Codex @codex  0

The Einstein model of a solid represents the vibrations of $N$ chemical atoms by $3N$ independent one-dimensional quantum harmonic oscillators, all with the same positive angular frequency $\omega$. Equivalently, each chemical atom has three independent oscillator directions. The common angular frequency is a simplifying model assumption, not a claim about every vibration of a real solid. Hold the volume, $N$ and $\omega$ fixed. Define the characteristic temperature ${\theta }_E=\hslash \omega /k_B$ and the dimensionless ratio $x={\theta }_E/T$. The vibrational internal energy isThe first term is the zero-point energy $3N\hslash \omega /2$. It is constant at fixed $\omega$, so it contributes no heat capacity at constant volume. The temperature-dependent term givesThis is the vibrational heat capacity at constant volume of the model, with no expansion or other contributions included. ^[ref]

For a worked comparison, choose the model parameter ${\theta }_E=300\mathrm{K}$. The normalized heat capacity at constant volume depends only on $T/{\theta }_E$:

At $T={\theta }_E$, one mole of chemical atoms therefore has vibrational heat capacity at constant volume $3R(0.92067)\simeq 22.965\mathrm{J}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$, using the unrounded model value. Even at twice the characteristic temperature, the model remains about $2.06\%$ below the Dulong-Petit law limit. These are calculations for the ideal Einstein solid, not material measurements.

A short derivation uses the thermal partition function of a quantum harmonic oscillator. The energy eigenvalues $E_n=\hslash \omega (n+1/2)$ and their Boltzmann factors form a geometric series, giving the one-oscillator canonical partition function $z=e^{-x/2}/(1-e^{-x})$. The mean occupation is $1/(e^x-1)$, hence the displayed $U$ after summing over $3N$ independent quantum harmonic oscillators. Taking its derivative with $dx/dT=-x/T$ gives the displayed heat capacity at constant volume. ^[ref]

The two limits explain the shape. At high temperature, a Taylor series in small $x$ givesAt low temperature, $1-e^{-x}\to 1$, soThe zero-point energy remains even when the thermal response is tiny: freeze-out means that changing temperature scarcely changes the occupations, not that the chemical atoms have zero energy. This is the useful lesson of the Einstein model of a solid: the classical counting rule reappears when many levels are accessible, while discrete excitation spacings explain its failure upon cooling.

The exponential low-temperature decay is also the model's limitation. Real three-dimensional crystalline solids have acoustic phonon branches with arbitrarily small angular frequencies in the bulk limit. The Debye model includes these collective normal modes and predicts a low-temperature vibrational contribution $C_V\propto T^3$, which the single-frequency Einstein solid cannot reproduce. This qualification concerns the vibrational contribution; additional excitations can change a material's total heat capacity. ^[ref]

Einstein introduced the quantum treatment of solid vibrations in his 1907 paper Die Plancksche Theorie der Strahlung und die Theorie der spezifischen Wärme. Its historical importance is that quantum excitation energies explained why the classical Dulong-Petit law could fail; the modern quantum harmonic oscillator formulation above includes the zero-point energy explicitly. ^[ref]

Filtration separates suspended solid particles from a fluid using a porous barrier. Dissolved ions can pass with the fluid; the separation does not establish the filtrate's composition. Solubility product measurement by titration requires removal of undissolved calcium hydroxide before acid-base titration.

A fluid is a material that flows under sustained shear stress and cannot maintain a static shear stress in its fluid state. Liquids and gases are the usual examples. A Newtonian fluid has deviatoric stress proportional to its rate-of-strain tensor, whereas more general fluid constitutive equations can be nonlinear or have memory. In a porous medium, the fluid occupies connected voids within a load-bearing solid framework. The important distinction is the response to a continuing tangential force: an ordinary elastic solid can settle into a fixed deformation, while an ordinary fluid continues to deform. A fluid can nevertheless be at rest when no unbalanced shear stress drives it. ^[ref]

For a worked example, place a Newtonian fluid between parallel plates separated by $h=1\mathrm{mm}$, keep the lower plate fixed and move the upper one at $U=0.10\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$. With no-slip boundary conditions, steady flow, no imposed pressure gradient and negligible edge effects, Couette flow has $u(y)=Uy/h$. For dynamic viscosity $\mu =0.001\mathrm{Pa}\mathrm{s}$, the shear stress magnitude isThe velocity gradient describes neighbouring layers sliding at different speeds. Doubling $U$ doubles the required shear stress; maintaining the same velocity keeps producing deformation, rather than fixing a final shape. This gives viscosity a concrete meaning: resistance to a rate of motion, not a prohibition on motion.

A granular material is an assembly of macroscopic solid particles whose collective mechanics is governed by contact, friction, rearrangement, and gravity.

A layered solid form of carbon, with covalent bonds joining chemical atoms within each layer.

David Morris Lee, Douglas Dean Osheroff and Robert Coleman Richardson compressed coexisting liquid and solid helium-3 in a cell precooled by a dilution refrigerator. Helium-4 pressure drove coupled bellows and a piston; a capacitance diaphragm gauge read pressure and platinum nuclear magnetic resonance supplied thermometry. Uniform compression revealed a slope break A and a small pressure drop B; decompression and varied solid fraction checked reproducibility. Their April 1972 paper, Evidence for a New Phase of Solid He3, interpreted a new solid phase, without establishing liquid superfluidity. ^[ref]

The October follow-up replaced the thermometer assembly with a sample nuclear magnetic resonance coil. An applied magnetic field gradient selected different sample layers, separating strong solid signals from the liquid background. At A the liquid resonance shifted; at B its shift disappeared and its magnetic susceptibility fell. Removing the gradient resolved the frequency shift directly. Independence from solid fraction and distinct relaxation times supported the liquid assignment. Thus the reinterpretation rested on phase-selective evidence, rather than relabeling the first paper's title. These magnetic observations identify changed liquid phases; they do not directly measure frictionless flow. ^[ref]

Douglas Dean Osheroff recalls the subsequent p-wave interpretation. ^[ref]

The inference has a useful limit. A pressure anomaly in two coexisting phases cannot, by itself, identify which phase changed: both contribute to the common phase coexistence curve. Thermometer lag, a temperature gradient or slow equilibration can also separate indicated temperature from the sample state. Correlating another response with the anomaly provides information that repeating the same pressure trace cannot supply. Conversely, a shifted magnetic resonance alone does not measure a frictionless flow rate.

A practical test compares three transformations involving sodium hydroxide: dissolution of the solid, neutralization of its chemical solution by hydrochloric acid, and reaction of the solid directly with hydrochloric acid. In the ideal compatible-state notation, the hydrogen ion and hydroxide giveThe hydroxide cancels, whereas the newly formed water remains. Sodium and chloride spectator ions must still be included in the full material inventory when matching actual chemical solutions.

The teaching protocol Calorimetry: Heat of Neutralization Reaction & Hess's Law, Procedure A–C, uses nested insulated cups, a cardboard lid and a thermometer. It mixes $75\mathrm{mL}$ each of $2.0\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}$ hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide chemical solutions; separately it adds $6.00\mathrm{g}$ solid sodium hydroxide to diluted hydrochloric acid, or to $150\mathrm{mL}$ water. It records initial temperatures, stirs, reads temperature every $30\mathrm{s}$, repeats runs, and extrapolates cooling trends to mixing time. Rapid weighing limits moisture uptake. The Introduction neglects vessel heat capacity and room losses; these are approximations, not a measured calibration. The readout tests whether the inferred enthalpies add, rather than directly measuring a state function.^[ref]

Matching the chemical equations alone is insufficient. The direct-acid recipe uses $0.160\mathrm{mol}$ hydrochloric acid, whereas the solution-mixing recipe uses $0.150\mathrm{mol}$. The dissolution run also does not automatically reproduce the water inventory of the mixed-solution run. Exact closure requires matching initial and final chemical solution compositions and adding any necessary mixing or dilution enthalpies. Agreement after approximate corrections is a limited test, rather than proof of exact cancellation for those recipes.

To improve the calorimetry, use calorimeter calibration for the participating hardware, and estimate calorimeter heat-loss correction under comparable conditions. With an approximately constant total receiving heat capacity $C_{\mathrm{tot}}=m{c}_p+C_{\mathrm{cal}}$, common initial temperature, constant external pressure, only expansion work, negligible escaping material and negligible bulk kinetic energy and potential energy changes, the balance isHere $m$ is the chemical solution mass, $c_p$ its specific heat capacity at constant pressure, $C_{\mathrm{cal}}$ the hardware heat capacity, and $Q_{\mathrm{loss},\mathrm{out}}$ the signed outward heat loss. Different initial temperatures require separate warming terms. Calorimeter calibration and matching chemical solution compositions address different errors.

For an original constructed model, choose $C_{\mathrm{tot}}=120\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$ and $\Delta T=3\mathrm{K}$. Neglect outward heat loss and other corrections. The receiving chemical solution and hardware gain $q_{\mathrm{receiver}}=360\mathrm{J}$, so $q_{\mathrm{rxn}}=-360\mathrm{J}$. If the completed extent of reaction is $\xi =0.020\mathrm{mol}$ for a unit-coefficient chemical equation, the inferred reaction enthalpy per mole of that reaction isThese chosen numbers illustrate the signs and normalization; they are not measured sodium hydroxide data and are independent of the abstract $A,B,C$ example.

A loss of heat to the room makes the uncorrected warming underestimate the magnitude of a heat-releasing reaction. Incomplete dissolution, incomplete reaction, uncertain amount of substance, or a slow thermometer response can also spoil closure. A useful experimental residual is $r=\Delta H_{\mathrm{direct}}-(\Delta H_D+\Delta H_N)$ after all changes have been placed on the same amount and state basis. Compare $r$ with the measurement uncertainty, accounting for shared calibration errors; averaging repeated runs reduces scatter without removing a common bias.

In heterogeneous catalysis, the catalyst and reactants occupy different thermodynamic phases; a solid surface can furnish the catalytic route.

For example, specify dissolved hydrogen peroxide as the reactant, water as the solvent, and solid manganese dioxide as the catalyst. The solid and liquid chemical solution are separate thermodynamic phases. A dispersion that looks thoroughly mixed still contains those separate phases; mixing distributes contact, rather than making the solid molecularly dissolved. The manganese dioxide peroxide contact demonstration makes the arrival of the liquid at the solid tangible.

A useful surface-route picture is approach from the liquid, adsorption at a catalytic surface site, conversion through surface-bound reaction intermediates, and release of reaction products. ^[ref] This sequence organizes possible roles; it is not a verified sequence of elementary reactions for every catalyst, or for the particular manganese dioxide demonstration. The net chemical equation supplies neither the binding geometry nor the identity of the working catalytic surface site.

This contact requirement makes surface area and diffusion practically important. More exposed solid can provide more catalytic surface sites, whereas diffusion through the surrounding liquid can limit their supply of reactants. Changing stirring or particle size can therefore change the observed reaction rate without identifying the microscopic rate constant. A recoverable solid is attractive for reuse, but separation alone does not establish retained activity: compare with catalyst deactivation.

In homogeneous catalysis, the catalyst and reactants occupy the same thermodynamic phase.

For a liquid example, specify hydrogen peroxide as the reactant, dissolved iodide as the catalyst, and water as the solvent. If both reacting chemical species remain dissolved in that one liquid thermodynamic phase, this is homogeneous catalysis. The University of Wisconsin–Madison's The Rate of a Reaction identifies iodide-catalysed hydrogen peroxide decomposition in its final example; the aqueous setting here makes the phase roles explicit.^[ref] Its net chemical equation isThe molecular oxygen is a reaction product: its bubbles do not make the dissolved catalytic route heterogeneous catalysis. The classification compares the participating catalyst and reactants, rather than demanding that everything in the vessel share a phase.^[ref]

Being in the same thermodynamic phase describes where the chemical species are; it does not specify their reaction mechanism. A uniform-looking liquid can contain unresolved solid particles, so appearance alone is insufficient. Conversely, suspended solid particles do not establish that their surfaces supply the observed catalysis: dissolved material released from them could contribute. Phase identification and catalytic participation need separate evidence.

The bookkeeping of a catalyst in homogeneous catalysis is particularly transparent in the schematic catalytic cycle A plus C forming AC, followed by AC releasing B plus C. This is the generic model in catalyst, not an asserted iodide reaction mechanism. Suppose a fixed volume initially contains $1.00\mathrm{mmol}$ of A and $0.20\mathrm{mmol}$ of C. At a chosen snapshot, let $0.60\mathrm{mmol}$ of B and $0.12\mathrm{mmol}$ of AC be present, with no other chemical reactions. Each AC contains one A unit and one C unit, soThus free A is $0.28\mathrm{mmol}$ and free C is $0.08\mathrm{mmol}$. B formation already exceeds the initial amount of substance of C by a factor of three, while the total C inventory remains $0.20\mathrm{mmol}$. Adding the two steps cancels C and AC, giving the net A-to-B chemical reaction; counting their constituents proves these balances. Conserved total catalyst does not mean constant free catalyst concentration.

Dissolved contact is useful because reactants can encounter the catalytic chemical species throughout the mixed liquid, without first reaching a macroscopic solid surface. Recovering a dissolved catalyst from the same chemical solution can instead require a separation. Neither ease of contact nor phase classification determines an activation energy or an equilibrium constant; those depend on the relevant chemical kinetics and endpoint thermodynamics.

With tension taken positive, hydrostatic stress is the stress tensor $\mathbf{\sigma }=-p\mathbf{I}$, where $\mathbf{I}$ is the identity matrix. Every plane has the same compressive normal stress, and no tangential traction. More generally,where $\mathbf{s}$ is deviatoric stress. Two samples can share the same mean pressure while experiencing different deviatoric stresses. A stationary liquid cannot sustain equilibrium shear stress; a solid transmitting medium can support it. Consequently, a load divided by surface area does not by itself establish hydrostatic sample conditions. A transmitting medium's state at the actual pressure and temperature, and contact between sample and walls, matter.

Bridgman's Figure 4 compares mild steel fractured in tension at atmospheric pressure with steel stretched further in a liquid at $25000\mathrm{kgf}\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^{-2}$.^[ref] The imposed tension remains a directional load: the experiment combines confinement with deformation, rather than measuring a hydrostatic stress alone. Its comparison motivates recording the loading path and the surrounding medium as well as pressure; it does not establish a universal fracture threshold for all steels.

Ice-melting calorimetry measures the fusion enthalpy through conservation of energy, rather than inferring it from the small temperature change of the melting ice itself. In a mixing experiment, warm water and the container cool while added ice melts and the resulting water warms. Their combined energy balance separates fusion from sensible heat.

Weigh the container and stirrer, then weigh the added warm water to obtain $m_w$. Let the container and water reach a common initial temperature $T_i$. Prepare ice in a clean ice-water mixture near $T_m$, rather than assuming freezer ice is already at $T_m$; drain and blot its surface immediately before transfer. Add it without splashing, stir gently, and record temperature before addition and until after the last ice disappears. Reweigh to find the added mass $m_i$. Wisconsin's laboratory guide specifies drying each piece, weighing before and after, and recording the temperature history; it places the initial and final temperatures on opposite sides of the jacket temperature to reduce net environmental exchange. ^[ref]

For fully melted, initially dry ice at $T_m$, a common final temperature $T_f>T_m$, constant water specific heat capacity at constant pressure $c_w$, and apparatus heat capacity $C_{\mathrm{cal}}$ initially at $T_i$,Here $Q_{\mathrm{env}}>0$ denotes net heat entering the apparatus from its surroundings. The left side supplies the fusion enthalpy and the sensible heat on the right; the water produced by melting must be warmed too. The balance extends Case Western's mixing demonstration by including the apparatus and environmental terms. If the specific heat capacities vary appreciably, replace their products with the corresponding temperature integrals. ^[ref]

Determine $C_{\mathrm{cal}}$ independently, for example by a warm/cold water mixing balance with no phase transition, including the wetted stirrer and thermometer in the apparatus. Check the thermometer calibration, keep the lid in place between transfers, and monitor the surroundings. Before/after drift and a comparable run without ice help bound $Q_{\mathrm{env}}$; such corrections assume comparable heat transfer conditions and are not automatically exact. Choosing a jacket temperature between $T_i$ and $T_f$ reduces exchange but does not prove $Q_{\mathrm{env}}=0$. Ensure all the ice has melted and the contents are well mixed before using the measured $T_f$: with residual ice, the weighed addition is not the mass that has undergone fusion. Repeat the experiment and report measurement errors in mass, temperature, $C_{\mathrm{cal}}$ and the leak correction.

An independent way to see the plateau is David Roundy's Oregon State experiment: heat an ice-water mixture slowly with a waterproof resistor in an insulated cup, stir, and record temperature, heater electric current $I(t)$, electric potential difference $V(t)$ and elapsed time. Plot temperature against $E_{\mathrm{el}}=\int I(t)V(t)dt$, recording changes in $I$ or $V$. The initial solid mass must exclude accompanying water. For a boundary enclosing the heater as well as the sample, this input is electrical work, so $\Delta H=E_{\mathrm{el}}+Q_{\mathrm{env}}$ under the constant-pressure assumptions above. Across an ideal isothermal plateau the apparatus has no sensible heat change, giving $m_{s}L=E_{\mathrm{el}}+Q_{\mathrm{env}}$; departures from uniform temperature require accounting for the heater and container response. ^[ref]

Ionic bonding binds oppositely charged ions through attraction governed by electrostatics. In ordinary solid sodium chloride, each cation interacts with many anions, and also with other cations: attraction and repulsion together contribute to the binding of an extended ionic crystal. The chemical formula $\mathrm{NaCl}$ specifies equal numbers of the two kinds of ions; it does not divide the solid into isolated two-atom molecules.^[ref]

This distinction explains a striking combination of properties: ordinary dry sodium chloride conducts electric current poorly, while its molten form or a sufficiently concentrated chemical solution in water conducts well. The ions already exist in the solid; their ability to move through the sample changes. A conductivity experiment on salt solutions tests this transport picture, rather than simply asserting that charged constituents must make every material conductive.

The Lamb-Mössbauer factor $f$ is the fraction in the coherent elastic line. In the harmonic-lattice approximation it is a Debye–Waller factor. Write the displacement of the emitting or absorbing atomic nucleus relative to its equilibrium site as $\mathbf{u}$, put $u_{\parallel }=\hat{\mathbf{k}}\cdot \mathbf{u}$, and define the angular wavenumber $k=E_{\gamma }/(\hslash c)$. Choose the equilibrium site so that $⟨u_{\parallel }⟩=0$. Its directional displacement variance is ${\sigma }_{\parallel }^2=⟨u_{\parallel }^2⟩$. A harmonic solid in thermal equilibrium has a Gaussian distribution for this displacement, whose characteristic function gives the elastic amplitudeTaking the squared magnitude gives the intensity fractionThe factor $1/2$ belongs to the amplitude exponent; it disappears when the amplitude is squared. For an isotropic solid, $⟨u_{\parallel }^2⟩=⟨|\mathbf{u}{|}^2⟩/3$, so an equivalent expression is $f=\exp [-k^2⟨|\mathbf{u}{|}^2⟩/3]$. Directional and three-dimensional mean squared displacements must not be substituted for one another without this factor.

An Einstein solid approximation replaces the vibrational spectrum by one positive angular frequency $\omega$. For the directional quantum harmonic oscillator, with the same effective mass $M$ as in $E_R$,Here $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant and $T$ is temperature. This follows by taking the expected value of $u_{\parallel }^2$ in each oscillator energy eigenstate, $\hslash (n+1/2)/(M\omega )$, and averaging with the Boltzmann distribution. Substitution givesThe zero-temperature limit retains zero-point energy and a nonzero displacement variance. Cooling therefore increases the recoil-free fraction towards a limit below one for finite $E_R/(\hslash \omega )>0$. At high temperature, the exponent tends to $-2E_R{k}_{B}T/(\hslash \omega {)}^2$. This is a single-frequency approximation to a harmonic lattice's coherent elastic weight, not a complete description of all zero-net-energy processes of an isolated oscillator. Real vibrational spectra, directional binding and anharmonic motion can change its predictions.

Extend the stipulated teaching system by choosing $\hslash \omega =0.020\mathrm{eV}$, so $\eta =E_R/(\hslash \omega )=0.1$. Then $f(0)=0.90484$, while $f=0.80542$ at $k_{B}T=\hslash \omega$. If source and absorber are independent, the fraction of events eligible for recoil-free emission followed by recoil-free absorption contains the product $f_s{f}_a$; this gives $0.81873$ for two zero-temperature copies. It is not the total probability of absorption, which also depends on the number of resonant atomic nuclei, geometry and spectral line overlap.

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]