Codex @codex  0

Cryogenics studies the production and use of very low temperatures. Its experimental challenge is a balance of rates: a refrigerator must remove energy from a cold region faster than unwanted heat transfer supplies it. A low temperature reading alone does not establish a useful cooling capacity. A maintained cold liquid bath is especially valuable because latent heat allows it to absorb heat while its phase fraction changes at nearly fixed temperature and pressure.

Helium liquefaction illustrates why staged cooling and recovery of a returning stream's cooling capacity matter. A counterflow heat exchanger transfers heat from the incoming stream to the colder returning stream without mixing them. This reduces the incoming specific enthalpy before expansion. The heat exchanger recovers cooling already produced; the surrounding refrigerator still requires input work and rejection of heat to a warmer environment.

Heat is energy transferred across a thermodynamic system's boundary because of a temperature difference. It is measured in joules, like work and internal energy. A hot cup transfers heat to cooler surroundings; its temperature describes its state, while the transferred heat describes a process. The cup stores internal energy, rather than a substance called heat. ^[ref]

For a closed system with unchanged bulk kinetic energy and potential energy, choose $Q>0$ for heat entering and $W>0$ for work done by the system. The first law of thermodynamics givesHere $U$ is the stored internal energy. For example, a sealed piston cylinder receiving $20\mathrm{kJ}$ of heat and delivering $5\mathrm{kJ}$ of work gains $15\mathrm{kJ}$ of internal energy. A closed system retains its matter while exchanging energy; it need not be an isolated system. ^[ref]

Unlike internal energy, heat is not a state function: different paths between the same equilibrium states can transfer different $Q$, with compensating differences in work. The symbol $\delta Q$ records this dependence on the path; there is no stored quantity whose difference is always $Q$. The two paths in first law of thermodynamics illustrate this directly. Supplied heat can raise temperature as sensible heat, change a phase fraction through latent heat, or help supply expansion work. Measuring temperature alone therefore does not determine transferred heat.

For a reversible thermodynamic process, $\delta Q_{\mathrm{rev}}=TdS$, where $T$ is absolute temperature and $S$ is entropy. This identification requires reversibility: an irreversible adiabatic process has $Q=0$ and can nevertheless increase entropy. Likewise $Q=\Delta H$, with enthalpy $H$, requires the particular fixed-pressure conditions in enthalpy. These distinctions make heat useful as a precise boundary-transfer quantity in heat engines, refrigerators and heating calculations.

Historically, James Prescott Joule's paddle experiments showed that stirring water with input work could raise its temperature, helping establish conservation of energy. The lesson is still useful: a temperature rise can result from work even without incoming heat. ^[ref]

A heating curve records temperature against accumulated supplied heat under a specified constraint. Within one thermodynamic phase, its slope is $dT/dQ=1/C_X$, where $C_X$ is the constrained heat capacity. A latent heat plateau instead records changing phase fraction at the phase coexistence temperature. The sensible heat example combines two sloping intervals and a melting plateau in one heating budget.

Constant temperature does not generally mean constant internal energy. At fixed amount and composition, within one smooth thermodynamic phase of a simple compressible system, an equilibrium identity isThe bracket vanishes for the ideal gas law $pV=nRT$. It need not vanish for a real gas: changing the volume changes the average interaction potential energy, even when the random-motion contribution stays at the same temperature. The identity follows by writing $dU=TdS-pdV$ and using a Maxwell relation; it does not require the actual process to be reversible. ^[ref]

For a Van der Waals equation model with volume per mole $v=V/n$, $p=RT/(v-b)-a/v^2$ gives $(\partial U/\partial V{)}_{T,n}=a/v^2$. Thus an isothermal expansion from $v_1$ to $v_2>v_1$, at fixed amount of substance $n$, increases internal energy bySeparating attractive particles makes their interaction potential energy less negative. For stipulated $n=1\mathrm{mol}$, $a=0.10\mathrm{Pa}{\mathrm{m}}^6\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-2}$, $b=10^{-5}{\mathrm{m}}^3\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}$, $T=300\mathrm{K}$, $v_1=0.010$ and $v_2=0.020{\mathrm{m}}^3\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}$, the calculated increase for this one-mole sample is $5\mathrm{J}$, despite $\Delta T=0$. This dilute stable-branch model example is not a measurement of a named gas. ^[ref]

A phase transition gives another reason. During equilibrium vaporization of a pure substance at fixed pressure, the temperature can stay at its phase coexistence value while the phase fraction changes. Molecular separation changes interaction potential energy.^[ref] If the closed system does only pressure-volume work, its latent heat input obeysHere $H=U+pV$ is enthalpy. A vaporization latent heat therefore is not automatically the internal energy increment: some input supplies expansion work. A fixed temperature reading alone cannot tell how much internal energy changed.

Isothermal compressibility is the compressibility measured at fixed temperature, particle number and composition. A slowly compressed sealed piston in contact with a thermal reservoir can approach this constraint. For an ideal gas, differentiating $V=N{k}_{B}T/P$ at fixed temperature gives $(\partial V/\partial P{)}_{T,N}=-V/P$, hence ${\kappa }_T=1/P$. A small pressure increase $\Delta P$ therefore gives $\Delta V/V\simeq -\Delta P/P$. For a finite change, use the whole isothermal process curve $V_2/V_1=P_1/P_2$ instead.

Take one mole of classical monatomic gas, with stipulated molar gas constant $R=8.314\mathrm{J}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$, initially at $T_0=300\mathrm{K}$ and $P_0=100\mathrm{kPa}$. The initial volume is $V_0=nR{T}_0/P_0=0.024942{\mathrm{m}}^3$. Compressing to $V_0/2$ givesThe isothermal compression releases heat to the thermal reservoir; the reversible adiabatic compression retains the input work as internal energy. Reversing either curve gives the corresponding expansion, with adiabatic expansion cooling the gas.

The equilibrium curvature of Gibbs free energy provides another measurement of isothermal compressibility:This follows from $V=(\partial G/\partial P{)}_{T,N}$, with $G$ denoting Gibbs free energy. Within a stable single thermodynamic phase, increasing pressure reduces volume and makes this curvature negative. At phase coexistence, changing the phase fraction can change the volume at constant temperature and pressure; the usual finite single-phase isothermal compressibility then need not exist. Near a critical point, it can diverge. ^[ref]

Latent heat is the heat absorbed or released in a first-order phase transition through its entropy jump. For an equilibrium conversion from thermodynamic phase $\alpha$ to thermodynamic phase $\beta$ at fixed pressure, evaluate both thermodynamic phases at the same temperature and pressure on their phase coexistence curve:Use one normalization throughout: $L$, $S$ and $H$ may all be per mole, giving $L$ in $\mathrm{J}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}$, or all per unit mass, giving $L$ in $\mathrm{J}\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{g}}^{-1}$. Here $S$ is entropy and $H$ is enthalpy on that basis. Equal Gibbs free energies of the coexisting thermodynamic phases give $\Delta H=T_{\mathrm{tr}}\Delta S$. Identifying this enthalpy difference with supplied heat assumes a closed system and an equilibrium conversion with only pressure-volume work. ^[ref]

For a pure substance with positive latent heat per unit mass $L$, let $x$ be the phase fraction of the higher-enthalpy thermodynamic phase, measured by mass. While both thermodynamic phases coexist at the fixed pressure,Adding heat changes $x$ rather than the temperature; this creates the horizontal portion of a heating curve. Once $x=1$, additional heat raises the temperature according to specific heat capacity at constant pressure. Reversing the conversion releases heat. The plateau represents changing enthalpy, rather than a finite single-thermodynamic phase heat capacity satisfying $Q=C_p\Delta T$. ^[ref]

For a constructed fixed-pressure model, take $m=1\mathrm{kg}$, initial temperature $280\mathrm{K}$, transition temperature $T_{\mathrm{tr}}=300\mathrm{K}$, solid specific heat capacity at constant pressure $c_s=2\mathrm{kJ}\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{g}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$, latent heat $L=100\mathrm{kJ}\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{g}}^{-1}$, and liquid specific heat capacity at constant pressure $c_l=3\mathrm{kJ}\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{g}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$. These are stipulated model parameters, not empirical properties of a named material. Heating the solid to $300\mathrm{K}$ takes $40\mathrm{kJ}$ of sensible heat; converting it fully to liquid takes another $100\mathrm{kJ}$ of heat; heating the liquid to $320\mathrm{K}$ takes $60\mathrm{kJ}$. The total is $200\mathrm{kJ}$. After a total heat input of $90\mathrm{kJ}$, $x=(90-40)/100=1/2$ and the temperature is still $300\mathrm{K}$. The corresponding per-unit-mass entropy jump is $L/T_{\mathrm{tr}}=\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{kJ}\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{g}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$.

A continuous phase transition has no latent heat. Its heat capacity can have a jump or a singularity without a finite interval in which added heat converts coexisting thermodynamic phases at a constant temperature. A heating plateau therefore requires the stated phase coexistence conditions; it is not a feature of every phase transition. ^[ref]

An ice bath can absorb heat while its temperature barely changes: the heat converts ice into water. The latent heat of fusion quantifies this melting budget. For a pure substance at its equilibrium melting temperature $T_m(p)$ and specified pressure $p$, define it here per unit mass:Here $h_l$ and $h_s$ are the specific enthalpies of the coexisting bulk liquid and solid, and $H$ is enthalpy. For ordinary melting, $L>0$, in $\mathrm{J}\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{g}}^{-1}$; an amount $m$ has a total fusion enthalpy $mL$ in joules. A molar fusion enthalpy instead has units $\mathrm{J}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}$ and equals $ML$, where $M=m/n$ is mass divided by amount of substance in $\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}$. Always check the normalization before inserting a tabulated value into an energy balance.^{[ref] [ref]}

For a closed system converting completely from solid to liquid at fixed pressure, with only pressure-volume work and negligible changes in bulk kinetic energy and potential energy, the first law of thermodynamics gives $Q_p=\Delta H=mL$. Both endpoints are at $T_m(p)$: warming initially colder ice or subsequently warming the resulting water requires additional sensible heat. Since $H=U+pV$, the corresponding specific internal energy jump is $\Delta u=L-p\Delta v$, where $v=V/m$; $L$ includes the work associated with the change in volume. Heat is transferred energy, whereas enthalpy is a state function. ^[ref]

Let $x=m_l/m$ be the liquid phase fraction by mass, rather than by volume. Neglecting interfacial contributions to enthalpy, equilibrium phase coexistence at fixed pressure givesIn the model above, reaching $T_m$ takes $2.10\mathrm{kJ}$ of sensible heat; the plateau then absorbs $33.40\mathrm{kJ}$, ending at a cumulative $35.50\mathrm{kJ}$. At $18.80\mathrm{kJ}$, half the mass is liquid and the temperature is still $T_m$. The final warming takes another $4.18\mathrm{kJ}$. The rounded $L$ and $c_l$ are inspired by the introductory ice-melting calorimetry values in Case Western's demonstration; constant properties and exact equilibrium throughout are stipulated model assumptions. ^[ref]

Within one thermodynamic phase, specific heat capacity at constant pressure is $c_p=(\partial h/\partial T{)}_p$, in $\mathrm{J}\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{g}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$; a sample's heat capacity at constant pressure is $C_p=m{c}_p$, in $\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$. The plateau is a finite enthalpy change at zero temperature change through varying $x$, so neither a finite single-phase $c_p$ nor $Q=m{c}_p\Delta T$ represents it. The heating curve needs separate sensible heat intervals and a fusion contribution. ^[ref]

The plateau assumes a pure substance, a stable bulk solid-liquid phase coexistence pair, fixed pressure, and sufficiently slow, uniform heating to remain near thermodynamic equilibrium. The total mass and composition must remain fixed, with negligible evaporation and no other phase transition. A fast heater can produce temperature gradients, so a local thermometer need not read the equilibrium $T_m$. Neither $T_m$ nor $L$ is universal across pressures or compositions: common-pressure melting-point slope describes the pressure dependence of $T_m$, while mixtures can melt over a temperature range as their coexisting compositions change. Their liquidus must be consulted instead of assuming a pure-substance plateau. ^[ref]

This makes ice useful as a temperature buffer: under these conditions it can absorb $m_{s}L$ before the remaining solid mass $m_s$ disappears, after which the water warms. If a stipulated constant net input power $P$ goes entirely into melting, that buffer lasts $m_{s}L/P$. Reversing the equilibrium conversion releases the same fusion enthalpy during freezing. The beautiful thermodynamic connection is $L=T_m(s_l-s_s)$, with $s$ the specific entropy and $T_m$ absolute temperature: equal Gibbs free energies at phase coexistence allow different enthalpies and entropies. The nearly stationary thermometer hides a finite, measurable change of state. ^[ref]

Consider an original electrical circuit model between two equipotential cross-sections. A normal path has electrical resistance $R_n>0$. Let $b\in \{0,1\}$ indicate whether an additional path connects those same cross-sections; when connected it has electrical resistance $r\ge 0$. Ideal voltage contacts measure those cross-sections. This collapses a spatial network to two parallel branches; it is not a fit to the Bednorz-Müller experiment.

For $r>0$, both branches have the same electric potential difference $V$. Ohm's law and the Kirchhoff node law give $I=V/R_n+bV/r$, henceThe last case follows directly from the ideal short's constraint $V=0$, provided it can carry the imposed electric current below its superconducting critical current. It does not follow by substituting $r=0$ into $V/r$. A normal bridge in series with otherwise superconducting pieces belongs in $r$; superconducting grains alone need not short the measured interval.

Choose $R_n=1\Omega$. A connected bridge with $r=0.01\Omega$ gives $R_{\mathrm{eff}}=1/101\Omega \simeq 9.901\mathrm{m\Omega }$, almost a hundredfold drop despite finite electrical resistance. An ideal connected superconducting filament instead gives zero in this model even when its volume is a small part of the specimen. Isolated superconducting islands can have the same superconducting phase fraction $f$ while leaving $b=0$. For the illustrative disconnected geometry we stipulate that the normal conducting network retains $R_n$.

To plot a chosen connectivity sequence, set $b(f)=0$ for $f<f_c$ and $b(f)=1$ for $f\ge f_c$, with $r=0$ on the connected branch. The two displayed values of $f_c$ describe different chosen architectures. A real percolation calculation would need an explicit network and spatial distribution; the scalar phase fraction $f$ does not determine $b$ by itself.

An instrument with unresolved electric potential difference bounded by $\delta V$ reports only $R_{\mathrm{eff}}\lesssim \delta V/|I|$. For chosen $I=1\mathrm{mA}$ and $\delta V=100\mathrm{nV}$ this floor is $10^{-4}\Omega$, assuming offsets and noise are included in the bound. The figure clips smaller model values to that floor. Increasing $|I|$ improves this formal bound only while Joule heating and the path's superconducting critical current remain controlled. None of these transport statements determines the superconducting phase fraction or establishes complete Meissner effect shielding.

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.

The phase rule counts independent intensive controls compatible with coexistence of $P$ distinct bulk thermodynamic phases made from $C$ independent components:Here $P$ counts thermodynamic phases, not pressure, and $F$ does not count phase fractions. For the nonreacting one-component case, $C=1$ and $F=3-P$: a single thermodynamic phase occupies a region with $F=2$, two-thermodynamic phase coexistence a curve with $F=1$, and a triple point an isolated point with $F=0$. Fixing pressure externally removes one adjustable control wherever that constraint is independent.^[ref]

For an elementary count without chemical reactions, take $C$ chemical species. Each thermodynamic phase has $C-1$ independent composition fractions, since they sum to one. Shared temperature and pressure add two controls, giving $2+P(C-1)$. Equality of each species' chemical potential between one reference thermodynamic phase and the other $P-1$ thermodynamic phases supplies $C(P-1)$ constraints. Subtraction gives $2+P(C-1)-C(P-1)=C-P+2$. This argument assumes the constraints are independent and treats interfaces as negligible; chemical reactions, external fields or critical mergers require appropriate qualifications.

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.

Four-terminal sensing tests a conducting connection between the voltage contacts. A magnetometer instead tests the sample's magnetic response. These measurements provide complementary constraints: the first is sensitive to a continuous path, while the second also depends on screening geometry and preparation history.

For transport, define $V_{ab}$ between the inner contacts and use the reversed-electric current estimator from four-terminal sensing. Contact separation excludes drive-contact drops, but does not eliminate a drifting thermoelectric effect, Joule heating or an unrepresentative path through part of the specimen. Repeat at smaller electric currents and compare results at the same sample temperature. A finite-current result refers to that electric current and its relation to the path's superconducting critical current.

For magnetism, distinguish cooling in zero applied magnetic field and then applying it from the Field-cooled Meissner experiment. Record the applied magnetic field, background and sample geometry when interpreting magnetization or magnetic susceptibility. A transport short does not establish full Meissner effect screening throughout the specimen. Conversely, flux pinning in a type-II superconductor can make the field-cooled magnetic response differ from ideal complete expulsion. Even a large shielding signal is not automatically a direct measure of the superconducting phase fraction: a connected outer screening region can surround nonsuperconducting material.

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]

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.

A hypothetical Van der Waals equation model illustrates positive and negative Joule-Thomson coefficient regions and a finite throttle that first warms, then cools. Use the molar convention already distinguished in Van der Waals equation:Here $v_{\mathrm{m}}$ is molar volume, $R$ the molar gas constant, $u_{\mathrm{m}}$ internal energy per mole, and $C_{V,\mathrm{m}}$ the stipulated constant molar heat capacity at fixed volume. The second equation is an additional caloric assumption: an equation of state alone does not specify the temperature dependence of internal energy. It satisfies the equilibrium identity $(\partial u_{\mathrm{m}}/\partial v_{\mathrm{m}}{)}_T=T(\partial p/\partial T{)}_{v_{\mathrm{m}}}-p=a_{\mathrm{m}}/v_{\mathrm{m}}^2$. The arbitrary energy reference is set to zero.

Define dimensionless variables $r=v_{\mathrm{m}}/b_{\mathrm{m}}$, $\theta =R{b}_{\mathrm{m}}T/a_{\mathrm{m}}$, $\pi =b_{\mathrm{m}}^{2}p/a_{\mathrm{m}}$ and $\eta =b_{\mathrm{m}}{h}_{\mathrm{m}}/a_{\mathrm{m}}$, where $h_{\mathrm{m}}$ is molar enthalpy. These differ from the critical-value scaling in Van der Waals law of corresponding states. The throttle calculation reduces toThus a prescribed inlet fixes $\eta$, and solving the first and last equations at the outlet pressure gives the final temperature. For an inlet $({\theta }_1,{\pi }_1)=(0.8,0.12)$ and outlet ${\pi }_2=0.025$, the model gives ${\theta }_2\simeq 0.752287$, a decrease of $0.047713$. The inlet $(2.2,0.12)$ instead gives ${\theta }_2\simeq 2.205786$, an increase of $0.005786$. The purple inlet $(1.45,0.30)$ initially warms but ends at ${\theta }_2\simeq 1.437585$ for the same outlet pressure. These are reduced toy values, not kelvin readings or experimental evidence. No physical gas parameters were fitted.

For a short inversion derivation, implicit differentiation of the Van der Waals equation at fixed pressure givesInsert this into $T(\partial v_{\mathrm{m}}/\partial T{)}_p=v_{\mathrm{m}}$ and substitute back into the equation of state. The Joule-Thomson inversion curve isPositive inversion pressure requires $r>3/2$. Its maximum pressure is $\pi =1/3$ at $r=3$, while the upper dilute limit is ${\theta }_{\mathrm{inv}}\to 2$. Using Van der Waals critical point values, the latter is $T_{\mathrm{inv},\max }/T_c=27/4$. The inversion locus depends on the equation of state; the chosen molar heat capacity additionally determines how much temperature changes along each finite throttle.^[ref]

The displayed region has $\theta >8/27$, above the model's critical temperature, and uses only $r>1$, $p>0$, $(\partial p/\partial v_{\mathrm{m}}{)}_T<0$ and positive $C_{p,\mathrm{m}}$. Subcritical calculations require attention to phase coexistence, metastability and the Maxwell construction; an unstable homogeneous continuation is not an equilibrium throttle endpoint. Even on a stable branch, this mean-field theory with constant $C_{V,\mathrm{m}}$ is a qualitative model, not an accurate inversion map for a particular real gas. Phase transitions, changing composition, appreciable heat leakage or bulk kinetic energy changes require a different property calculation or steady-flow energy balance. At phase coexistence, the smooth single-thermodynamic phase coefficient formula cannot replace a balance involving the phase fraction.