing mode. If an admissible trial displacement has $Q<0$, the Rayleigh-Ritz variational principle puts negative spectrum below zero; in the usual discrete stellar mode problem this gives a mode with $\omega =i\sigma$, $\sigma >0$. Equality allows neutral modes, rather than establishing strictly positive frequencies. A locally negative coefficient alone is not a complete instability proof: a trial function must also control the pressure and other positive terms.

For a spherical stellar polytrope in hydrostatic equilibrium, combine $d{m}_r/dr=4\pi r^2\rho$ with $dP/dr=-G{m}_r\rho /r^2$ to eliminate the enclosed mass:For $n>0$, put $P=K{\rho }^{1+1/n}$, $\rho ={\rho }_c{\theta }^n$, $P=P_c{\theta }^{n+1}$ and $r=a\xi$. Since ${\rho }^{-1}dP/dr=(n+1)P_c{\theta }^{\prime }/(a{\rho }_c)$, chooseThe Lane-Emden equation is thenA regular center requires $\theta (0)=1$ and ${\theta }^{\prime }(0)=0$, with positive chosen central mass density and pressure. Locally $\theta =1-{\xi }^2/6+n{\xi }^4/120+\cdots$. The stellar surface is the first positive zero ${\xi }_1$, where the idealized external pressure is zero; retain the positive solution before it. Thus $R=a{\xi }_1$ and the Lane-Emden mass formula isThe surface condition selects where to stop a centrally regular solution, rather than replacing its central regularity conditions.

For a polytrope of index zero, the density is constant and $({\xi }^2{\theta }^{\prime }{)}^{\prime }=-{\xi }^2$. Regularity givesThe pressure is $P_c{\theta }_0$ and $a^2=P_c/(4\pi G{\rho }_c^2)$, so $R^2=3P_c/(2\pi G{\rho }_c^2)$. Index zero is the structural incompressible limit: the expression $K{\rho }^{1+1/n}$ is not itself defined at $n=0$.

For a polytrope of index one, set $u=\xi \theta$. The equation becomes $u^{\prime \prime }+u=0$, while central regularity requires $u(0)=0$, $u^{\prime }(0)=1$. HenceThe mass is $4{\pi }^2{a}^3{\rho }_c$, so it can change with central mass density while the radius stays fixed.

The moment of inertia of a polytropic star about any axis through its center follows by integrating $r^2{\sin }^2\vartheta$ over spherical shells:For constant mass density this gives $I_0=2M{R}^2/5$. For index one, integration by parts gives ${\int }_0^{\pi }{\xi }^3\sin \xi d\xi =\pi ({\pi }^2-6)$, and thereforeThese are axial moments of inertia, not the scalar second mass moment $\int r^{2}dm$.

For a finite-radius centrally regular stellar polytrope with $0<n<5$ and $n\ne 1$, eliminate ${\rho }_c$ from $R=a{\xi }_1$ and $M=4\pi a^3{\rho }_c{\omega }_n$. The resulting polytropic mass-radius relation isHere ${\xi }_1,{\omega }_n$ are dimensionless functions of $n$. At $n=1$ no such single-valued mass-as-a-power-of-radius relation exists at fixed $K$: the radius is fixed instead. At $n=3$ the exponent is zero and $M=4\pi {\omega }_3(K/(\pi G){)}^{3/2}$ is independent of central mass density. For the incompressible case, $M=(4\pi {\rho }_c/3)R^3$ at fixed mass density. Regular $n\ge 5$ solutions have no finite zero-pressure surface, so the finite-radius formula does not apply to them.

For polytropic index three, the Lane-Emden mass formula cancels the central mass density:Substituting the preceding constant $K$ givesFor fixed composition this is $M\propto \sqrt{1-\beta }/{\beta }^2$, as required. Squaring and rearranging yields the Eddington quartic relation, $(1-\beta )/{\beta }^4\propto {\mu }^4{M}^2$. The larger masses in this model have smaller gas fractions and relatively more radiation support.

A stellar equation of state supplies pressure and internal energy as functions of density, temperature and composition, together with thermodynamic derivatives needed for stability and transport. Hydrostatic equilibrium fixes the pressure gradient, but does not determine which microscopic components provide the pressure. In ordinary dense interiors local thermodynamic equilibrium is a useful starting point. A consistent mixture iswhere ions, Electrons, radiation and interaction corrections are distinguished. The classical Electron pressure and electron degeneracy pressure are two limits of the same Electron contribution, and must not be added as if they belonged to different particles. The finite-temperature electron equation of state interpolates between them.

In a fully ionized, nondegenerate, nonrelativistic gas, $P_g=\rho k_{B}T/(\mu m_u)$ and specific thermal energy is $u_g=3k_{B}T/(2\mu m_u)$. With nuclear mass fractions $X_A$, charges $Z_A$ and mass numbers $A_A$, the mean molecular weight satisfies ${\mu }^{-1}={\sum }_A{X}_A(1+Z_A)/A_A$, and ${\mu }_e^{-1}={\sum }_A{X}_A{Z}_A/A_A$ is the mean molecular weight per electron. This regime describes much of an ordinary main sequence interior. Toward cooler layers, ionization and molecular dissociation change particle numbers and consume heat. The Saha equation relates ionization to both temperature and Electron density: there is no universal horizontal ionization boundary. These regions have larger heat capacity and can have a reduced stellar adiabatic exponent. The simple fully ionized formula is then insufficient.

Equilibrium photons give radiation pressure $P_{\gamma }=a_r{T}^4/3$ and energy per volume $a_r{T}^4$, or specific energy $u_{\gamma }=a_r{T}^4/\rho$. In the nondegenerate gas regime, equality with gas pressure gives the radiation-to-gas pressure boundarya line of slope $1/3$ on a $(\log \rho ,\log T)$ plot. Higher temperatures at fixed mass density favor photon support. A monatomic gas has stellar adiabatic exponent $5/3$, while radiation alone has $4/3$; their adiabatic exponents of a monatomic gas-radiation mixture are not obtained by assuming a fixed pressure fraction during compression. Radiation support is particularly important in massive stars.

For Electrons, Pauli exclusion principle and the Fermi-Dirac distribution determine occupation numbers. The net Electron density is $n_e=\rho /({\mu }_e{m}_u)$ and the Fermi momentum is $p_F=\hslash (3{\pi }^2{n}_e{)}^{1/3}$. Define the kinetic electron Fermi temperatureFor $T\gg T_F$ the Electrons are nearly classical; for $T\ll T_F$ they are strongly degenerate and their pressure depends primarily on density. The intermediate region requires finite-temperature electron equation of state integrals, not a discontinuous switch of formulas.

The equation of state of a cold electron gas gives, in its two limits,These are respectively the $n=3/2$ and $n=3$ pressure-density powers, explaining the approximate white dwarf polytropic mass-radius relation sequence and the Chandrasekhar limit. The kinetic energy per volume is $3P_e/2$ in the nonrelativistic limit and $3P_e$ in the ultrarelativistic limit. Ions can still supply much of the heat capacity even when the Electron pressure supplies the mechanical support.

The Electron degeneracy crossover $T\sim T_F$ has slope $2/3$ at low mass density and $1/3$ at high mass density. The electron relativistic density threshold isa vertical marker where $p_F=m_{e}c$. It is different from the thermal electron relativistic threshold $k_{B}T\sim m_e{c}^2$, near $5.93\times 10^9\mathrm{K}$, a horizontal temperature scale. Hot dilute matter can have relativistic thermal Electrons without degeneracy; cold dense matter can have relativistic degenerate Electrons without reaching that temperature.

Electron degeneracy also does not automatically imply that Electrons dominate the total pressure. Comparing the cold Electron limit with radiation gives the radiation-to-degeneracy pressure boundaryIts logarithmic slopes are $5/12$ for nonrelativistic Electrons and $1/3$ for ultrarelativistic Electrons. One must compare the pressures separately from the degeneracy criterion; extrapolating the classical gas-radiation line into a degenerate region is incorrect.

The stellar equation-of-state regime diagram uses an illustrative fully ionized carbon composition, ${\mu }_e=2$, $\mu =12/7$. It displays the electron-degeneracy crossover, both radiation-pressure comparisons, and distinct thermal and density-driven relativity scales. The curves are limiting-model comparisons, not sharp phase boundaries or a calibrated complete equation of state. Partial ionization, molecular physics and interactions modify the low-temperature regions indicated on the plot.

At sufficiently high temperature, electron-positron thermal pair abundance can become important. The pair abundance depends on density and chemical potential as well as temperature; $k_{B}T=m_e{c}^2$ is not a universal onset line. In the dilute ultrarelativistic limit, both pair species together add energy density $7a_r{T}^4/4$ to the photons' $a_r{T}^4$, and have pressure one third of their energy density. While pairs are being created, thermal energy is spent on rest mass, which can reduce the stellar adiabatic exponent below $4/3$ and contribute to pair-instability supernova physics.

At high mass density and low temperature, Interactions governed by Coulomb's law invalidate the noninteracting-ion approximation. The ionic Coulomb coupling parameter $\Gamma =Z^2{e}^2/(4\pi {ϵ}_0{a}_i{k}_{B}T)$, where $a_i=(3/(4\pi n_i){)}^{1/3}$, grows as ${\rho }^{1/3}/T$. Corrections become significant when $\Gamma$ is of order one, and a sufficiently strongly coupled plasma can crystallize. At still greater mass density, electron capture alters ${\mu }_e$ and nuclear matter replaces the ideal electron-ion model; neutron star interiors require strong-interaction and relativistic equations of state. These further regimes lie beyond the simple pressure curves plotted here. A useful stellar EOS is thermodynamically consistent across the crossovers, rather than just the maximum of unrelated pressure laws.

Write $S(R)$ for the genuine surface density of a disk, and $\rho (R,z)=S(R)\delta (z)$ for its three-dimensional mass density. The delta function in the printed surface density formula belongs to $\rho$, not to $S$. Introduce a reference length $R_{\ast }$ to make logarithms dimensionless. The intended model is the infinite, self-gravitating, scale-free Mestel disk, with no extra source or imposed gravitational field.

The circular speed satisfies $v_c^2=R{\partial }_R\Phi (R,0)$. Thus the flat galaxy rotation curve givesA reflection-symmetric harmonic function with this midplane boundary value isVerify this continuation using the Poisson equation for Newtonian gravity. For $z>0$, set $r=\sqrt{R^2+z^2}$; thenHence ${\nabla }^2\Phi =0$ off the astrophysical disk, and reflection gives the lower-half-space solution. Across the astrophysical disk the derivative jumps by ${\Phi }_z(0^{+})-{\Phi }_z(0^{-})=2v_0^2/R$. The distributional Poisson equation for Newtonian gravity therefore givesAt the origin the enclosed disk mass tends to zero linearly with radius, so there is no additional central point mass. This verifies the Mestel disk potential-density pair. The astrophysical disk has infinite total mass and a logarithmic Newtonian gravitational potential, so it is not an isolated finite-mass model with Newtonian gravitational potential zero at infinity. The usual scale-free boundary condition is important: the midplane rotation curve alone would also permit an added term $a|z|$, representing an extra uniform sheet without changing the radial circular force. That contribution is excluded in the intended Mestel disk model.

Use a mass-weighted planar galactic distribution function, so $F(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{v})d^{2}x{d}^{2}v$ is the stellar mass in a small planar phase space element. A number-weighted function instead needs the stellar mass factor when computing $S$. Assume a steady collisionless stellar system and isotropy in the two in-plane velocity components. Put $u=|\mathbf{v}{|}^2/2$ and write $F=f(\mathbf{x},u)$. The stationary Collisionless Boltzmann equation becomesSince this holds in every velocity direction, ${\nabla }_{x}f=f_u{\nabla }_x\Phi$. In coordinates $(\mathbf{x},E)$ with $E=u+\Phi$, this is exactly ${\nabla }_{x}f{|}_E=0$. Therefore the planar isotropic distribution is $F(E)$, where $E$ is the specific orbital energy. Stationarity is essential; instantaneous isotropy alone would not imply this result.

Integrating over the two-dimensional velocity plane gives the planar isotropic distribution inversion:On the astrophysical disk $R=R_{\ast }{e}^{\Phi /v_0^2}$, so $S(\Phi )=v_0^2{e}^{-\Phi /v_0^2}/(2\pi G{R}_{\ast })$. Differentiate the integral with respect to its lower limit:The boundary value $S\to 0$ as $\Phi \to \infty$ verifies the integrated equation as well as its derivative. Choosing the implicit length unit $R_{\ast }=1$ recovers the printed normalization. Changing the additive energy zero changes this prefactor accordingly.