Shock compression of solid deuterium

“…This data is in much closer agreement with the first-principle predictions of RPIMC and FPMD. Finally, a new technique based on spherically converging shock waves generated by explosives (Belov et al, 2002) (data reported in figure 11) also produce lower compressibilities.…”

Section: Fig 11 (Color Online)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The experimental data are plotted as symbols with error bars: Z machine (triangles) (Knudson et al, 2004), gas gun (crosses) (Nellis et al, 1983b)), explosives (green squares) (Belov et al, 2002), (large circles) (Boriskov et al, 2003), (diamonds) (Grishechkin et al, 2004a), and laser (open circles) (Hicks et al, 2009), (filled small circles) (Knudson and Desjarlais, 2009), and (gray squares) (Collins et al, 1998a;DaSilva et al, 1997). The red line is the Hugoniot from (Caillabet et al, 2011) Predictions of various chemical models are reported as dashed lines: Kerley (Kerley, 2003b), Ross (Ross, 1998), Saumon-Chabriervan Horn(Saumon et al, 1995) and FVT (Juranek and Redmer, 2000).…”

Section: Fig 11 (Color Online)mentioning

confidence: 99%

The properties of hydrogen and helium under extreme conditions

McMahon¹,

Morales²,

Pierleoni³

et al. 2012

Rev. Mod. Phys.

483

415

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hydrogen and helium are the most abundant elements in the universe and, in principle, are the simplest elements. Nonetheless, they display remarkable properties under pressure that have fascinated theoreticians and experimentalists for over a century. Recent advances in computational methods have made it possible to elucidate many of these properties. We review some of the computational methods that have been applied to dense hydrogen and helium in recent years, mainly those that perform a simulation directly from the physical picture of electrons and ions; primarily, those based on density functional theory and quantum Monte Carlo methods. We then discuss the predictions from such methods as applied to the phase diagram of hydrogen, including the solid and fluid phases, with particular focus on the crystal structures, the liquidliquid transition and comparison of the results with experimental shock-wave data. We then discuss predictions of ordered quantum states, including a possible low-temperature fluid and high-temperature superconductivity in the atomic state. We also briefly discuss pure helium, and then focus on hydrogen-helium mixtures, with particular focus on properties of relevance to planetary science.

show abstract

“…To test our final tables, we make comparisons with high-pressure experiments. Much attention has been devoted to experiments designed to understand the properties of hydrogen (or deuterium) and helium at high densities (Nellis et al 1983(Nellis et al , 1984Holmes et al 1995;Collins et al 1998;Belov et al 2002;Boriskov et al 2003;Grishechkin et al 2004;Knudson et al 2004;Eggert et al 2008;Hicks et al 2009;Celliers et al 2010;Loubeyre et al 2012). In these experiments a gas at rest with an initial thermodynamic state (u 0 , ρ 0 , P 0 ) is exposed to an abrupt change in pressure, temperature, and density.…”

Section: Comparison With Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Jupiter internal structure: the effect of different equations of state

Miguel

Guillot

Fayon

2016

A&A

105

161

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context. Heavy elements, even though they are a smaller constituent, are crucial to understand the formation history of Jupiter. Interior models are used to determine the amount of heavy elements in the interior of Jupiter, but this range is still subject to degeneracies because of the uncertainties in the equations of state. Aims. Before Juno mission data arrive, we present optimized calculations for Jupiter that explore the effect of different model parameters on the determination of the core and the mass of heavy elements of Jupiter. We compare recently published equations of state.Methods. The interior model of Jupiter was calculated from the equations of hydrostatic equilibrium, mass, and energy conservation, and energy transport. The mass of the core and heavy elements was adjusted to match the observed radius and gravitational moments of Jupiter. Results. We show that the determination of the interior structure of Jupiter is tied to the estimation of its gravitational moments and the accuracy of equations of state of hydrogen, helium, and heavy elements. Locating the region where helium rain occurs and defining its timescale is important to determine the distribution of heavy elements and helium in the interior of Jupiter. We show that the differences found when modeling the interior of Jupiter with recent EOS are more likely due to differences in the internal energy and entropy calculation. The consequent changes in the thermal profile lead to different estimates of the mass of the core and heavy elements, which explains differences in recently published interior models of Jupiter. Conclusions. Our results help clarify the reasons for the differences found in interior models of Jupiter and will help interpreting upcoming Juno data.

show abstract

Shock compression of solid deuterium

Cited by 83 publications

References 5 publications

Hydrogen–Helium Mixtures at High Pressure

Hydrogen–Helium Mixtures at High Pressure

The properties of hydrogen and helium under extreme conditions

Jupiter internal structure: the effect of different equations of state

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About