Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T00:19:13.314Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparative Study of Hydrogen Equations of State

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2016

D. Saumon
D. Saumon*
Affiliation:
Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The numerous complexities underlying large tables of thermodynamic quantities act as a deterrent to a careful evaluation of their reliability. As a consequence, equations of state are often used as black boxes. To clarify this situation, some of the more critical issues of equation of state physics are discussed from the point of view of the user. They are illustrated by a comparison of four equations of state for hydrogen. The flaws and disagreements thus brought into light are explained and evaluated with simple physical arguments.

Type
Reviews
Information
International Astronomical Union Colloquium , Volume 147: The Equation of State in Astrophysics , 1994 , pp. 306 - 329
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

References

Chabrier, G., these proceedings (1994)Google Scholar
Chabrier, G., Saumon, D., Hubbard, W.B., and Lunine, J. Ap. J., 391, 817 (1992)Google Scholar
Clayton, D.D., Principles of Stellar Evolution and Nucleosynthesis, 2nd Ed., (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) (1983).Google Scholar
Cox, J.P., and Giuli, R.T. Principles of Stellar Structure, Vol. 1, (Gordon and Breach: New York) (1968)Google Scholar
Däppen, W., these proceedings (1994)Google Scholar
Däppen, W., Mihalas, D., Hummer, D.G., Mihalas, B.W. Ap. J., 332, 261 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fontaine, G. these proceedings (1994)Google Scholar
Fontaine, G., Graboske, H.C. Jr., and Van Horn, H.M. Ap. J. Supp., 35, 293 (1977)Google Scholar
Graboske, H.C. Jr., Harwood, D.J., and Rogers, F.J. Phys. Rev., 186, 210 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubbard, W.B., and DeWitt, H.E. Ap. J., 290, 388 (1985)Google Scholar
Hummer, D.G., and Mihalas, D. Ap. J., 331, 794 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerley, G.I. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter., 6, 78 (1972)Google Scholar
Lamb, D.Q. PhD Thesis, University of Rochester (1974)Google Scholar
Lamb, D.Q., and Van Horn, H.M. Ap. J., 200, 306 (1975)Google Scholar
Magni, G., and Mazzitelli, I. Astron. Astrophys., 72, 134 (1979)Google Scholar
Marley, M.S., and Hubbard, W.B. Icarus, 73, 536 (1988)Google Scholar
Mazzitelli, I. private communication (1993)Google Scholar
Mihalas, D., Däppen, W., and Hummer, D.G. Ap. J., 331, 815 (1988)Google Scholar
Rogers, F.J., Phys. Rev., A24, 1531 (1981)Google Scholar
Rogers, F.J., these proceedings (1994)Google Scholar
Saumon, D., and Chabrier, G. Phys. Rev. A, 44, 5122 (1991)Google Scholar
Saumon, D., and Chabrier, G. Phys. Rev. A, 46, 2084 (1992)Google Scholar
Saumon, D., Chabrier, G., and Van Horn, H.M. in preparation for Ap. J. (1993)Google Scholar
Saumon, D., and Van Horn, H.M. in Strongly Coupled Plasma Physics, Rogers, F.J. and DeWitt, H.E., Eds. (Plenum: New York), p. 173 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, D.J. Phys. Rev. B, 12, 3999 (1975)Google Scholar
Stevenson, D.J., and Salpeter, E.E. Ap. J. Suppl., 35, 229 (1977)Google Scholar