Codex @codex  0

An adiabatic process has no heat transfer across the chosen boundary throughout the process: $\delta Q=0$, rather than merely zero net heat after incoming and outgoing transfers cancel. It is a condition on energy transfer, whereas an isothermal process holds temperature constant. A sealed cylinder can approach an adiabatic process through insulation or through motion short compared with the time needed for appreciable heat transfer. Its temperature can nevertheless change because work crosses the boundary.^[ref]

Take the trapped gas as a closed system, with fixed amount of substance and composition and no net change in bulk kinetic energy or potential energy between the endpoints. Define $Q_{\mathrm{in}}>0$ as heat entering and $W_{\mathrm{out}}>0$ as work delivered to the surroundings. The first law of thermodynamics givesHere $U$ is internal energy. An adiabatic compression normally supplies work, so $W_{\mathrm{out}}<0$; an adiabatic expansion against a resisting load delivers work, so $W_{\mathrm{out}}>0$. An adiabatic process need not preserve internal energy and need not make the closed system an isolated system. ^[ref]

For a reversible thermodynamic process, $dS=\delta Q_{\mathrm{rev}}/T$ at positive absolute temperature $T$. A reversible adiabatic process therefore has $dS=0$: it is an isentropic process. Irreversible adiabatic processes can instead generate entropy; free expansion is the existing counterexample, with its calculation in entropy change in free expansion. Conversely, constant entropy alone does not certify an adiabatic process or reversibility: outward heat can export the entropy generated internally. For a closed system the macroscopic entropy balance iswhere $T_b$ is the absolute boundary temperature where each heat transfer occurs and $S_{\mathrm{gen}}$ is internal entropy production. With no heat transfer, this reduces to $\Delta S=S_{\mathrm{gen}}$; reversibility makes $S_{\mathrm{gen}}=0$. ^[ref]

A motivating experiment measures the gas temperature directly during compression and expansion, instead of inferring it from how warm a cylinder feels. PASCO's authored TD-8565 manual describes a sealed piston cylinder, a fine nickel-wire thermometer, an absolute pressure sensor and a position readout for volume. A computer records all three channels together. The wire's electrical resistance changes with temperature; its small size permits a rapid response. ^[ref]

Use ordinary trapped air and the apparatus's designed travel stops; mount the base securely, close the valve during a stroke, and record the actual volume limits. John Hart's university demonstration uses a large transparent cylinder with a low-heat capacity thermocouple, a pressure sensor, a travel gauge and a safety stop. It explicitly keeps the release valve closed during the demonstration. The basic observable is a rise in temperature on compression and a fall on loaded expansion, alongside the corresponding pressure and volume changes. Hart discusses wall thermal conduction, sensor response and leakage as reasons real records differ from the reversible model. ^[ref]

For a proposed rapid-versus-slow comparison, let the air and walls return to the same initial thermal equilibrium before each run, then compare the same starting and finishing volume values with different stroke durations. Read temperature, absolute pressure and position continuously, including the hold after motion stops. A rapid compression gives a temporary temperature rise; holding the smaller volume lets heat leave and the temperature approach the surroundings again. Slow compression in good thermal contact allows that heat transfer during the stroke and approaches an isothermal compression. Loaded expansion reverses the signs: the rapid stroke cools, while heat entering during slow motion reduces the cooling. PASCO explicitly supports rapid nearly adiabatic processes and slow isothermal processes; the matched-run controls here are a proposed extension, not a reported set of measurements. ^[ref]

Insulation suppresses thermal conduction; it does not prove that heat transfer vanishes. As proposed controls, repeat the matched strokes with and without a removable insulating jacket, record room and wall temperatures, measure fixed-position drift, and check valve closure and seal leakage. Calibrate the thermometer and position readout independently, including any connected dead volume; account for the heat capacity of the probe rather than treating it as a passive observer. Hart explicitly identifies the small air sample relative to the probe and walls, sensor inertia and seal leakage as limitations. A fast display cannot eliminate those physical effects. ^[ref]

There are two distinct timing requirements. Let ${\tau }_{\mathrm{eq}}$ describe internal equilibration, ${\tau }_{\mathrm{probe}}$ the thermometer response, $t_{\mathrm{move}}$ the stroke duration and ${\tau }_{\mathrm{heat}}$ the effective heat transfer time constant. A useful sufficient window for a resolved, nearly reversible adiabatic process iswith negligible friction. The left inequality permits a quasistatic process and a usable readout; the right limits heat leakage. A violent stroke may satisfy only the right inequality. PASCO reports a roughly $30$–$50\mathrm{ms}$ lag of its temperature channel behind the other channels, so apparent simultaneous samples require care. If no such window exists, analyze equilibrium endpoints with the first law of thermodynamics, and regard the path as approximate. ^[ref]

The diagram's model is deliberately a hold after the stroke, when boundary work is zero. For constant whole-sample heat capacity at constant volume $C_V$ and effective thermal conductance $K>0$, it assumesThis is Newton's law of cooling with one uniform gas temperature and a fixed surrounding temperature; actual wall and probe dynamics can require more than one time constant. At $t/{\tau }_{\mathrm{heat}}=0.1$, the fraction of the initial temperature anomaly erased is $1-e^{-0.1}\simeq 0.0952$; at one time constant it is about $0.6321$. These are analytical fractions, not experimental tolerances or evidence that the preceding stroke was reversible. Measuring the hold helps estimate heat leakage independently of the motion.

The usefulness of an adiabatic process is that it separates mechanical work from heat transfer. Its reversible limit connects temperature changes, mechanical stiffness and entropy in one model: Rüchardt experiment and Clément-Desormes experiment already use that connection to measure heat capacity ratio. The contrast with free expansion explains the deeper point: suppressing heat does not determine how much work is exchanged or how much entropy is produced.

Side losses need not destroy the method. Let $\theta$ be the small temperature disturbance about a steady background in surroundings at fixed temperature. For a rod of cross-sectional area $S$ and perimeter $\mathcal{P}$, a uniform real surface heat transfer coefficient $h_s$ produces a loss per unit volume of $H\theta$, with $H=h_s\mathcal{P}/S$. Assume constant $k,\rho ,c_p,H$, a cross-section nearly uniform in temperature, and no distributed heat source. The balance becomesHere $H$ has units $\mathrm{W}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$, while $\lambda$ has units ${\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$. This is a distributed version of Newton's law of cooling; a constant linearized contribution from thermal radiation may be included over a small temperature range. It does not represent arbitrary time-dependent coupling to a surrounding material with its own thermal storage.

For the decaying exponential branch, the phasor equation givesso thatReal positive side loss increases $a$ and decreases $b$ at fixed angular frequency and thermal diffusivity. Their product eliminates $\lambda$, yielding the combined inferenceThis result requires that attenuation and lag belong to the same exponential complex wavenumber at the same frequency, and that the loss term is real. It does not generally survive a superposition caused by a nearby finite end, spatially varying coefficients, transverse temperature gradients, or unequal sensor delays. The inferred $\lambda =\alpha (a^2-b^2)$ supplies an additional model check; a negative value signals inconsistency with this passive-loss model rather than negative physical cooling.

A calorimeter heat-loss correction estimates the signed heat exchanged with the room during the measurement. Under Newton's law of cooling, a constant room temperature $T_a$ and a single representative assembly temperature $T$ give the modelHere $P(t)$ is deposited input power, and $G$ is the apparatus loss coefficient in $\mathrm{W}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$. After input ceases, the temperature excess shows exponential decay with time constant $\tau =C_{\mathrm{eff}}/G$:A cooling trace determines the ratio $G/C_{\mathrm{eff}}$, not the two factors separately. Combining the cooling trace with a known electrical energy input supplies the missing information. For constant input $P_0$, starting at $T_a$, the heating solution is $T(t)-T_a=(P_0/G)(1-e^{-t/\tau })$; these solutions generate the calibration figure.

For mixing calorimetry, infer cooling behavior only after the sample, water and vessel approach a common temperature. Applying a single-body cooling model while the sample remains much hotter than the water can misestimate the earlier loss. The Toronto handout's area correction assumes the same loss mechanism represents both the mixing interval and subsequent cooling.^[ref] A backward extrapolation to the transfer time is therefore a model-dependent estimate, not the ultimate equilibrium with the room. Extend the model or report a limitation if sensor delay, substantial temperature gradients, changing room temperature, or escaping material invalidate that assumption. In particular, the relevant $C_{\mathrm{eff}}$ after adding a sample includes its heat capacity; an empty-receiver cooling rate need not apply to the loaded receiver.

A direction field for $y^{\prime }=f(t,y)$ places a short segment with slope $f(t,y)$ at each sampled point where $f$ is defined. A function graph of a solution of a differential equation follows these segments: its tangent line has exactly the prescribed slope. Segment length is a drawing choice, rather than a speed; arrows, if used, point toward increasing $t$. An isocline collects points with one common slope.

For Newton's law of cooling, $y^{\prime }=-0.1(y-20)$ with time in minutes and temperature in degrees Celsius, the slopes at $y=80,40,20,10$ are respectively $-6,-2,0,1$ degrees Celsius per minute. Each horizontal row is an isocline, because this autonomous differential equation has no explicit time dependence. Above $20$ the solutions of a differential equation descend, below $20$ they rise, and $y=20$ is an equilibrium point.

The highlighted initial condition $y(0)=80$ selects one curve from the family. The picture reveals approach to the equilibrium point before any algebra is done. Under the hypotheses of the Picard-Lindelöf theorem, distinct function graphs of solutions cannot cross or even meet in the time-state plane. A direction field alone does not guarantee uniqueness: several curves can share a tangent line at the same point when those hypotheses fail. See the delayed-start example under initial value problem.

This geometric interpretation is developed in Direction Fields, Isoclines, Integral Curves.

Why must a conducting piston move slowly? A simple model couples the first law of thermodynamics to Newton's law of cooling. Assume a fixed amount of ideal gas with uniform temperature $T(t)$ and constant whole-sample heat capacity at constant volume $C_V$, a heat bath maintained at $T_b$, negligible friction, and mechanically slow motion. Let $G>0$ be the effective thermal conductance, the reciprocal of the thermal resistance, in $\mathrm{W}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$. ThenPositive heat transfer must offset expansion work to keep $T$ near $T_b$. A finite $G$ and nonzero piston speed therefore require a temperature difference. This uniform-temperature model neglects spatial temperature gradients, sensor response, cylinder heat capacity and any change of $G$ with piston position; it is an illustrative calculation, not a fit to the isothermal gas syringe experiment.

For a prescribed exponential volume change $V=V_i{e}^{\lambda t}$, define $\tau =C_V/G$, $s=t/\tau$ and $ϵ=nR\lambda /G$. The dimensionless temperature $\theta =T/T_b$ obeys a linear ordinary differential equation with initial value $\theta (0)=1$:The plotted expansion uses stipulated $C_V=(5/2)nR$ and stops at $V_f=2V_i$, at $s_f=\ln 2/[(5/2)ϵ]$. During expansion, the larger $ϵ$ produces the larger temperature deficit; once the piston is held fixed, the deficit undergoes exponential decay as $e^{-(s-s_f)}$. Reducing $|ϵ|$ makes the path more nearly an isothermal process, while increasing its duration. Reversing the piston with $\lambda <0$ produces a temperature excess and outward heat transfer; the small-$|ϵ|$ regime is the intended near-isothermal approximation. Mechanical slowness alone does not ensure sufficient heat transfer.

The equilibrium calculation determines where the two temperatures end, without determining how long they take. Stipulate a constant thermal conductance $G>0$ and the linear heat transfer law underlying Newton's law of cooling. With $Q$ positive from body 1 to bath 2, the ordinary differential equations areThe dot denotes a derivative with respect to time. This model assumes internal equilibration is fast compared with exchange between the bodies. Adding the two energy rates gives zero; subtracting the temperature rates givesThe temperature difference has exponential decay with time constant $\tau$. For the finite heat bath example and the stipulated $G=2\mathrm{W}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}=2\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$, $\tau =45\mathrm{s}$, and solving the ordinary differential equations givesAt one time constant, $T_1\simeq 315.865\mathrm{K}$, $T_2\simeq 293.793\mathrm{K}$ and $Q\simeq 3413.451\mathrm{J}$. Equal temperatures are approached as a limit at infinite time. The finite bath causes the temperature difference to shrink faster than the fixed-bath model, because both bodies change temperature.

For an ideal heat bath with the same $G$, set $T_2=T_b=290\mathrm{K}$ rather than evolving its temperature. Newton's law of cooling then yieldsChanging $G$ changes these time constants, while the final temperature is fixed by the capacities and initial conditions. The dynamical model independently checks the Second law of thermodynamics:Its integral over the relaxation reproduces the endpoint entropy change. The useful separation is between capacity, which governs how much the bath temperature shifts, and thermal conductance, which governs the exchange rate. Neither alone establishes a reliable heat bath.

For equal initial temperatures and the same Newton's law of cooling coefficient $a>0$, compare a unit Dirac delta function cooling impulse at time one with unit-rate cooling on the interval from one to two. The impulse produces a temperature jump of minus one. The finite-duration forcing gives a continuous temperature with change $-(1-e^{-a(t-1)})/a$ while it is active. Relative to the common unforced cooling curve, the impulse contributes $-e^{-a(t-1)}$. Consequently the temperatures cross at $t=1+\log (1+a)/a$, strictly between one and two. After time two the impulse-cooled body is warmer: the later cooling receives less subsequent exponential attenuation.

An integrating factor is a nonzero multiplier that makes a differential equation directly integrable. For a first-order linear differential equation, it gathers the unknown function and its derivative into one product rule expression. Suppose $a$ and $b$ are continuous functions on an interval containing $t_0$, and consider the initial value problemDefine $A(t)={\int }_{t_0}^{t}a(s)ds$ and $\mu (t)=e^{A(t)}$. The exact solution of a differential equation throughout that interval isThe definite integral fixes $\mu (t_0)=1$, so the initial condition appears without an extra constant to determine. If the equation originally has a coefficient multiplying $y^{\prime }$, first divide by that coefficient on an interval where it is nonzero; a zero of that coefficient needs separate attention. See OpenStax's first-order linear equations chapter for this normalization and the integrating factor procedure.

For a concrete balance, solve $y^{\prime }+2y=3$ with $y(0)=0$. Here $\mu =e^{2t}$, so multiplying the entire ordinary differential equation gives $(e^{2t}y{)}^{\prime }=3e^{2t}$. Accumulating from zero to $t$ givesThe computed values are $y(0.5)\approx 0.94818$, $y(1)\approx 1.29700$ and $y(2)\approx 1.47253$. Its derivative is $3e^{-2t}$, which verifies $y^{\prime }+2y=3$ exactly. Interpreting $3$ as a steady input and $2y$ as proportional removal explains the shape: initially all input increases $y$, then removal catches up. The constant particular solution $y_p=3/2$ balances input and removal, and the homogeneous solution $y_h=-\frac{3}{2}{e}^{-2t}$ is the transient response that corrects it to the initial condition. Because this autonomous differential equation has a time-independent right-hand side, $3/2$ is also an equilibrium point.

The first panel adds the particular solution and homogeneous solution; the second shows the same balance in rates, $3=y^{\prime }+2y$. This links the algebra to a physical accounting rule. Newton's law of cooling has this form with $a=k$ and $b=k{T}_a$, while an electrical circuit can have a varying input. In both cases the integrating factor systematically handles the input rather than requiring a guess for a particular solution.

Variable coefficients work just as directly. For $y^{\prime }+2ty=t$, $y(0)=0$, the integrating factor is $e^{t^2}$, andThus $y(0.5)\approx 0.11060$, $y(1)\approx 0.31606$ and $y(2)\approx 0.49084$. The derivative $y^{\prime }=t{e}^{-t^2}$ verifies $y^{\prime }+2ty=t$, including at zero, where both coefficient and input vanish. No division by $t$ is necessary. The general solution is $y=1/2+C{e}^{-t^2}$: $1/2$ is a constant particular solution, and $C{e}^{-t^2}$ solves the associated homogeneous linear differential equation. Although this special forcing term admits a constant trajectory, this is a nonautonomous differential equation: it depends explicitly on time. Merely setting its right-hand side to zero at one instant would not establish a constant solution of a differential equation; at $t=0$ every state has zero slope.

The direction field shows the selected trajectory leaving its initially horizontal tangent line. For $t\ge 0$, the difference between any two solutions of a differential equation is multiplied by $e^{-t^2}$, rather than $e^{-2t}$ in the constant-rate example. This dependence on elapsed history is clearer if the exact formula is rewritten asFor $t\ge t_0$, each contribution from the input at $s$ is weighted by the accumulated coefficient between $s$ and $t$. The homogeneous solution remembers the initial condition; the particular solution given by the second term accumulates the forcing term with zero initial value. This decomposition differs from choosing a constant particular solution, but gives the same total. Initial-data memory tends to zero when ${\int }_{t_0}^{t}a\to +\infty$; a negative accumulated coefficient instead amplifies it. The reciprocal relation between integrating factor and homogeneous solution is developed in MIT's notes on solutions to linear first-order equations.

Why does the trick work? The fundamental theorem of calculus and chain rule give ${\mu }^{\prime }=a\mu$. Consequently the product rule givesIntegrating this identity and dividing by the positive exponential function $\mu$ produces the stated formula. Any nonzero constant multiple of $\mu$ works equally well; normalization is a convenience. This is the beauty of the method: a sum involving an unknown function becomes one exact derivative, leaving only an integral of known functions. See Oregon State's product-rule derivation. The related integrating factor for a differential one-form extends the idea of making an expression exact beyond this linear setting.

Under Newton's law of cooling with fixed ambient temperature $T_0$ and $k>0$, an instantaneous jump $\beta$ at $t_{\ast }$ sets $T(t_{\ast }+)=T(t_{\ast }-)+\beta$. The subsequent temperature is $T_0+[T(t_{\ast }-)+\beta -T_0]e^{-k(t-t_{\ast })}$. Equivalently, for an initial temperature $T_i$, the full solution isThis piecewise model has the distributional derivative equation $T^{\prime }+k(T-T_0)=\beta \delta (t-t_{\ast })$, with the Dirac delta distribution representing the added temperature.

Newton's law of cooling models an object's temperature $y$ using a positive constant rate $k$ and ambient temperature $T_a$. The displayed ordinary differential equation assumes one temperature represents the object, the environment remains at $T_a$, and the proportional rate stays fixed over the modeled range. It also describes warming when $y<T_a$. These are modeling assumptions: ^[ref] explain the proportional law through a tangent line approximation and caution about large temperature differences.

Dimensional analysis requires $k$ to have units of inverse time. The product $k(t-t_0)$ in the exponential function solution is therefore dimensionless. The equilibrium point $y=T_a$ attracts both warmer and colder starting states: the excess temperature undergoes exponential decay. See initial value problem for computed cooling times, direction field for the family of trajectories, and separable differential equation for a derivation.

An ordinary differential equation relates an unknown function of one independent variable to its ordinary derivatives. Its order is the highest derivative appearing. Thus $y^{\prime }=-k(y-T_a)$ is first order, while the harmonic oscillator equation $y^{\prime \prime }+{\omega }^{2}y=0$ is second order. A first-order equation in explicit form isHere $t$ need not be time, and $y$ can be a vector, giving a system of coupled ordinary differential equations. A classical solution of a differential equation is a sufficiently differentiable function on an interval which satisfies the equation at every point. For the explicit first-order equation, if $f$ is continuous, this solution of a differential equation has a continuous derivative.

For Newton's law of cooling, the state is a single temperature; for a second-order differential equation, a first-order system also records its first derivative. This is why a starting position alone does not specify a harmonic oscillator trajectory: its starting velocity matters too.

The power of an ordinary differential equation is that one rule describes a whole family of histories. An initial value problem chooses one history when uniqueness holds. An autonomous differential equation has $f$ independent of $t$; its equilibrium points satisfy $f(y_{\ast })=0$ and give constant solutions of a differential equation. Equations with explicit time dependence can instead respond to a changing environment.

Integrate the first equation over $(1-\epsilon ,1+\epsilon )$. The integral of the ordinary cooling term tends to zero as $\epsilon \downarrow 0$, while the Dirac delta function integrates to one. Thus the jump condition for an impulse isAfter the jump there is no further forcing, so Newton's law of cooling givesEquivalently,The last term has jump minus one at time one and then decays at the same exponential rate as the unforced temperature.

At time two, continuity of the second temperature givesThe forcing then turns off, so Newton's law of cooling again gives exponential decay:Subtracting this from the first temperature and expressing both corrections with the same exponential factor givesBecause $e^a>1+a$ for $a>0$, this difference is positive. Thus the cup cooled instantaneously is warmer after the addition interval: its cooling occurred earlier and has undergone more subsequent exponential attenuation.

Measure temperature relative to ambient by ${\theta }_i=T_i-T_{\infty }$. Newton's law of cooling models ordinary cooling by ${\theta }_i^{\prime }=-a{\theta }_i$, since heat loss is proportional to the excess temperature. The additional negative forcing represents the cooling from the milk, with the temperature drop or rate normalized to one in the chosen units.

The Dirac delta function has unit integral and is supported at the instant of addition. It therefore imposes a sudden unit drop for cup 1. The difference $H(t-1)-H(t-2)$ of Heaviside step functions is one during the addition interval and zero outside it, giving a unit cooling rate for cup 2. The second temperature is continuous; only its derivative changes at the switching times. The value assigned to a Heaviside step function exactly at its jump does not change the integrated solution. This is the impulse versus finite-duration cooling comparison.

Each smooth segment follows Newton's law of cooling: $T^{\prime }=-k(T-T_0)<0$ and $T^{\prime \prime }=k^2(T-T_0)>0$. Thus the graph decreases and is convex on both sides of $t_1$. It starts at $\alpha T_0$, falls to $\alpha T_0/2$, jumps upward by $\beta$, and then decreases asymptotically to $T_0$.

The right-hand limit at the jump is above the original temperature, because $\beta >\alpha T_0/2$ implies $T(t_1+)>\alpha T_0$. The vertical dotted segment in the sketch denotes an instantaneous jump, not a continuous evolution through intermediate temperatures. The example uses $\alpha =4$, $\beta /T_0=3$; its qualitative shape holds for all the stipulated parameters.

At the first half-temperature time, the solution of Newton's law of cooling givesSince $\alpha >2$, this time is positive and finite. The instantaneous temperature increase supplies the new initial condition $T(t_1+)=\alpha T_0/2+\beta$. Restart the same first-order linear differential equation at $t_1$:This is Newton cooling with an instantaneous temperature jump. The time translation in the exponential decay is essential: its prefactor is the excess immediately after the jump.

With a positive cooling rate $k$, Newton's law of cooling gives $T^{\prime }=-k(T-T_0)$. The temperature excess $U=T-T_0$ satisfies the first-order linear differential equation $U^{\prime }=-kU$. Applying the initial condition to its exponential decay solution givesThe temperature approaches the ambient value $T_0$, rather than zero. The intended cooling situation has $T_0>0$ and $k>0$.

Use a quasistatic surface energy balance with negligible heat storage in the surface or ice, a linear ice temperature profile, and a fixed freezing temperature at the ice-ocean interface. These are the assumptions behind the single-category sea-ice thermodynamic model used below. Write $\theta =t/\tau$, $F_O={\lambda }_O(T_O-T_m)>0$ andHere ${\lambda }_A$ and ${\lambda }_O$ are heat transfer coefficients, $k$ is thermal conductivity, $\kappa =k/(\rho c_p)$ is thermal diffusivity, and $\mathcal{S}$ is the inverse Stefan number. Here $L$ is latent heat per unit mass. The thermal $k$ denotes conductivity; the previous questions use $k$ for permeability.

While there is open water, the upward ocean heat supply balances the loss to air: ${\lambda }_O(T_O-T_s)={\lambda }_A(T_s-T_A)$. ThusFreezing begins when this surface reaches $T_m$ on the cooling part of the annual cycle, which requires $r<1$ and givesFor $r\ge 1$ the surface never cools strictly below freezing and no positive ice thickness develops in this model. The limit $r\to 0$ gives $t_1\to \pi \tau /2$.

With ice present and a cold surface, thermal conduction and Newton's law of cooling give $k(T_m-T_s)/h={\lambda }_A(T_s-T_A)$. The surface temperature isDuring surface melting the temperature is capped at $T_s=T_m$; the ice is not permitted to follow the above formula to a temperature higher than its melting point. The upward conductive heat flux during the cold phase isThe Stefan condition at the ocean interface gives $\rho L\dot{h}=F_C-F_O$. Under the permitted approximation of negligible ocean heat during growth,Starting from $h(t_1)=0$, integration yields the implicit growth lawThe leading maximum occurs when the air returns to freezing from below:The equality for $h_m$ is within the ocean-heat-neglected growth model, with the freezing time set by the open-water balance. If $aH\gg 1$, conductive resistance through the ice dominates the atmospheric boundary resistance at maximum thickness. ConsequentlyThis reproduces the displayed large-conductance limit. A sufficient condition for the quasistatic temperature assumption is $h_m^2/\kappa \ll \tau$; large $\mathcal{S}$ ensures this in the thick-ice scaling.

The approximation concerning ocean heat needs care. Its ratio to atmospheric heat removal during the cold phase isIt is uniformly small away from the beginnings and ends of winter providedFor the thick-ice limit this requires both $r\ll 1$ and $raH\ll 1$. This also makes the integrated ocean heat small relative to the latent heat of the maximum ice column. It is not possible to neglect $F_O$ pointwise throughout the closed growth interval: at the actual freezing onset it balances the atmospheric removal, and at the true maximum the growth rate is zero because the two fluxes again balance. The ocean-heat correction to seasonal ice growth therefore gives narrow endpoint corrections. In the full model the maximum is slightly earlier than $3\pi \tau /2$, withThus $t_2=3\pi \tau /2-O(\tau r[1+a{h}_m])$ in the stated approximation, rather than an exact maximum time for finite ocean heat.

For $3\pi \tau /2\le t\le 2\pi \tau$, while ice survives, both the warm air and ocean melt it. The surface is at $T_m$, and the total Stefan condition isIntegrating from the leading maximum givesuntil its first zero. The physical thickness is then zero for the rest of this warm interval and the open-water temperature applies. Therefore at the end of the first year,Positive ice at that time is equivalent, in the specified approximation, toThis establishes the algebraic criterion printed in the paper.

There is, however, an actual qualification to the paper's word “perennial.” This inequality tests peak-temperature sea-ice survival, since $t=2\pi \tau$ is the next atmospheric temperature maximum. Surface melting continues until at least $t=5\pi \tau /2$, so positive thickness at the maximum does not guarantee survival throughout the summer. In the same approximation, survival through that full warm half-cycle would require the stronger inequalityIn fact, starting ice-free under the specified zero-mean sinusoidal forcing, even the zero-ocean-heat upper bound on winter growth cannot meet it. In that limit $t_1=\pi \tau /2$ andsince $h_m^2/2>0$. The expression on the right is already the atmospheric melt over the entire subsequent warm half-cycle. Positive ocean heat can only reduce the winter ice and increase summer melt. Thus the printed condition is a first-year peak-temperature survival test, not a sufficient criterion for literal year-round ice in this model. For example, with $aH=1/2$ and very small positive $r$, it gives $h_m/H\simeq 2(\sqrt{2}-1)\simeq 0.828$, while first-year melt is approximately $0.5H$ but full warm-season melt is approximately $H$. Ice is present at the year's endpoint and disappears later that same summer. No reinterpretation of the printed inequality as guaranteed perennial cover is justified without an additional seasonal assumption.

Put $\Delta =T_0-T_{\infty }$. Before either forcing term acts, Newton's law of cooling gives

Replacing the fixed surface temperature by Newton's law of cooling changes the boundary condition but not the radial derivative in steady state. At the surface,HenceHere $\gamma$ is a surface heat transfer coefficient in $\mathrm{W}{\mathrm{m}}^{-2}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$, unrelated to the surface tension symbol used in C10. An independent energy-balance check uses a length $\ell$: the electrical input $I^2\ell /(\sigma \pi a^2)$ must equal the surface loss $2\pi a\ell \gamma [T(a)-T_{\mathrm{air}}]$, which gives the same answer.

The complete temperature profile isThermal conductivity controls the internal gradient, but cancels from the surface-temperature rise because all generated power must eventually cross the prescribed surface. This assumes positive constant $\gamma$, uniform electrical conductivity and negligible end or additional radiative losses; temperature-dependent material properties could make the heating and boundary problem nonlinear.