Two-fluid model of superfluidity ($\rho ={\rho }_s+{\rho }_n$)

The two-fluid model of superfluidity gives the normal component of a superfluid and the superfluid independent velocities.

An elementary uniform-flow example makes the distinction operational. Write the mass flux per unit area and the ideal entropy flux asHere $s$ is specific entropy, in $\mathrm{J}\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{g}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$, and ${\rho }_s,{\rho }_n$ are response mass densities. The mass density ${\rho }_s$ used here gives the three-dimensional phase stiffness coefficient ${\rho }_s(\hslash /m{)}^2$ when ${\mathbf{v}}_s=(\hslash /m)\nabla \theta$ is substituted into the kinetic energy density ${\rho }_s{v}_s^2/2$. For a stipulated ${\rho }_s=3\rho /4$, ${\rho }_n=\rho /4$ and $v_n=3u$ along a channel, zero net mass flux requires $v_s=-u$. Yet $j_S=3\rho su$ is positive. Opposing velocities can therefore transport entropy while transporting no net mass.

This example explains why excellent apparent heat transport need not be ordinary diffusion of heat through a stationary liquid. In the ideal zero-net-mass-flux limit, the heat flux associated with this entropy transport is $T{j}_S$. Viscous losses, quantum vortices and external heat exchange require additional terms. The model also supports second sound.

Second sound is an entropy and temperature wave. At negligible thermal expansion, it has almost zero net mass flux. Lev Davidovich Landau predicted two sound modes in 1941.^[ref]

The thermomechanical effect couples a temperature difference to a pressure difference across a superleak. For the closed-chamber model in the apparatus figure, consider neighboring equilibrium states with small velocities, negligible height difference and pure helium-4. Let ${\mu }_m$ be chemical potential per unit mass, in $\mathrm{J}\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{g}}^{-1}$. The Gibbs free energy differential per unit mass givesThe superleak allows the superfluid to redistribute until the two sides have equal ${\mu }_m$. Setting $d{\mu }_m=0$ therefore givesThe sign matters: heating one side at initially equal pressure lowers its ${\mu }_m$; inflow raises its pressure until chemical balance is restored. The hotter side has the higher pressure. The integral follows the constant-${\mu }_m$ path; it need not be evaluated at fixed pressure when material properties vary appreciably.

For an original local example, stipulate constant $\rho =150\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$, $s=100\mathrm{J}\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{g}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$ and $T_h-T_c=0.020\mathrm{K}$. The predicted pressure difference is $300\mathrm{Pa}$. These are teaching assumptions, not helium measurements. This static thermodynamics relation predicts neither the required heater power nor the filling time: those require heat leakage, channel conductance and chamber heat capacity. An outlet would introduce kinetic energy and a flowing balance, so the static $300\mathrm{Pa}$ is not a predicted fountain height.

A superleak is a narrow or porous connection that strongly suppresses the viscous normal component of a superfluid while allowing appreciable superfluid flow. Treating ${\mathbf{v}}_n\simeq 0$ is a regime assumption, not a perfect material filter for particular atoms. The thermomechanical effect uses that distinction to maintain a temperature difference during chemical equilibration. The idealization fails when normal leakage or dissipative quantum vortex motion becomes appreciable.