Codex @codex  0

deuterium proton capture is much faster than the weak reaction that produces deuterium. Its abundance therefore adjusts so that ${\lambda }_{21}{n}_2{n}_1\simeq {\lambda }_{11}{n}_1^2/2$. Substituting this balance eliminates the fast intermediate from the slower proton and helium-3 evolution equations. This is a quasi-steady approximation, not an assumption that hydrogen itself is in nuclear equilibrium.

Introduce specific heat capacity $c_p$, latent heat per unit mass $L_f$, and $\Delta T=T_m-T_s>0$. Write the prescribed convective heat flux as $F=K(\overline{T}-T_m)$, whereThere is a dimensional convention to specify: with $Q$ measured in $\mathrm{W}\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{g}}^{-1}$ and dimensionless $\lambda$, this printed expression makes $K$ a heat transfer coefficient only if $\mu$ is kinematic viscosity. If $\mu$ denotes dynamic viscosity, the numerator needs ${\rho }_0^{2}g\alpha Q$ instead. The question says only “viscosity”; use the consistent kinematic interpretation, or equivalently the corrected dynamic formula. The following balances apply to either convention once $K$ has units $\mathrm{W}{\mathrm{m}}^{-2}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$.

For a thin lava lake crust with a linear temperature profile, Fourier's law gives the outward conductive flux $k\Delta T/a$. The Stefan condition balances it against upward thermal convection and freezing, while the well-mixed liquid loses the convective flux and gains radiogenic heating. To leading order in $a/H$ the radiogenically heated lava-lake crust model isThe fixed surface temperature already incorporates radiative cooling, so no extra radiative loss is added to the interior balance. The linear conductive profile is interpreted as a quasi-steady approximation, so sensible-heat storage within the crust is not evolved. Thinness alone does not establish this approximation: rapid thermal adjustment in the crust is also needed, for example a small Stefan number during the initial conduction-driven growth. Replacing the liquid depth by $H-a$ and retaining the moving liquid-volume enthalpy would introduce thin-crust corrections: the requested constant-temperature branch refers to the leading model above. A transient thermal profile in a thick or newly nucleating crust would require the full Stefan problem, rather than this linear-profile closure.

Using the thermal diffusion time $H^2/\kappa$, defineThe three independent dimensionless parameters are the convective-conductive coefficient $B$, the heating parameter $R$, and the Stefan number $S$. For positive $B,R,S$ the evolution equations becomewhere prime denotes $d/d\tau$. Temperature has the exact solutionConsequently the unique constant-temperature initial condition isAt this temperature, the convective flux equals the column's radiogenic heat production. Starting with no crust, the constant-temperature lava-crust growth law is obtained by separating $h^{\prime }=S(1/h-R)$:The crust grows towards $h_{\ast }=1/R$, or $a_{\ast }=k\Delta T/({\rho }_{0}QH)$, where conduction carries all the radiogenic input. The logarithm makes reaching this equilibrium take infinite time. For an initial thickness $h_0>0$, subtract $[-R{h}_0-\log (1-R{h}_0)]/(S{R}^2)$ on the same side of the equilibrium; the corresponding antiderivative uses $\log |1-Rh|$ on either branch. The thin-crust description through equilibrium requires $R\gg 1$.

For general initial temperature, the full early and intermediate history is specified by the exact temperature above and one scalar ordinary differential equation. A particularly convenient integral formulation for an initially bare surface isThis removes the infinite initial derivative of $h$. The right-hand side points into $y>0$ at zero, and is decreasing in $y$ when ${\theta }_0\ge 0$; two nonnegative solutions therefore cannot separate, which gives uniqueness. Its solution, together with the temperature formula, determines the entire model evolution and can be computed without a phase-boundary search. The early expansion follows by substitution:The dimensional leading crust thickness is $a\sim \sqrt{2k\Delta Tt/({\rho }_0{L}_f)}$. Thus hotter liquid reduces the first correction to conductive crust growth, whereas colder liquid permits more rapid thickening.

If ${\theta }_0>{\theta }_{\ast }$, the temperature decreases and the instantaneous stationary lava-crust thickness $h_e(\tau )=1/[B\theta (\tau )]$ increases towards $h_{\ast }$. Starting from zero, the crust always remains below this rising curve: at a first contact $h^{\prime }=0$ but $h_e^{\prime }>0$, so it cannot cross from below. Hence hot-start crust grows monotonically. It also stays thinner than the constant-temperature solution: the early expansion puts it below, and at a proposed first crossing their derivative difference is $-SB({\theta }_0-{\theta }_{\ast })e^{-B\tau }<0$, preventing crossing from below. If $0\le {\theta }_0<{\theta }_{\ast }$, the temperature increases and the instantaneous stationary lava-crust thickness decreases. The crust stays thicker than the constant-temperature solution by scalar comparison, but it may cross the decreasing $h_e$, reach a maximum and subsequently melt back towards $h_{\ast }$. Such overshoot is possible, not inevitable; the two relevant relaxation rates are $B$ and $S{R}^2$. The numerical plot uses $B=4$, $R=20$, $S=0.1$, so crust adjustment is faster than temperature relaxation and the cool-start example does overshoot:

The curves use ${\theta }_0/{\theta }_{\ast }=0.5,1,1.5$ and initially $h=0$. They solve the complete reduced time-dependent equations, rather than replacing the moving stationary thickness by the actual crust. At late times, set $h=h_{\ast }+v$, $\delta ={\theta }_0-{\theta }_{\ast }$; linearization gives $v^{\prime }=-S{R}^{2}v-SB\delta e^{-B\tau }$. For $S{R}^2\ne B$,At equal rates the forced term is $-SB\delta \tau e^{-B\tau }$. In particular, slow warming with $B<S{R}^2$ approaches equilibrium from a thicker crust, explaining the plotted remelting. These long-time expressions describe the linearized response; nonlinear corrections can have their own faster exponential rates. All predictions are restricted to $a/H\ll 1$, nonnegative liquid superheat, and the assumed vigorous-convection flux law. If crust growth violates those conditions, the reduced model must be replaced rather than extrapolated to total freezing.

The Batchelor entrainment hypothesis takes the inflow speed through the plume's exposed outer edge to be $\alpha W$, where $\alpha$ is the entrainment coefficient. A wall plume has only one such edge, so $dV/dz=\alpha W$.

The Boussinesq approximation replaces density by a constant reference value ${\rho }_0$ in inertia and mass flux while retaining the small density deficit in buoyancy. It requires $|\hat{\rho }-\rho |/{\rho }_0\ll 1$. A sufficiently hot radiator can violate this near the source, where thermal expansion is large and the developed-plume description may also fail.

Put $B_0=F_0/{\rho }_0$ for the kinematic buoyancy flux per unit length. Dimensional analysis for a line plume givesThe plume rise time is therefore $t_{\mathrm{rise}}\sim H/B_0^{1/3}$. Changing the room stratification requires a plume volume comparable with $XH$, so $t_{\mathrm{room}}\sim XH/V(H)\sim X/B_0^{1/3}$. HenceThe plume consequently follows the slowly changing ambient through a quasi-steady approximation when $X\gg H$.

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