Codex @codex  0

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.

For a homogeneous ideal gas of constant specific-heat ratio $\gamma >1$, the Schwarzschild criterion applied to the square-root exponential atmospheric profile givesFor $T_0>0$ and $\alpha >0$, put $s=\sqrt{T-T_0}$ and $A={\nabla }_{\mathrm{ad}}$. The quadratic inequality $A\alpha s^2-2s+A\alpha T_0<0$ has solutions precisely when $A\alpha \sqrt{T_0}<1$, between $s_{\pm }=[1\pm \sqrt{1-(A\alpha {)}^2{T}_0}]/(A\alpha )$. This is a local instability of the imposed temperature gradient; actual convection adjusts that gradient and the prescribed profile need not survive.

For pure solid rejecting all solute, pulling speed $V>0$, solutal diffusivity $D$ and finite solute inventory per unit area $N$, a stationary planar front has $C(z)=C_I{e}^{-Vz/D}$ in its liquid half-space. The advection-diffusion equation gives this profile, and ${\int }_0^{\infty }Cdz=N$ fixes $C_I=VN/D$. A liquidus $T_I=-m{C}_I$ fixes its position in an imposed temperature gradient. The pure-solid branch requires $C_I<C_E$, where $C_E$ is the eutectic composition.

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.

Fourier's law predicts the local conductive heat flux from the local temperature gradient. In a continuum approximation with isotropic thermal conductivity $k>0$, its vector form and one-dimensional form areThe heat flux $q$ has units $\mathrm{W}{\mathrm{m}}^{-2}$, the temperature gradient has units $\mathrm{K}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$ and the thermal conductivity has units $\mathrm{W}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$. The rate of heat transfer $\dot{Q}$ has units $\mathrm{W}$. These units distinguish a local material response from the total power crossing a surface.

The minus sign makes heat flow toward lower temperature: for $k>0$, $\mathbf{q}\cdot \nabla T=-k|\nabla T{|}^2\le 0$. In the worked bar in thermal conduction, $dT/dx=-200\mathrm{K}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$ therefore gives $q=+400\mathrm{W}{\mathrm{m}}^{-2}$. Reversing the end temperatures reverses the heat flux. A zero temperature gradient gives zero conductive heat flux in this model.

Fourier's law is a constitutive relation expressing measured material behavior; it is not a consequence of conservation of energy alone. It applies locally and does not require a steady state. The straight-line bar solution additionally assumes constant thermal conductivity, constant cross-sectional area, no sources or side losses, and fixed end temperatures. Anisotropic materials require the directional response described by the thermal conductivity tensor. The scalar $k$ used in the examples expresses the stated isotropy assumption. ^[ref]

Historically, Joseph Fourier's Théorie analytique de la chaleur was published in 1822. In Chapter II, article 112, he writes the heat crossing a spherical surface as the product of thermal conductivity, elapsed time, surface area and the negative radial temperature gradient; article 113 balances the incoming and outgoing heat to obtain the heat equation for a sphere. The enduring idea is this connection between a local flow rule and a global prediction of changing temperature. ^{[ref] [ref]}

A gas syringe makes the distinction between a constant-temperature path and equal-temperature endpoints observable. The Ideal Gas Law Apparatus (TD-8596A), Instruction Manual 012-08420B by PASCO scientific specifies a TD-8596A gas syringe with a mechanical stop, an internal thermistor, an attached pressure sensor and data acquisition. Record the stop volume with the coupling disconnected, then set $40\mathrm{mL}$ and seal the coupling. Record pressure and temperature, compress quickly to the stop near $20\mathrm{mL}$, and hold until both readouts settle. The manual gives roughly $30\mathrm{s}$ for settling and about $0.5\mathrm{s}$ for the thermistor response. Releasing the plunger gives a second transient and a final volume to record.^[ref]

The manual describes a pressure overshoot and temperature rise during rapid compression, followed by cooling at the held volume; the settled pressure remains higher than initially. This illustrates approximately adiabatic compression followed by heat rejection, rather than an isothermal compression throughout. Use the settled initial and compressed readings to test Boyle's law, correcting both syringe readings by the unmarked tubing volume $V_d$:Use absolute pressure, not gauge pressure. A transient comparison of $pV/T$ must pair simultaneous pressure and temperature readings: the sensor lag can separate their peaks.^[ref]

For an additional test of the path, repeat with small compression steps, wait for stable temperature and pressure at every step, and repeat in reverse. Keep the sealed amount of substance, connecting tubing and ambient temperature fixed; prevent hand warming of the barrel and check for leaks by watching for continued pressure drift at held volume after thermal equilibrium. These are proposed controls, rather than reported measurements. Agreement of equilibrated points with Boyle's law supports the fixed-temperature ideal gas law approximation, but does not prove that the rapid segments between them were isothermal processes. A single local temperature sensor can miss temperature gradients; plunger friction can produce direction-dependent readings. The pressure and volume data estimate reversible work only insofar as the path approaches a reversible thermodynamic process; they do not directly measure heat. After motion stops, cooling at fixed volume has zero boundary work and $Q=\Delta U<0$, even though the complete equal-endpoint-temperature ideal gas run has $\Delta U=0$.

An isothermal terminal block keeps the two reference transitions and the reference thermometer at approximately the same temperature, while maintaining electrical insulation between the terminals. Thermal contact is required; an electrical short between A and B would bypass the signal. Merely using copper does not eliminate the Seebeck effect in the meter leads. If both homogeneous copper leads start at $T_c$ and end at a common meter-input temperature $T_m$, their contributions have equal magnitude and opposite sign around the measurement path:This cancellation uses matched endpoint temperatures and homogeneous lead material, rather than $S_{\mathrm{Cu}}=0$. A temperature gradient along each lead is allowed under these assumptions. If the two transitions are at different temperatures, one measured $T_c$ cannot generally correct both; unmatched connectors or wire inhomogeneity can introduce additional electromotive forces. The FP-TC-120 documentation explicitly locates the reference sensing in the terminal base or connector block and specifies isothermal versions of these assemblies.^[ref]

At a sharp mush–liquid edge with linear liquidus $T_L=T_m-mC$, marginal equilibrium makes the liquid temperature gradient tangent to the local liquidus: $T_z=-m{C}_z$. Together with $T=T_L$ at the edge and $T\ge T_L$ in the exterior liquid, it supplies the usual absence-of-constitutional supercooling closure. When solute diffusion is neglected inside the mushy layer but retained outside it, interfacial solute conservation can require a small solid fraction jump; imposing unit porosity as an additional finite-diffusivity condition generally overdetermines this sharp-edge reduction.

Optical-electrical heating non-equivalence means that equal absorbed optical and electrical powers do not necessarily give identical thermometer responses. Light and the heater may deposit heat in different places, producing different temperature gradients and different routes of thermal conduction to the support. Holding one thermometer reading fixed need not hold every part of the cavity at the same temperature. This differs from incomplete radiometric absorptance: one concerns where absorbed heat goes, the other how much incident light becomes absorbed heat.

A useful accounting convention iswhere the signed correction ${\delta }_{\mathrm{ne}}$ is determined by characterization of the instrument and represents the residual departure from the lumped electrical substitution heat balance. It is not a universal extra source of energy. Varying the beam location or heater location, comparing equivalent temperature excursions, and checking repeatable dark returns can test the assumptions; no single small correction proves that every other correction vanishes.

A spatially uniform pressure is a useful leading approximation when the sound speed makes the acoustic crossing time much shorter than the radiative cooling and thermal conduction times. The motions must remain at low Mach number, and gravity and other stresses must be negligible. Sound then redistributes pressure before appreciable thermal evolution occurs. Small pressure corrections can still drive the slow motion; imposing exactly zero pressure gradient in the full momentum equation at every order would be a stronger assumption.

The equation of state gives the specific internal energy of an ideal gas as $e=p/[(\gamma -1)\rho ]$. With $D/Dt={\partial }_t+v{\partial }_x$, the continuity equation is $D\rho /Dt=-\rho v_x$. Differentiating $e$ therefore yieldsInsert this into the internal energy equation, whose compressional term is $-p{v}_x$, and use spatially uniform pressure, so $Dp/Dt=p_t$. The result isFor temporally constant pressure put $A=\mu p/\mathcal{R}$, so the mass density is $\rho =A/T$. The continuity equation now gives $v_x=T^{-1}DT/Dt$. Multiplication of the last equation by $(\gamma -1)T/(\gamma p)$, with $\lambda ={\lambda }_0{T}^{\alpha }$, givesThis is the isobaric conductive cooling in mass coordinates transformation before changing coordinates.

There is a boundary assumption implicit in the proposed Lagrangian coordinate. For a mass integral from a fixed origin, integration of the continuity equation givesThus $m$ is material when the base mass flux vanishes, as appropriate for the stationary cold reservoir below. If the origin permits mass flux, replace $m$ by $m-{\int }^t\rho (0,s)v(0,s)ds$; this corrected label has zero material derivative. In a material mass coordinate, $D/Dt={\partial }_t{|}_m$ and ${\partial }_x=(A/T){\partial }_m$. In particularThe conduction coefficient therefore becomes $C{\lambda }_0$, with the same $C$ as the cooling coefficient. With $\tau =Ct$, the equation is

In the hot gas there is no volumetric radiative cooling. The initial temperature is uniform and the cold boundary introduces no finite mass length. The remaining nonlinear diffusion equation is invariant under $m\mapsto bm$, $\tau \mapsto b^2\tau$ with the same temperature scale. Its natural similarity solution is thereforeThe far-field condition also recovers the initial temperature at every fixed $m>0$ as $\tau \downarrow 0$. Substitution gives the ordinary differential equationFor $\alpha =1$, this reduces to $f^{\prime \prime }+\xi f^{\prime }/2=0$. Integrating first for $f^{\prime }$ gives $f^{\prime }=K\exp (-{\xi }^2/4)$. The two boundary conditions fix $K=1/\sqrt{\pi }$, hence the error-function isobaric cooling front isHere the error function has normalization $2/\sqrt{\pi }$, as printed in the original PDF; the converted TeX's $2/\pi$ is incorrect. The following original sketch shows the temperature profiles. The cooling layer broadens as $\sqrt{\tau }$, and at fixed positive mass label the temperature falls as time increases, while the remote hot gas remains at $T_0$.

For $\alpha =1$, the magnitude of the heat flux into the cold reservoir isAlthough the thermal conductivity tends to zero there, the physical temperature gradient diverges: their product has this finite limit. The stationary reservoir has no incoming advective energy flux and radiates the conducted energy immediately. Since $T_m(0,\tau )=T_0/\sqrt{\pi {\lambda }_0\tau }$, the radiated power per unit area isThus the requested exponent is $\boxed{k=1/2}$. The initial divergence is the usual idealization of an instantaneous temperature discontinuity in a diffusion equation.

For the Schwarzschild criterion, displace a small gas parcel upwards. Assume its composition is unchanged, it remains in pressure balance with its surroundings, and it moves quickly enough that heat exchange is negligible. The parcel obeys the adiabatic equation of state $P{\rho }^{-\gamma }=\mathrm{constant}$. Combining this with the ideal gas equation gives $T\propto P^{(\gamma -1)/\gamma }$, so its adiabatic temperature gradient is ${\nabla }_{\mathrm{ad}}=(\gamma -1)/\gamma =2/5$.

Let the surrounding temperature gradient be $\nabla =d\log T/d\log P$. For an upward displacement $\delta \log P<0$, the parcel's temperature relative to its new surroundings isIf $\nabla <{\nabla }_{\mathrm{ad}}$, this is negative: the parcel is cooler and, at equal pressure and composition, denser than its surroundings. It therefore sinks back; a downward displacement likewise gives a restoring buoyancy force. If the inequality is reversed, the displaced parcel continues to rise. The stability condition is thusEquality is the neutral boundary. There is no composition-gradient term because the ideal-gas parcel and the background have the same mean molecular weight.

In the thin upper stellar atmosphere, take a plane-parallel approximation with constant $g$, optical depth increasing inward, and zero overlying pressure $P(0)=0$. Hydrostatic equilibrium in optical depth gives $dP/d\tau =g/\kappa$. The ideal gas equation converts the stipulated opacity intoDefine $u=1+3\tau /2$, so the given grey atmosphere relation is $T^4=T_e^{4}u/2$. Integrating from the surface givesThis proves the required pressure law. In particular $P^2\propto g{T}_e^{-4\beta }$ times a function only of $u$ and $\beta$.

For the grey-atmosphere convection onset with density-linear opacity, differentiate the two profiles to obtain the radiative temperature gradient:It increases monotonically from zero, since $\beta >1$, and first reaches the adiabatic temperature gradient at $u_b^{\beta -1}=(4\beta +1)/5$. ThereforeBelow this point the radiative stratification is unstable and convection must transport some of the outward energy flux.

At the outer convection boundary, $u_b$ depends only on $\beta$, so $T_b=T_e(u_b/2{)}^{1/4}\propto T_e$ and $P_b\propto g^{1/2}{T}_e^{-2\beta }$ for fixed $\mu ,{\kappa }_0,\beta$. The matching constant in $P=K{T}^{5/2}$ is $K=P_b/T_b^{5/2}$. ConsequentlyThis temperature form of the polytropic relation follows from an ideal monatomic adiabat; its $K$ is not the density-polytrope coefficient in Question 3.

For the deep radiative boundary beneath a power-law-opacity convective envelope, negligible envelope mass and absent local energy generation give $m\simeq M$ and $L_r\simeq L$. Divide the radiative temperature equation by the pressure equation to get the stellar radiative temperature gradientThis is the gradient that would be needed if radiation alone carried $L$, and it is the quantity to compare with $2/5$ even while the actual region is convective. The deeper Kramers' opacity law gives $\kappa ={\kappa }_1\mu P{T}^{-9/2}/\mathcal{R}$. Substituting $P=K{T}^{5/2}$ yieldsAs $T$ rises inward this decreases, so the transition back to a stable radiative interior is atThus $T_{\mathrm{in}}^{7/2}\propto K^{2}L/M$. Using the outer matching and the Stefan–Boltzmann law,The mass and radius cancel. Hence, at fixed opacity coefficients and composition,This uses the same adiabat through the convection zone and distinguishes its inner transition temperature from its outer onset temperature.

Take $z$ positive downwards from the roof. Write $T_0=T_m-m{C}_0$, $C_B=(T_m-T_B)/m$, $\Delta T=T_0-T_B=m(C_B-C_0)>0$ and $\Delta C=C_B-C_0$. The cooled magma follows the decreasing liquidus from $(C_0,T_0)$ towards $(C_B,T_B)$; the initially superheated liquid starts at $(C_0,T_{\infty })$ above that liquidus. The solid has zero solute concentration. At each temperature in the mushy layer, a horizontal tie line joins the pure solid to the residual liquid on the liquidus. The lever rule gives the liquid fraction from the bulk concentration. Since $T_B>T_E$, this path stops before the eutectic temperature and does not cross the eutectic composition.

The porosity $\varphi$ denotes the liquid fraction, so $1-\varphi$ is the solid fraction. Equal phase mass densities remove volume-change flow; the stable density stratification suppresses convection. In the stagnant mushy-layer model, define bulk specific enthalpy and bulk solute concentration byThe arbitrary reference of specific enthalpy has been omitted. The two conservation laws in $0<z<h(t)$ areHere $\kappa =k_T/(\rho c_p)$ is the thermal diffusivity, with $k_T$ the thermal conductivity. The positive $L{\varphi }_t$ term records increased specific enthalpy on melting; during freezing it supplies latent heat. In the liquid $z>h(t)$, the heat equation and solute diffusion equation arewhere $D$ is the solutal diffusivity. Neglecting solute diffusion inside the mushy layer does not permit dropping $D{C}_{zz}$ in the liquid at this stage.

Use $T(0,t)=T_B$, liquid $T\to T_{\infty }$ and $C\to C_0$ as $z\to \infty$, and initially $h=0$, $T=T_{\infty }$, $C=C_0$ for $z>0$. These are the half-space boundary conditions appropriate before cooling reaches the bottom of the chamber. For a closed chamber of finite depth $H$, replace the far-field conditions by the specified bottom conditions, for example $T_z=C_z=0$ at an insulated impermeable floor; the half-space similarity solution then ceases to apply when the thermal penetration depth approaches $H$.

At $z=h(t)$, let $C_i$ and $T_i=T_m-m{C}_i$ be the common liquid concentration and temperature, and let ${\varphi }_i$ be the limiting porosity on the mush side. Continuity of $T,C$, the Rankine-Hugoniot condition for solute, and the interfacial conservation of energy giveThe first condition has the sign of solute rejection into the liquid. For the sharp-edge stagnant mushy-layer model with nonzero liquid solutal diffusivity, close the free-boundary problem by marginal equilibrium at a mush-liquid boundary:This prevents constitutional supercooling immediately ahead of the mushy layer. A small solid fraction jump at its edge is allowed: imposing ${\varphi }_i=1$ as well as these finite-$D$ conditions would generally overdetermine the reduced model. At the roof, $C=C_B$ follows from the liquidus, and no additional solute-flux boundary condition is needed in the diffusion-free mush.

To obtain the large-concentration similarity solution, putThe positive superheat specifies the physically intended liquid initial state. On a similarity solution, $C_i,{\varphi }_i$ are constant, so every newly incorporated level leaves the same constant $B={\varphi }_i{C}_i$. Write $C_i=C_0+\Delta C\delta$ and $B=\Delta C(\mathcal{C}+a)$. Then throughout the mushy layerFor $a,\theta =O(1)$, $\mathcal{C}\gg 1$, and $\mathcal{S}/\mathcal{C}=O(1)$, the effective heat capacity is constant to relative error $O({\mathcal{C}}^{-1})$. Thus setIntegration of the similarity solution ordinary differential equation gives the leading analytical profilesThe temperature is $T=T_0+\Delta T\theta$. In the mushy layer, the concentration and porosity are the displayed $C,\varphi$; in the liquid,These retain the liquid solutal boundary layer. For completeness, finite-$r$ values of $\delta ,a,\lambda$ are determined analytically, to the same large-$\mathcal{C}$ order, by settingand solvingThe solute jump gives ${\varphi }_i=1-b/(\mathcal{C}+\delta )$ exactly; replacing $\mathcal{C}$ by $\mathcal{C}+\delta$ on the right of the last equation retains that jump's next-order factor, but does not make the linearized thermal profiles exact at finite $\mathcal{C}$. The branch has $0\le \delta <1$, $0<\varphi \le 1$. All these profiles are leading asymptotic expressions, not exact solutions of the nonlinear finite-$\mathcal{C}$ heat equation.

For $r\to 0$ at fixed positive $\lambda$, the complementary error function asymptotic gives $K(\lambda /\sqrt{r})\sim \sqrt{\pi }\lambda /\sqrt{r}$, hence $\delta =O(r)$, $b=O(r)$, $a\to 0$, and ${\varphi }_i\to 1$. The result simplifies toIn particular, $\varphi (0,t)=C_0/C_B=\mathcal{C}/(\mathcal{C}+1)$ and $\varphi (h^{-},t)=1$. There is no finite interfacial latent heat jump in this limit: the latent heat is released continuously throughout the mushy layer. Matching the two temperature gradients givesThe printed final equation is missing the square on $\Omega$ in the exponential. The corrected exponent follows directly from differentiating $\mathrm{erf}(\Omega \eta )$ and is consistent with ${\Omega }^2=1+\mathcal{S}/\mathcal{C}$. The positive root is unique: the mush-side gradient decreases from infinity to zero with $\lambda$, whereas ${\theta }_{\infty }K(\lambda )$ increases. The zero-superheat limit is singular and is not described by a finite positive $\lambda$ in this two-region construction.

Take $P_0>0$, real $\alpha$, and the real branch $T\ge T_0$, with physical temperature $T>0$. In hydrostatic equilibrium the pressure decreases with height $z$:Thus an atmospheric thermal inversion means $dT/dz>0$, equivalently $dT/dP<0$. For $\alpha \ne 0$, the logarithm of the given relation yieldsThe sign restriction must be retained after squaring. In particular, the inverted branch has $0<P\le P_0$, whereas the non-inverted branch has $P\ge P_0$. By differentiation, on the interior of either branch,Consequently,At $T=T_0$, the inverse temperature gradient vanishes at the branch endpoint, rather than producing a finite isothermal interval. If $\alpha =0$, the relation becomes $P=P_0$ independently of $T$; it is not a nontrivial vertical atmospheric pressure-temperature profile under hydrostatic equilibrium. These distinctions prevent the two sides of the squared parabola from being interpreted as one permissible atmosphere.

The functional form is not specific to exoplanets. With positive pressure normalization and physical temperature, a square-root exponential atmospheric profile can approximate a monotone interval of the terrestrial atmosphere. An outward-cooling interval, such as part of the troposphere or mesosphere, requires $\alpha >0$. An upward-warming interval, such as part of the stratosphere heated by ultraviolet absorption or the thermosphere heated by high-energy radiation, requires $\alpha <0$.

The local atmospheric lapse rate follows from the ideal gas relation $P=\rho k_{B}T/(\mu m_H)$ and hydrostatic equilibrium:For dry terrestrial air, approximately $\gamma =1.4$ and $\mu \simeq 29$ give the dry-adiabatic lapse rate $g/c_p\simeq 9.8\mathrm{K}\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$. The familiar mean tropospheric value near $6.5\mathrm{K}\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$ is less steep; a local fit must satisfy $\nabla \lesssim 2/7$ to be dry-convectively stable. Moist convection needs the moist parcel thermodynamics instead, and the terrestrial atmosphere is not uniformly dry or chemically homogeneous at all heights.

The squared-logarithm shape cannot reproduce an exactly constant nonzero lapse rate over an arbitrary thick region, all the alternating atmospheric layers, or a finite exactly isothermal region. It is a local parametrization with a fixed sign of the temperature gradient; it has no terrestrial universality.

For a quasistatic spherical star with fixed total mass, the stellar structure equations in radius areHere $s$ is the specific entropy of a moving mass shell, and the entropy term accounts for release or storage of thermal and gravitational energy. In thermal equilibrium it vanishes. An equation of state, opacity, energy-generation law and composition evolution close the equations. The absence of mass loss fixes the outer mass coordinate; it does not require the star to be in thermal equilibrium.

The radiative temperature gradient needed to carry the full luminosity isHere the actual temperature gradient is $\nabla =d\log T/d\log P$. For uniform composition the Schwarzschild criterion says that a radiative layer is stable if ${\nabla }_{\mathrm{rad}}<{\nabla }_{\mathrm{ad}}$, with marginal stability at equality, where the adiabatic temperature gradient is $(\partial \log T/\partial \log P{)}_s$. Use $\nabla ={\nabla }_{\mathrm{rad}}$ there. If ${\nabla }_{\mathrm{rad}}>{\nabla }_{\mathrm{ad}}$, convection carries some of the flux. Efficient convection gives $\nabla \simeq {\nabla }_{\mathrm{ad}}$; inefficient surface convection needs a transport prescription and can be superadiabatic. For composition gradients, use the Ledoux criterion, with threshold ${\nabla }_{\mathrm{ad}}+\varphi {\nabla }_{{\mu }_{\mathrm{mol}}}/{\delta }_{\mathrm{th}}$ instead. Here ${\nabla }_{{\mu }_{\mathrm{mol}}}=d\log {\mu }_{\mathrm{mol}}/d\log P$, $\varphi =(\partial \log \rho /\partial \log {\mu }_{\mathrm{mol}}{)}_{P,T}$ and ${\delta }_{\mathrm{th}}=-(\partial \log \rho /\partial \log T{)}_{P,{\mu }_{\mathrm{mol}}}$, using the mean molecular weight ${\mu }_{\mathrm{mol}}$.

Above the thin burning shell, take constant luminosity $L$, constant mean molecular weight ${\mu }_{\mathrm{mol}}$, ideal-gas pressure $P=\mathcal{R}T\rho$ with $\mathcal{R}=k_B/({\mu }_{\mathrm{mol}}{m}_u)$, and the Kramers' opacity law $\kappa ={\kappa }_0\rho T^{-7/2}$. Then the temperature equation isTo implement the printed assumption that $P,\rho$ and $M_r$ are all power laws while retaining mass conservation, write $M_r\propto r^m$, $\rho \propto r^b$, $P\propto r^p$ and $T\propto r^d$. The mass equation gives $m=b+3$; the ideal gas law gives $d=p-b$; hydrostatic equilibrium gives $d=m-1$. The diffusion equation gives $d-1=2b-2-13d/2$. Solving this linear system gives the self-gravitating Kramers power-law envelope:The coefficients can also be matched consistently. If $r_c$ is the core boundary and $M_c$ its enclosed mass,Radiative transfer fixes the constant luminosity throughwhose right-hand side is independent of radius for these exponents. Thus this is a solution of all four envelope equations, not just a dimensional estimate.

Matching the boundary temperature to the isothermal core and extrapolating the idealized power law to the specified photosphere givesFor reference $M_R/M_c=(R/r_c{)}^{1/11}=2500^{1/10}\simeq 2.19$, so the envelope mass is not negligible in this particular solution. The given $M_c\simeq M_{\odot }$ fixes the core-radius normalization $r_c=(11/42)G{M}_c/(\mathcal{R}10^7\mathrm{K})$; a numerical absolute radius needs the unspecified molecular weight. The exponent ratio also gives $\nabla =d/p=5/21<2/5$, so the fully ionized monatomic version of this idealization is convectively stable.

A different common approximation neglects the envelope's self-gravity and sets $M_r\simeq M_c$ in the force equation. It cannot obey the exact mass equation with a nonzero density and exactly constant $M_r$. Under that additional approximation, the same calculation instead givesThis is the constant-core-mass power-law opacity radiative envelope limit, not the full power-law solution with changing enclosed mass. Stating which approximation is used resolves the otherwise different numerical radius ratios.

A compact nearly isothermal core, a thin luminosity-producing shell and a much larger cool envelope describe a shell-burning red giant. The full power-law profile is a deliberately simple model. The Kramers' opacity law and an ionized ideal gas are not reliable at a $4000\mathrm{K}$ photosphere; partial ionization, other opacity sources and a convective envelope usually modify real cool giants. The quoted radius ratios are extrapolations within the stipulated model.

An upper atmospheric region above the tropopause in which shortwave heating can produce an atmospheric thermal inversion. Ozone on Earth, and methane and aerosols on giant planets, are examples of absorbers that help heat it. Its positive altitude temperature gradient makes it stable against homogeneous-gas thermal convection.