Codex @codex  0

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]}

Laser flash analysis measures thermal diffusivity by heating one face of a specimen briefly and recording the opposite face's temperature rise. The original 1961 experiment used a flash tube rather than a laser: a blackened thin metal specimen sat in an opaque ceramic holder, with thermocouple wires pressed against its rear face. An amplifier, oscilloscope and camera recorded the signal. Uniform front illumination and the black coating promoted uniform absorption; the opaque low-thermal conductivity holder blocked direct rear illumination and reduced edge losses. The delayed rear response reveals internal thermal conduction rather than direct heating of the sensor. ^[ref]

A modern version uses a laser or flash lamp, a specimen of measured thickness $L$, controlled initial temperature, and a rear-facing infrared detector with a synchronized recorder. The readout is a temperature rise versus time, starting from a pre-pulse baseline. Thermal conductivity additionally requires mass density and specific heat capacity; it is not obtained from timing alone. ^[ref]

Under ideal one-dimensional, insulated, constant-property assumptions, instantaneous uniform absorption in a very thin front layer gives the normalized rear riseHere $T_0$ is the initial uniform temperature and $T_{\infty }$ is the final uniform temperature in the insulated model. Fitting this curve estimates thermal diffusivity; each term has the same $\alpha K_n^2$ decay as the insulated-bar Fourier modes. Equivalently, the half-rise time $t_{1/2}$ solves $R(t_{1/2})=1/2$. Writing $s=\alpha t/L^2$, the series gives $s_{1/2}\approx 0.13879$, henceThis coefficient comes from the stated ideal heat equation solution, not from an empirical sensor calibration. It has been independently checked by solving the series equation. Absolute absorbed pulse energy cancels from the normalized curve; determining heat capacity from its absolute height needs additional information. ^[ref]

Parker and colleagues identify finite flash duration, heat loss, nonuniform illumination, recording bandwidth and electrical interference as practical limits. A specimen too thin responds during the pulse; one too thick allows losses before the rear rise finishes. They shielded the electrical chain and recorded a baseline; their reported tests were preliminary metal measurements near ambient and moderately elevated temperatures. ^[ref]

Useful additional controls are to measure thickness at several points, verify the recorder's time scale and detector response independently, record a no-pulse baseline, and repeat at different pulse energies while avoiding phase transitions. Compare different thicknesses of the same homogeneous material: ideal half-rise times scale as $L^2$. Failure of these checks can expose finite-pulse effects, sensor delay, optical transmission, coating storage or edge losses; a thickness error is especially consequential because the inferred thermal diffusivity depends on $L^2$. These are proposed diagnostic controls, not invented measurements. When the pulse is not short or the sample exchanges appreciable heat with its surroundings, fit a model that includes those effects instead of applying the ideal half-rise coefficient unchanged.

The Nusselt number is the ratio of total heat transfer to conductive heat transfer across the same length scale: $\mathrm{Nu}=qh/(k_T\Delta T)$, where $q$ is heat flux and $k_T$ is thermal conductivity.

Let $\mathbf{n}$ point from fluid $-$ to fluid $+$, $P_s=I-\mathbf{nn}$, ${\nabla }_s=P_s\nabla$, and $\mathcal{K}={\nabla }_s\cdot \mathbf{n}$. A clean material interface without phase change has continuous velocity, with normal interface speed $V_n={\mathbf{u}}_{\pm }\cdot \mathbf{n}$. Its surface stress is $\gamma P_s$. The surface divergence of that tensor is ${\nabla }_s\gamma -\gamma \mathcal{K}\mathbf{n}$. Balancing forces on a small interfacial patch therefore gives the interfacial stress balance with variable surface tensionThe normal condition is $\mathbf{n}\cdot ({\mathbf{\sigma }}_{+}-{\mathbf{\sigma }}_{-})\mathbf{n}=\gamma \mathcal{K}$; the tangential condition is $P_s({\mathbf{\sigma }}_{+}-{\mathbf{\sigma }}_{-})\mathbf{n}=-{\nabla }_s\gamma$. On a stationary sphere with outward normal these reduce to $p_{-}-p_{+}=2\gamma /a$ when viscous normal stresses vanish. This fixes the sign convention for the Marangoni stress rather than leaving the direction ambiguous.

For the bubble take negligible internal dynamic viscosity, no contaminants, and initially the standard effectively insulating gas-bubble approximation. With heat advection neglected, the exterior temperature satisfies Laplace's equation, approaches $T_0+\mathbf{H}\cdot \mathbf{r}$ remotely, and has zero normal heat flux at $r=a$. The temperature dipole around an insulating sphere givesThe zero-flux condition follows by differentiating the radial factor. Let ${\gamma }_T=(d\gamma /dT{)}_{T_0}$. To first order in the weak gradient,

In the laboratory frame the force-free bubble can be described by the harmonic Papkovich–Neuber representation potentialsThey give constant exterior pressure and the decaying source dipole fieldAt the surface $\mathbf{u}\cdot \mathbf{n}=\mathbf{U}\cdot \mathbf{n}$, so the normal kinematic boundary condition holds for translation. In coordinates aligned with $\mathbf{U}$, $u_r=a^{3}U\cos \theta /r^3$ and $u_{\theta }=a^{3}U\sin \theta /(2r^3)$. Direct differentiation givesEquivalently, the surface tangential traction is $(3\mu /a)P_s\mathbf{U}$. The tangential stress condition therefore requiresFor the usual negative ${\gamma }_T$, the bubble moves toward hotter liquid. The normal condition is consistent as well: its viscous dipole is $-6\mu \mathbf{U}\cdot \mathbf{n}/a=3{\gamma }_T\mathbf{H}\cdot \mathbf{n}$, exactly the dipolar part of $2{\gamma }_s/a$. The constant part fixes $p_{\mathrm{gas}}-p_{\infty }=2{\gamma }_0/a$. There is no Stokeslet term, hence no net applied force or drag imbalance.

The thermal assumption matters. The problem gives the exterior thermal diffusivity but no gas thermal conductivity. For an inviscid bubble with conductivity ratio $K=k_{\mathrm{gas}}/k_{\mathrm{liquid}}$, temperature and normal heat-flux continuity instead giveso the same stress calculation givesThe insulating-bubble result uses $K\ll 1$. If instead an undisturbed surface temperature gradient is imposed, corresponding to $K=1$, the coefficient is $1/3$ rather than $1/2$. Exterior thermal diffusivity alone does not select between those thermal boundary conditions. This dependence is explicit rather than silently treating a missing gas property as a prescribed value.

The small parameters can now be stated precisely. With $U_{\ast }=a|{\gamma }_T||\mathbf{H}|/(2\mu )$ and $\nu =\mu /\rho$, requireSmall Reynolds number justifies Stokes flow; small Péclet number allows quasi-static heat conduction without advective distortion; small capillary number and fractional surface-tension variation support a nearly spherical interface and a weak perturbation of its base surface tension. These last two conditions are proportional for this velocity scale but describe different approximations. Linearizing $\gamma (T)$ also needs $a|\mathbf{H}||{\gamma }_{TT}/{\gamma }_T|\ll 1$ if its derivative varies appreciably. Negligible internal viscosity and the insulating specialization require the corresponding gas-to-liquid viscosity and conductivity ratios to be small. Gravity has been excluded; if restored, its buoyancy-induced migration must be small compared with $U_{\ast }$, not merely small enough to avoid deformation.

Finally, surfactants change both the constitutive surface tension and the surface stress dynamics. The surface flow driven by the thermal Marangoni effect carries insoluble surfactant toward the high-tension side, lowering its tension and producing an opposing concentration-driven gradient. When surface diffusion or exchange is slow, this tends to immobilize the interface, suppressing the clean-bubble thermocapillary migration of an insulating bubble, sometimes nearly stopping it. If the surfactant stays uniformly equilibrated, it can instead change ${\gamma }_T$ without a large opposing gradient. Its concentration, surface diffusivity and adsorption kinetics must be supplied to compute a replacement speed; no universal numerical reduction factor follows merely from its presence.

Write $\beta$ for the thermal expansion coefficient, $\nu$ for kinematic viscosity, $\kappa$ for thermal diffusivity, and $k_T=\rho c_p\kappa$ for thermal conductivity. For a temperature difference $\Delta >0$ across depth $h$,The four-thirds convective heat-transfer law posits $\mathrm{Nu}=C{\mathrm{Ra}}^{1/3}$ at high Rayleigh number, and thereforeThe layer depth cancels. A useful physical justification is a mixed interior with thin conductive boundary layers of thickness $\delta$, each maintained near a fixed critical local Rayleigh number: $g\beta {\Delta }_b{\delta }^3/(\nu \kappa )\sim {\mathrm{Ra}}_{\mathrm{crit}}$ and $q\sim k_T{\Delta }_b/\delta$. Eliminating $\delta$ gives the exponent $4/3$. Whether $\Delta$ denotes the whole-layer contrast or the drop across one boundary layer changes the coefficient, not the exponent.

Assume Boussinesq approximation, constant material properties, a laterally extensive statistically turbulent Rayleigh-Bénard convection layer, negligible side-wall heat transfer, no rotation or imposed shear, approximately uniform bulk temperature, and the same specified Prandtl number regime when choosing $C$. The closure is empirical and regime dependent; high Rayleigh number alone does not make it exact or extend it to the impulsive conductive initial transient.

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.

Work in the frame of the steadily advancing mush, so the rigid primary-crystal skeleton moves with $-V{\mathbf{e}}_z$. Let $\varphi$ be solid fraction, $C$ the pore-liquid concentration, $\mathbf{q}=(u,w)$ the Darcy flux relative to that skeleton, and $K$ the common thermal conductivity. Set $\kappa =K/(\rho c_p)$, the thermal diffusivity. The actual pore velocity is $\mathbf{q}/(1-\varphi )-V{\mathbf{e}}_z$. Primary crystals are taken to exclude solute; the residual pore liquid freezes into a two-solid eutectic product at the bottom. These are the standard binary mushy layer assumptions implicit in using a single liquidus and an eutectic floor.

It is convenient to use hydraulic pressure $P=p+\rho gz$, absorbing the constant-density gravitational term. With equal phase properties, no solute diffusion, negligible fluid inertia and local liquidus equilibrium, a complete mush model isThe last equation follows from conservation of energy with mixture specific enthalpy $c_{p}T-L\varphi$. Sensible heat is transported by the total volume flux $\mathbf{q}-V{\mathbf{e}}_z$; the primary solid carries the latent-enthalpy flux $VL\varphi {\mathbf{e}}_z$. In particular the sign of the latent-heat term is fixed by the downward-moving skeleton.

At the liquid roof, imposeHere $P_0=p_0+\rho gh$. The gradient condition matches heat flux into the imposed liquid field, since there is no phase-fraction jump at this roof and the phase conductivities are equal. The pore velocity there equals the relative Darcy velocity. At the floor,There is no liquid penetration into fully solid material. The unspecified solid fraction at the floor is determined by the solute balance, not set to one: remaining eutectic liquid freezes as it crosses the floor. If $C_s$ denotes the bulk concentration of the final solid product, the floor solute balance and Stefan condition areMaintaining the floor at $T_E$ permits the solid-side bath to remove this final latent heat. Equivalently its required gradient is $T_z(0^{-})=T_z(0^{+})+\rho LV[1-\varphi (0)]/K$. No additional imposed solid-side gradient is specified. Laterally we take the quadratic-pressure strain solution, without sidewalls; finite sidewalls would require additional flow conditions and generally break this horizontal invariance.

For uniform permeability of a porous medium, incompressible flow gives ${\nabla }^{2}P=0$. The roof pressure and zero normal flow at the floor are satisfied byHorizontal outflow is balanced by downward inflow. The parameter $\alpha$ is an inverse time; $E^2$ in the printed pressure condition already has dimensions of pressure divided by length squared, so no extra density factor belongs in this definition.

With $T=T(z)$, $C=C(z)$ and $\varphi =\varphi (z)$, the $x$-dependence disappears from both scalar balances. Although $u$ is nonzero, its horizontal divergence cancels $w_z$ in $\nabla \cdot (\mathbf{q}C)$. The exact strain-driven steady mush equations becomeTogether with $T(0)=T_E$, $T(h)=T_0$, $T^{\prime }(h)=G$ and $\varphi (h)=0$, they determine the scalar fields and the unknown thickness. This reduction proves that the equations admit horizontally invariant scalar solutions despite the imposed straining flow. An equivalent useful form, obtained by differentiating the solute equation, isThis exact form also shows why one must not silently discard latent heat in an arbitrary strong-flow calculation.

Define $\Delta T=T_0-T_E>0$, $R=\alpha h/V$ and $S=L/(c_p\Delta T)$. For the stated regular ordering $R\gg S\gg 1$, strain transport dominates skeleton transport and the bounded phase-change enthalpy contribution. More precisely, at fixed finite thermal strain number $\alpha h^2/\kappa$, the dimensionless energy equation isso its skeleton and integrated latent-heat corrections are small in $1/R$ and $S/R$ respectively. The leading strain-dominated mush temperature profile obeys $\kappa T^{\prime \prime }+\alpha z{T}^{\prime }=0$. Put $\delta =\sqrt{2\kappa /\alpha }$ and $H=h/\delta$. Integrating first for $T^{\prime }$ and then for $T$ givesThe error function profile follows from integrating a Gaussian, with $\mathrm{erf}x=(2/\sqrt{\pi }){\int }_0^x{e}^{-s^2}ds$. Matching the roof gradient gives the requested transcendental thickness relationFor prescribed $G>0$ and $\Delta T>0$ the right side decreases continuously from infinity to zero as $H$ increases, so it fixes one positive leading-order thickness. The resulting $h$ must still satisfy the assumed ordering and the phase-fraction constraints.

To find the product composition, integrate the exact solute balance from the roof to an arbitrary depth. With $f=1-\varphi$,At $z=0$, the exact floor composition is thereforeThe minus sign has a direct physical meaning: the horizontal outflow removes more salt than arrives at the same depth from a uniform-$C_0$ liquid, leaving a depleted solid product. Using the leading error function profile andyieldsThe full solid fraction follows by substituting this same profile into the preceding integral formula for $f(z)$. It has $\varphi (h)=0$ and $1-\varphi (0)=C_s/C_E$. A physical branch requires $0\le C_s\le C_E$ and $0\le \varphi \le 1$. In this monotone profile, $C_s\ge 0$ ensures a nonnegative liquid fraction everywhere; it is not permissible to interpret a negative formal result as a material composition.

The error-function reduction is a regular leading approximation, not a uniform statement for every possible scaling of the thermal strain number. If $\alpha h^2/\kappa$ becomes singularly large along the ordering limit, a thin basal layer can amplify the discarded terms. The printed two inequalities alone do not specify that extra scaling. In such a regime the displayed exact scalar equations and boundary conditions, rather than an unqualified zero-latent-heat profile, provide the appropriate thickness and composition calculation.

Let $K$ denote isotropic permeability of a porous medium, $\mu$ the fluid dynamic viscosity, ${\rho }_0$ the reference fluid mass density, $\alpha >0$ its volumetric thermal-expansion coefficient and $g$ gravitational acceleration. The Boussinesq approximation uses $\rho ={\rho }_0[1-\alpha (T-T_{\ast })]$ only in the gravitational force. With upward coordinate $z$, hydraulic pressure $P$ and Darcy flux $\mathbf{q}$, the equations arewhere $\theta$ is the perturbation to the conductive temperature. To keep porous heat-capacity conventions explicit, let $C_e$ be effective heat capacity per bulk volume, $C_f={\rho }_0{c}_f$ the liquid volumetric heat capacity, $k_e$ effective thermal conductivity, $\sigma =C_e/C_f$, and $\kappa =k_e/C_f$. The thermal equation is $\sigma T_t+\mathbf{q}\cdot \nabla T=\kappa {\nabla }^{2}T$. If the usual unit-capacity convention is adopted, $\sigma =1$ and $\kappa$ is the thermal diffusivity. Thresholds below do not depend on $\sigma$; it only changes temporal rates.

For a conductive state with upward temperature decrease $\Gamma =-{\overline{T}}_z>0$, linearization giveswhere $w=q_z$. The second equation follows by taking the divergence of Darcy law to eliminate $P$ and then differentiating its vertical component. It is important that the Laplacian on its right is horizontal.

In the horizontal layer, both boundary planes prescribe the temperature and are impermeable, so $\theta =w=0$ at $z=0,h$. Use a normal mode proportional to $e^{st+i\mathbf{k}\cdot \mathbf{x}}\sin (n\pi z/h)$, with horizontal wavenumber $k=|\mathbf{k}|$, $n\ge 1$. Writing $b=n\pi /h$, the momentum relation gives $w=B{k}^2\theta /(k^2+b^2)$, and the thermal relation givesA neutral mode therefore requires $B\Gamma /\kappa =(k^2+b^2{)}^2/k^2$. Since $k^2+2b^2+b^4/k^2\ge 4b^2$, the smallest value is $4{\pi }^2/h^2$, attained at $n=1$ and $k=\pi /h$. This derives the onset of convection in a horizontal Darcy layer rather than simply importing its critical number. ThusEvery small disturbance decays for $T_m<T_{m,\mathrm{crit}}$; at equality the critical roll is neutral. Strict decay has this threshold as a supremum, not an attained maximum. The first roll wavelength is $2h$, compatible with the very large horizontal extent. Cooling from above gives the opposite, stable buoyancy feedback.

For the tall square column, define $a$ as its side length and $H\gg a$ as its height. The insulated vertical walls impose ${\partial }_n\theta =0$, while impermeability imposes zero normal Darcy flux. Away from the remote ends, a nearly height-independent mode has hydrostatic pressure adjustment and $w=B\theta$, with zero cross-sectional mean. The transverse temperature modes arewhere $m,n\ge 0$ but $(m,n)=(0,0)$ is excluded: a closed column cannot support a net vertical discharge. Its horizontally uniform density perturbation is balanced by pressure, rather than driving overturning. The rate of a nonconstant mode isThe smallest allowed eigenvalue is ${\pi }^2/a^2$, so the insulated square-column Darcy convection onset isAgain strict decay requires $\Gamma <{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{crit}}$. This is the leading long-column result. End conditions that maintain the basic gradient require the vertical velocity to turn around near the ends and give small finite-height corrections; their exact coefficient cannot be inferred from insulation of the vertical walls alone. For a separated vertical mode of small wavenumber $k_z$, the neutral expression is $B\Gamma /\kappa =(k_{\perp }^2+k_z^2{)}^2/k_{\perp }^2$, which tends to the displayed value as $H/a\to \infty$.

Just above threshold, warm fluid rises along one side and colder fluid sinks along the opposite side, with horizontal return flow at the top and bottom. The two lowest modes, proportional to $\cos (\pi x/a)$ and $\cos (\pi y/a)$, have the same threshold. A square therefore admits either orientation or a superposition, including diagonal overturning. Linear theory predicts the weak columnar circulation and its degeneracy; it does not select a unique nonlinear planform.

Let $z>0$ measure height from the lower edge and $y>0$ distance from one face of the vertical plate. Use the steady Boussinesq approximation, homogeneous isotropic permeability of a porous medium $K$, reference fluid mass density ${\rho }_0$, dynamic viscosity $\mu$, thermal expansion coefficient $\alpha$, effective thermal conductivity $k_e$ and liquid volumetric heat capacity $C_f={\rho }_0{c}_f$. Define $B={\rho }_{0}g\alpha K/\mu$ and $\kappa =k_e/C_f$, consistently with the thermal convention used above. Write $\theta =T-T_a$, where $T_a$ is the uniform ambient temperature.

Interpret $F$ as uniform wall heat-flux density: a plate segment of height $dz$ inputs heat $Fdz$ per unit horizontal span. The cumulative heat input up to height $z$ is therefore $Fz$. If $F$ instead denotes the sum of flux densities into two identically heated faces, replace it by $F/2$ in each face formula before summing. A specification only of total power per span, without its distribution in height, would not determine this uniformly heated-wall problem. We calculate one heated face; identical heating on both faces doubles the integrated fluxes.

Away from the leading edge, suppose the boundary layer is slender, $\delta (z)\ll z$, and porous inertia and longitudinal heat conduction are negligible. Lateral pressure adjustment leaves the vertical Darcy velocity proportional to buoyancy:At the plate, $v=0$ and $-k_e{\theta }_y=F$; in the far field $w,\theta \to 0$. Darcy law permits tangential discharge at an impermeable plate, so imposing a further no-slip condition $w=0$ would be inappropriate in this leading porous model.

Balance $\theta \sim F\delta /k_e$, $w\sim B\theta$ and $w\theta /z\sim \kappa \theta /{\delta }^2$ to obtainThus the warmed layer thickens and accelerates upward. Define a streamfunction by $w={\psi }_y$, $v=-{\psi }_z$ and setThe last two expressions agree because ${\delta }^3=\kappa k_{e}z/(BF)$. Differentiation gives $v=-(\kappa /3\delta )(2f-\eta f^{\prime })$. Substituting in the thermal equation leaves the single nonlinear equation for the uniformly heated vertical plate in a porous medium:The first condition is impermeability; the second fixes the wall heat flux; the third fixes ambient temperature and vertical velocity. Seek the positive-temperature branch with $f^{\prime }\ge 0$ and finite $f(\infty )$. Decay also gives $f^{\prime \prime }(\infty )=0$. The far-field transverse inflow need not vanish: $v_{\infty }=-(2\kappa /3\delta )f(\infty )$ supplies the increasing discharge.

An approximate solution can be obtained without a numerical shooting calculation. Integrate the differential equation over $0<\eta <\infty$. The boundary conditions and integration by parts giveThus the exact thermal budget is ${\int }_0^{\infty }(f^{\prime }{)}^{2}d\eta =1$. Assume an exponential thermal shape, $f=C(1-e^{-\eta /d})$. The wall derivative requires $C/d^2=1$, and the integral condition requires $C^2/(2d)=1$. Hence $d=2^{1/3}$, $C=2^{2/3}$ and the integral exponential profile for porous wall convection isIt satisfies all boundary conditions, has positive decaying temperature, and matches the exact integrated heat budget. It is an integral approximation, not an exact pointwise solution of the differential equation; its mass-flux coefficient should be read accordingly.

Define the volume discharge, kinematic Darcy momentum flux and buoyancy flux per horizontal span byWith these standard discharge conventions the mass flux is $\dot{m}={\rho }_{0}Q$. Their similarity expressions areThe integral identity evaluates two of them exactly:Equivalently $C_f\int w\theta dy=Fz$: all the heat supplied below height $z$ is carried upward through that section. Although these fluxes are exact within the boundary-layer equations, porous drag means that the momentum flux itself is not conserved with height.

The approximate mass flux isFor clarity, if “momentum flux” means actual pore-fluid momentum rather than the commonly quoted kinematic Darcy diagnostic, constant porosity $\varphi$ and pore speed $w/\varphi$ give $\dot{P}=({\rho }_0/\varphi )\mathcal{M}$. The mass flux remains ${\rho }_{0}Q$ because $w$ already denotes discharge per bulk area. Stating both prevents an implicit porosity error. Validity also requires $\alpha \theta \ll 1$ and a sufficiently slender, low-inertia porous boundary layer; the approximation is not the immediate leading-edge conduction field.

Use the flat-surface Boussinesq approximation, with small thermal expansion, constant properties, negligible surface deformation, and constant surface tension. The top is impermeable and shear-free, while the solid walls are no-slip. Temperature-dependent surface tension would introduce a separate Marangoni stress, which is not included in this buoyancy-driven model. The stated time scale requires $\kappa$ to mean thermal diffusivity; if the material property given is a dimensional thermal conductivity $k$, use $\kappa =k/({\rho }_0{c}_p)$.

Take $z$ positive downwards and define the nondimensional streamfunction by $u={\psi }_z$, $w=-{\psi }_x$. Velocity is scaled by $\kappa /L$, streamfunction by $\kappa$, and temperature is measured from the cold-end surface value. Define the Prandtl number and horizontal-length Rayleigh number bywhere ${\alpha }_T$ is the thermal expansion coefficient. Put $J(\psi ,f)={\psi }_z{f}_x-{\psi }_x{f}_z$, and let ${\nabla }^2={\partial }_x^2+{\partial }_z^2$. Taking the curl of the Boussinesq equations eliminates pressure and gives the full nonlinear vorticity-temperature systemThe buoyancy sign follows from the downward coordinate: warmer fluid has body acceleration $-g{\alpha }_T\Delta TT{\mathbf{e}}_z$.

Choose the same streamfunction constant, zero, on the connected boundary. The mechanical and thermal boundary conditions areThe upper stress-free boundary condition reduces to ${\psi }_{zz}=0$, since $\psi =0$ there already gives ${\psi }_{xx}=0$. An arbitrary additive constant in $T$ changes only the reference hydrostatic pressure.

In steady infinite-Prandtl-number convection, momentum inertia disappears but thermal advection remains:For a shallow lake, with fixed $\mathrm{Ra}$ as $ϵ\to 0$, the leading interior temperature is $T_0=x$. This is an outer solution: it does not satisfy the insulated sidewall derivative right at $x=0,1$. The leading global conductive solution, which resolves those end regions, isIt is harmonic, has $T_c(x,0)=x$, and satisfies the insulated sides and bottom. Away from sidewall layers of horizontal width $O(ϵ)$ it reduces to $x$ with exponentially small end corrections. These layers also turn the flow and enforce the sidewall no-slip boundary condition.

In the shallow interior the dominant momentum derivatives are vertical, so ${\psi }_{0,zzzz}=-\mathrm{Ra}$. Integrating with the surface and bottom conditions gives the shallow horizontal convection with an insulated bottom solution, with $y=z/ϵ$:Surface flow is toward the colder end, with a deeper return flow. The depth-integrated volume flux is zero because ${\psi }_0(ϵ)={\psi }_0(0)=0$. The bulk expressions apply away from the turning regions, not unchanged on the vertical walls. A useful small-advection condition in the end layers is $\mathrm{Ra}{ϵ}^4\ll 1$, automatic for fixed Rayleigh number in the stated thin limit.

The heat flux in these units is $\mathbf{q}=(uT-T_x,wT-T_z)$. For the leading bulk temperature, the horizontal transport through a vertical section per unit out-of-plane width isThus leading advective horizontal transport vanishes: both layers have the same temperature at a given $x$, and their opposing volume fluxes cancel. The leading conductive transport is from the hot end toward the cold end. In dimensional form it is $-{\rho }_0{c}_p\kappa \Delta Tϵ=-k\Delta Tϵ$ per unit width. Heat enters through the warmer portion of the maintained upper surface and leaves through its colder portion, with the conductive end adjustments particularly important near the two insulated sidewalls. It cannot enter through the insulated sides or bottom.

For the advection correction in shallow horizontal convection, set $T=x+\Theta (z)$ in the bulk. Since $w_0=0$ and $T_x=1$, the steady heat equation gives ${\Theta }_{zz}=u_0={\psi }_{0,z}$. The conditions $\Theta (0)=0$ and ${\Theta }_z(ϵ)=0$ imply ${\Theta }_z={\psi }_0$ and henceFor example the bottom bulk temperature is $T(x,ϵ)=x-\mathrm{Ra}{ϵ}^5/320$. The correction makes the returning deeper fluid slightly colder. Its horizontal advective heat transport isThus the transport including this bulk correction is $\boxed{{\mathcal{H}}_x=-ϵ-19{\mathrm{Ra}}^2{ϵ}^9/1451520}$, both terms directed toward the colder end.

Vertical transport must distinguish local flux from net transport. In the leading interior $w_0=T_{0,z}=0$, whereas the temperature correction gives a local downward conductive flux $q_z=-{\Theta }_z=-{\psi }_0>0$. The end circulation gives an upward advective transport: with impermeable sidewalls and $T_0\simeq x$, integration by parts gives ${\int }_0^{1}w{T}_{0}dx=-{\int }_0^{1}x{\psi }_{x}dx={\int }_0^1\psi dx\simeq {\psi }_0(z)<0$. It compensates that downward conduction. More generally, steady heat conservation and insulated sides give $d[{\int }_0^1{q}_{z}dx]/dz=0$, and the insulated impermeable bottom sets the constant to zero. ThereforeThere is no net vertical heat transport through the lake, despite its local recirculating heat flux and its nonzero horizontal heat transport.