Codex @codex  0

In a renewal model, a diffusive thermal boundary layer grows until a convective instability overturns it, after which growth restarts. A layer reaching thickness $\delta \sim \sqrt{\kappa \tau }$ has mean heat flux of order $k\Delta T/\delta$. A diffusive $t^{-1/2}$ flux averaged over one cycle differs only by an order-one coefficient. Distinct thermal and material layers need not share a renewal time.

A local Rayleigh-number closure estimates the thickness $\delta$ of a turbulent thermal boundary layer by settingwhere ${\mathrm{Ra}}_c$ is an order-one or geometry-dependent critical value. Combining this with Fourier's law converts the boundary-layer temperature and density differences into a heat flux law.

Let $K_w$ be the water thermal conductivity, $L_m$ the latent heat of fusion per unit ice mass, and ${\rho }_i$ the ice density. Define $v_m>0$ as the normal ice-retreat speed that enlarges the cavity. With the water thermal boundary layer at $T_s$ on its warm side and $T_m$ at the melting interface, the heat supply per unit interface area is approximatelyThe ice is specified to be uniformly at $T_m$, so no leading sensible-heat flux into colder ice must be subtracted. The Stefan condition is therefore ${\rho }_i{L}_m{v}_m=q_T$, givingEquivalently $K_w={\rho }_w{c}_p{\kappa }_T$ expresses the heat flux in terms of water thermal diffusivity. The imposed temperatures and constant boundary-layer thickness make this melt rate uniform and constant over the wetted interface. Melting adds latent energy demand to the flow; for an isolated finite pulse, maintaining $T_s$ indefinitely would require heat replenishment. The constant-temperature model is consequently an imposed closure, not a prediction of a permanently hot finite water volume.

Let $z$ measure distance inward from the surface. While $a\ll R$, curvature is negligible and this is a planar two-phase Stefan problem. Use a common reference mass density $\rho$, specific heat capacity $c_p$, thermal conductivity $k$ and thermal diffusivity $\kappa =k/(\rho c_p)$; retain the mass density differences only in the subsequent buoyancy estimates. Define $\Delta T=T_m-T_s>0$, $\Theta =\overline{T}-T_m\ge 0$, and $\vartheta =\Theta /\Delta T$. The paper's parameter $S=L/(c_p\Delta T)$ is the latent-to-sensible heat ratio, reciprocal to the more usual Stefan number.

For superheated two-phase Stefan similarity, solving $T_t=\kappa T_{zz}$ with $T(0)=T_s$, $T(a)=T_m$ and $T(\infty )=\overline{T}$ gives the Neumann solution of the Stefan problem. With $\eta =z/(2\sqrt{\kappa t})$,The solid expression holds for $0<z<a$ and the liquid expression for $z>a$. The interface gradients inserted in the Stefan condition determine the positive constant $\lambda$:The right-hand bracket decreases from infinity and crosses zero, while the equivalent left-hand side $S\sqrt{\pi }\lambda e^{{\lambda }^2}$ increases, proving uniqueness. The liquid-side flux subtracts from the roof cooling: it is heat brought to the interface by the superheated interior.

For large $S$, $\lambda \ll 1$. Keeping the superheat term while using $\mathrm{erf}\lambda \simeq 2\lambda /\sqrt{\pi }$ and $\mathrm{erfc}\lambda \simeq 1$ yields $S{\lambda }^2+(\vartheta /\sqrt{\pi })\lambda \simeq 1/2$. Hence the small-interface-parameter growth with liquid superheat approximation isThe solid temperature is approximately linear across its thin crust, while the liquid thermal boundary layer has thickness of order $\sqrt{\kappa t}$. For fixed superheat and $S\gg 1$, $A\simeq \sqrt{2/S}$; for $\vartheta \gg \sqrt{S}$, $A\simeq \sqrt{\pi }/\vartheta$. This retains the strong suppression of growth by a very hot interior.

To estimate overturn, take local gravitational acceleration $g$ at the roof. The liquid's mass density contrast is $\Delta {\rho }_l={\rho }_f\alpha \Theta$, while the solid contrast is $\Delta {\rho }_s={\rho }_s-{\rho }_f$. A liquid thermal layer of thickness $\delta$ has Rayleigh number $\Delta {\rho }_{l}g{\delta }^3/({\mu }_l\kappa )$. As $\delta \sim \sqrt{\kappa t}$, it reaches its critical value after a time scaling asIn viscous overturn of a dense crust, an unstably stratified viscous crust has a Rayleigh-Taylor instability growth time of order ${\mu }_s/(\Delta {\rho }_{s}ga)$. Setting this equal to its age, with $a=A\sqrt{\kappa t}$, givesThese are formation-to-overturn times. A specified critical liquid Rayleigh number ${\mathrm{Ra}}_c$ multiplies ${\tau }_l$ by ${\mathrm{Ra}}_c^{2/3}$; logarithmic amplification and geometrical constants also affect the crust estimate. They are omitted for the requested order-of-magnitude scaling.

The given numbers yield $S\simeq 2.54$, $\Delta {\rho }_s=500\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$ and $\Delta {\rho }_l=100\vartheta \mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$. ThusLiquid thermal overturn is enormously faster than crustal overturn throughout the stated range. Even a critical-Rayleigh prefactor of order $10^2$ does not change that ordering. Since $S\simeq 2.54$ is not asymptotically large, low-superheat coefficients from the permitted approximation are only approximate. At the upper end $\alpha \Theta =1.25$, so the linear thermal-density approximation also ceases to be quantitatively credible; that endpoint is a formal scaling estimate under the supplied constant-property model. At a common age the instantaneous viscous instability-time ratio instead scales as $5A10^{-18}/\vartheta$; it should not be confused with the above formation-time ratio.

For a boundary-layer renewal model, the liquid layer reaches ${\delta }_l\sim \sqrt{\kappa {\tau }_l}$. Its cycle-averaged thermal flux is consequentlyIf a critical Rayleigh number is retained, insert a factor ${\mathrm{Ra}}_c^{-1/3}$. Averaging the diffusive $t^{-1/2}$ flux over a cycle only changes an order-one coefficient. The crust reachesso its average solid-volume flux per roof area is the crust-removal fluxThe corresponding mass flux is ${\rho }_s{J}_s$ and latent-heat flux is ${\rho }_{s}L{J}_s$. This independent-cycle estimate is a scale for a crust that reaches overturn thickness and is then renewed. Because the liquid renews much more rapidly, in a hot interior its average heat flux can limit actual crust growth: the consistent interfacial budget is $\rho L\dot{a}\simeq k\Delta T/a-F_l$. A stalled crust would not realize repeated solid cycles. In a superheated interior, detached solid may also remelt; permanent core deposition is most directly justified in the late regime requested next.

At late times $\Theta =0$, liquid thermal buoyancy vanishes and $A^2\kappa \simeq 2\kappa /S=2k\Delta T/(\rho L)$. ThusAssuming thin renewed crust, efficient sinking and constant asteroid radius, conservation of mass gives $4\pi b^2\dot{b}\simeq 4\pi R^2{J}_0$ under the permitted equal-density approximation. Therefore the asteroidal core growth by crustal sinking law isFor a self-gravitating approximately uniform sphere, $g\simeq 4\pi G\rho R/3$, so $J_0\propto R^{1/3}$ and a zero-seed core scales as $b\propto R^{7/9}(t-t_0{)}^{1/3}$. This law applies while the thin-crust renewal model remains valid and liquid remains available; it cannot continue beyond complete solidification. The specific numerical lifetime cannot be inferred without the absolute solid viscosity and conductivity.

Let ${\delta }_T$ be the thickness of the thermal boundary layer immediately below $z=h$, let $\nu$ be the kinematic viscosity, let $\kappa$ be the thermal diffusivity, and let ${\mathrm{Ra}}_c$ be the critical local Rayleigh number. The density contrast driving the boundary layer follows from the density anomaly of water:A Local Rayleigh-number closure setsand thereforeBy Fourier's law, the upward heat flux through this layer iswhere $k$ is the water's thermal conductivity. This expression applies while the quantity inside braces is positive.