arxiv: v1 [cond-mat.other] 24 Oct 2018

Transcription

1 Noname manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Thermodynamics of adiabatic melting of solid 4 He in liquid 3 He T. S. Riekki A. P. Sebedash J. T. Tuoriniemi arxiv: v1 [cond-mat.other] 24 Oct 2018 Received: date / Accepted: date Abstract In adiabatic melting, solid 4 He is converted to liquid and mixed with 3 He to produce cooling power directly in the liquid phase. This method overcomes the thermal boundary resistance that conventionally limits the lowest available temperatures in the helium fluids, and hence makes it possible to reach for the temperatures significantly below 100 µk. In this paper we focus on the thermodynamics of the melting process, and examine the factors affecting the lowest temperatures achievable. We show that the amount of 3 He 4 He mixture in the initial state, before the melting, can significantly lift the final temperature, as its normal Fermi fluid entropy will remain relatively large compared to the pure superfluid 3 He. We present the collection of formulas and parameters in order to work out the thermodynamics of the process at very low temperatures, study the heat capacity and entropy of the system with different pure 3 He, solid 4 He, and mixture contents, and use them to estimate the lowest temperatures achievable by the melting process. Realistic expectations in the execution of the actual experiment are considered. Further, we study the cooling power of the process, and find the coefficient connecting the melting rate of solid 4 He to the dilution rate of 3 He. Keywords Adiabatic melting Helium-4 Helium-3 Helium mixtures T. S. Riekki J. T. Tuoriniemi Aalto University School of Science Low Temperature Laboratory P.O. BOX FI Aalto, Finland tapio.riekki@aalto.fi A. P. Sebedash P. L. Kapitza Institute for Physical Problems RAS Kosygina 2, Moscow, Russia

2 2 T. S. Riekki et al. 1 Introduction Adiabatic melting of solid 4 He followed by its mixing with 3 He is a method with potential to cool helium isotope mixtures to record low temperatures. The major advantage of this method is that it bypasses the rapidly increasing thermal boundary resistance that limits the lowest temperatures achievable with external cooling methods, such as adiabatic nuclear demagnetization. Even as the walls of a helium cell can be cooled to tens of microkelvins range, the liquid inside will remain at higher temperature due to the poor cooling power across the thermal boundary resistance bottleneck struggling to overcome even a small heat leak directly to the liquid, which is always there. The cooling by adiabatic melting takes place directly in the liquid helium and thus the thermal boundary resistance is no longer the main factor limiting the final temperature. First, a system of solid 4 He and liquid 3 He is precooled to as low temperature as possible with an external cooling method, and then, as the crystal is melted, it releases liquid 4 He which is mixed with 3 He producing cooling due to the latent heat of mixing. The principle of operation is somewhat similar to a conventional dilution refrigerator, the difference being that the adiabatic melting method is not continuous, and takes place at elevated pressure. [1, 2, 3] The subject of great interest at temperatures below 100 µk is the expected superfluid transition of 3 He in dilute 3 He 4 He mixture. Since there evidently is an attractive, albeit weak, interaction between 3 He atoms in the isotope mixture, BCS-type superfluid transition is anticipated to occur at some sufficiently low temperature for pair forming between the 3 He atoms [4,5]. Such a system would be a dense double superfluid system consisting of fermionic 3 He and bosonic 4 He superfluids, unique of its kind. The realization of the adiabatic melting experiment is quite a technical challenge [2]. In this paper, however, we focus on the thermodynamic aspects: a successful melting process requires certain initial conditions, and proper execution, in order to achieve the lowest possible temperatures. The final temperature achievable by the adiabatic melting is determined by the initial conditions, which should contain as little entropy as possible to begin with. An ideal initial state would contain only solid 4 He which has negligibly small entropy, and pure superfluid 3 He. Below the transition temperature, the entropy of superfluid decreases exponentially with temperature so that even a small reduction in the starting temperature can significantly diminish the entropy content of the total system. In actual cases, however, there is always some 3 He 4 He mixture present, and already in quite small quantities its entropy easily dominates the total initial state entropy. We begin this paper by presenting the formulas and parameters to calculate the heat capacity and entropy of the pure 3 He mixture solid 4 He -system at 4 He crystallization pressure bar [6], and then we examine the achievable final temperatures that can be reached with different starting conditions. A figure of merit is the cooling factor i.e. the ratio between the initial and the final temperature. We will also discuss the cooling power due to the melting/mixing

3 Thermodynamics of the adiabatic melting of solid 4 He in liquid 3 He 3 process, which is proportional to the phase transfer rate of 3 He, which, in turn, is related to the rate at which the 4 He crystal is melted. 2 Heat capacity and entropy We focus on the low temperature properties of pure 3 He and saturated 3 He 4 He mixture at the 4 He crystallization pressure P = bar [6]. The following analysis is restricted to temperatures below 10 mk. Our system thus consists of solid 4 He, liquid rich 3 He, and dilute 3 He (rich 4 He) phases. Here the 3 He rich phase is pure 3 He, while the 4 He rich phase contains certain amount of 3 He down to zero temperature. This finite solubility is the basis of not only the dilution refrigerator, but also the adiabatic melting method. Below about 0.5 K, superfluid 4 He of the mixture phase is basically in its quantum mechanical ground state and it acts as an inert background for the 3 He quasiparticles affecting on their effective mass. [14] The only free thermodynamic parameter of the system is temperature T, as the solid 4 He phase fixes the pressure to the crystallization pressure, and the presence of the rich 3 He phase ensures that the dilute 3 He 4 He mixture remains at its saturation concentration x = 8.12% [9]. The system is thus a univariant three-phase system. It is reasonable to assume that no 3 He dissolves into the solid phase under these conditions, meaning that the solid is pure 4 He, provided that the crystal was grown at sufficiently low temperature [15]. As mentioned, we take that the 3 He rich phase is 100% 3 He, very true at millikelvin temperatures. The Fermi systems in question, 3 He in the rich or dilute phase, are deep in the degenerate state so that the heat capacity is directly proportional to the temperature C T. At the superfluid transition temperature of the pure 3 He T c, the heat capacity suddenly increases and then drops exponentially parameter symbol value Ref. 3 He Sommerfeld constant γ K -1 [7] 3 He superfluid transition temperature T c 2.6 mk [8] 3 He effective mass in 3 He 4 He mixture m /m [6] saturation concentration x 8.12% [9] BBP parameter α [10] liquid 4 He molar volume V 4,l cm 3 /mol [11] solid 4 He molar volume V 4,s cm 3 /mol [12] liquid 3 He molar volume V cm 3 /mol [13] liquid 3 He 4 He mixture molar volume V m cm 3 /mol mixture Fermi temperature T F,m K 1st fitting parameter A nd fitting parameter B Table 1 Values of the parameters used in our calculations at 4 He crystallization pressure bar in 3 He 4 He mixture [6]. V m, and T F,m were calculated using the other listed parameters, while A and B are fitting parameters for the pure 3 He heat capacity below the T c (Eq. (3)).

4 4 T. S. Riekki et al. towards lower temperatures, while the isotope mixture maintains the linear temperature dependence down to ultra-low temperatures. Even a very small amount of 3 He 4 He mixture will eventually dominate the heat capacity of the entire system. Compared to that, we can ignore phonon contributions to the heat capacity. This applies to all phases present, and in particular the heat capacity of the solid 4 He can thus be approximated as zero. Further, we assume that the molar volumes of all phases remain constant. Cooling factor (ratio of initial and final temperatures) c F = T 0 /T final of the adiabatic melting process is determined by the change of entropy per 3 He atom as it is moved from the pure 3 He phase to the dilute 3 He 4 He mixture phase. Above the T c, both the pure and the dilute phase entropy follow the linear temperature dependence, and hence the cooling factor remains constant. Below the T c, however, as the entropy of pure 3 He starts to decrease rapidly, things get more interesting. The heat capacity for n moles of degenerate Fermi fluid is given by C nr = π2 T, (1) 2 T F where R is the molar gas constant, and T F the Fermi temperature. This is valid for normal fluid pure 3 He, and 3 He 4 He mixture. The heat capacity of pure 3 He is expressed with the Sommerfeld constant γ: C 3 (T > T c ) n 3 R = γt, (2) (mk) Fig. 1 Total heat capacity of pure 3 He (C 3 ), and 3 He 4 He mixture (C m,3 ) system per mole of 3 He as a function of the temperature below 2T c calculated by using Eqs. (2),(3), and (6). The heat capacity values are scaled by its value at pure 3 He T c. Experimental data for pure 3 He by Greywall [7] are shown for comparison.

5 Thermodynamics of the adiabatic melting of solid 4 He in liquid 3 He 5 where n 3 is the amount of 3 He in the pure phase. We use the value γ = K 1 interpolated from the data given by Greywall [7], and adjusted due to the difference in the temperature scales used by Greywall and us. For the T c, we use the value 2.6 mk given by Pentti et al. [8]. This is about 10% higher than the transition temperature suggested by the provisional PLTS-2000 [16] temperature scale, but it is consistent with other characteristic 3 He temperatures, such as A-B and Néel transition temperatures, carefully determined at our cryostat during other experiments [17]. The precise value of the T c is not critical to the analysis presented in this paper however, as the calculated quantities can be given with respect to their value at the T c. In order to describe the behavior of pure 3 He below the superfluid transition temperature T c with a single smooth function in the entire temperature range, we use the expression [( ) ( A C 3 (T T c ) = C 3 (T c ) T + B T 2 exp )] 0, (3) T where T = T/T c, A and B are fitting parameters, and 0 = 1.91T c is the superfluid 3 He energy gap at the zero temperature limit, taken as average of the values given by Refs. [18] and [19]. The fit was done against the heat capacity data by Greywall [7]. The heat capacity of 3 He 4 He mixture is given by (1), using the Fermi temperature of the mixture as ( T F,m = 2 3π 2 ) 2/3 N A x 2m, (4) k B V m where m = 2.92m 3 [6] is the effective mass of 3 He atom at 4 He crystallization pressure (m 3 = u is the bare 3 He mass), x = 8.12% [9] is the saturation concentration of the mixture, and, k B, and N A are the reduced Planck constant, Boltzmann constant, and Avogadro constant, respectively. The molar volume of the mixture V m is evaluated from [4] V m = V 4,l (1 + αx), (5) where V 4,l = cm 3 /mol [11] is the molar volume of liquid pure 4 He, and α is the BBP parameter that describes the extra volume occupied by the lighter 3 He atoms with their larger zero-point motion. We use the value α = extrapolated from Ref. [10]. With these the mixture molar volume becomes V m = cm 3 /mol. The Fermi temperature of the mixture is thus T F,m = K, and the heat capacity per mole of 3 He in the mixture n m,3 is C m,3 n m,3 R = T K. (6) The values for the parameters used in the calculations are listed in Table 1. In Fig. 1 we show the heat capacities for several mixture systems, starting from pure 3 He together with solid 4 He, and then letting a portion of the

6 6 T. S. Riekki et al. total 3 He amount to be in the mixture phase so that the total 3 He amount of the system remains constant. Since the mixture heat capacity decreases only linearly with temperature, even a small quantity of mixture phase has a significant effect on the total heat capacity below about 0.2T c. Entropies of 3 He and mixture can now be calculated from the heat capacity as the integral S = T C 0 T dt ; in the case of Eq. (3) numerical integration is required. In an ideal, perfectly adiabatic melting process, the final temperature is determined by the initial conditions alone. In order to optimize those, the initial state should have as little mixture phase as possible since its relatively large entropy very quickly dominates the entropy content of the entire system. If the mixture amount is minimal, even small improvements to the precooling conditions lead to a huge gain in the cooling factor, since the entropy of the pure 3 He phase decreases exponentially, and even a small reduction in temperature can significantly decrease the entropy of the entire system. In realistic cases, there is always some small amount of mixture left. From Fig. 2 we see that precooling the system to below then 0.15T c no longer decreases the total entropy as rapidly: even a minuscule mixture amount is enough to become the main contributor to the total entropy. 0.15T c is quite reasonable value for the decent precooling temperature, as it can be reached using an adiabatic nuclear demagnetization cryostat. Fig. 2 also shows an operational cycle of the cooling process, which begins with the solidification of the crystal, (mk) w m p s T 0 Fig. 2 (color online) Total entropy of pure 3 He (S 3 ), and 3 He 4 He mixture (S m,3 ) system per mole of 3 He as a function of the temperature below 2T c. The entropy values are scaled by its value at pure 3 He T c. Red arrows indicate a solidification (s) precooling (p) melting (m) warm-up (w) cycle with 5% of the total 3 He remaining in mixture remaining after the crystal growth (quite conservative estimate), and precooling temperature T 0. The cycle includes some losses during the melting and solidification processes due to the heat leak to the experimental cell, while red dashed line indicates a perfectly adiabatic melting and solidification lines for comparison.

7 Thermodynamics of the adiabatic melting of solid 4 He in liquid 3 He 7 followed by the precool along the constant pure 3 He mixture content curve. When the ultimate precooling temperature T 0 is reached, the melting process is initiated by removing 4 He from the cell, and in the end we reach the mixture curve. In practice, the crystal may not always be completely melted, but as the remaining small undissolved amount of 3 He has only small entropy, this will not significantly affect the final temperature. When the melting is done, the system can be allowed to warm-up back to the precooling temperature, after which the crystal is regrown. The cycle in Fig. 2 was drawn by assuming some losses in the melting and growing processes due to the external heat leak to the experimental cell, which we have estimated to be of order 100 pw. 3 Cooling factor Cooling factor c F is defined as the ratio between the temperatures before and after the melting, c F = T 0 /T final. Above the pure 3 He T c, it remains constant, since the entropy of the normal fluid 3 He decreases with the same linear temperature dependence as the entropy of 3 He 4 He mixture. The optimal value for the cooling factor above T c can be evaluated from Eqs. (2) and (6) by assuming that the initial state contains only pure 3 He and solid 4 He, while the final state is exclusively 3 He 4 He mixture. We get c F (T > T c ) = π 2 / (2γT F,m ) 3.3. The (mk) Fig. 3 (color online) Cooling factors in perfectly adiabatic melting processes, below 0.5T c, as a function of the precooling temperature T 0, with different starting conditions from ideal case with no mixture phase to one where 20% of the total 3 He is in the mixture phase at the beginning of the melting process. The solid lines indicate the melting processes that have no pure 3 He left in the end, while the dashed lines correspond to the incomplete melting processes that end with 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20% of the total 3 He still in the pure 3 He phase.

8 8 T. S. Riekki et al. conventional 3 He 4 He dilution refrigerators operate with a cooling factor similar to this at around 10 mk regime. Below the T c, however, the potential cooling factor increases rapidly as soon as the entropy of pure 3 He starts to decrease exponentially. With ideal precooling conditions, with the system at that stage consisting only of solid 4 He and superfluid pure 3 He, with no mixture phase, the cooling factor can reach values up to several hundreds as the precooling temperature approaches 0.15T c. The presence of the mixture phase in the initial state severely limits the possible cooling factors, as shown in Fig. 3. If even 1% of the total amount of pure 3 He remains in the mixture at the beginning, the cooling factor levels out at around 100. Further precooling will not help increase it, as the entropy of the entire system is now dominated by the entropy of the mixture phase. Of course, lower initial temperature still results in a lower final temperature, but just in proportion. The upper limit for the cooling factor is determined by the ratio between the total amount of 3 He in the system and the amount of 3 He in the mixture phase c F,max = (n 3 + n m,3 ) /n m,3. In conclusion, in order to achieve optimal cooling by the adiabatic melting method, it is essential to minimize the amount of 3 He 4 He mixture in the initial state. Fig. 3 shows not only the cooling factors in complete melting processes where the final state contains no pure 3 He phase, but also the cooling factors for four different incomplete meltings. The effect on the cooling factor caused by partial melting is not nearly as significant as the presence of the initial mixture phase. From practical aspects, it is not always desirable to melt the crystal entirely to ensure easier regrowth process as no new nucleation is required. Also, the experimental cell may contain surplus of 3 He to accomodate separate sintered heat exchanger for the precooling stage, where the mixture with rather large viscosity is not supposed to enter. 4 Cooling power The cooling power Q of the adiabatic melting process is due to the latent heat of mixing of 3 He from the rich phase to the dilute phase. Well below the T c, at a constant temperature, it is given by Q = T Ṡ = T (ṅ 3S 3 + ṅ m,3 S m,3 ) 95 J mol K 2 ṅ3t 2, (7) where Ṡ is the rate of change in entropy, and ṅ 3 = ṅ m,3 is the rate at which 3 He is transferred from the rich to the dilute phase. At T = 100 µk, and with ṅ 3 = 100 µmol/s, this gives approximately 100 pw of cooling power. The coefficient, determined by the entropy difference between pure 3 He and mixture, can be assumed to be constant when the temperature is low enough for the 3 He 4 He mixture to dominate the total entropy of the system. To put the cooling power in perspective, let us see how large a surface area a helium cell would require to reach similar cooling power with an external cooling method, like adiabatic nuclear demagnetization. Assuming that the

9 Thermodynamics of the adiabatic melting of solid 4 He in liquid 3 He 9 thermal boundary resistance (or Kapitza resistance) R K of the wall follows the model [20] R K = r AT n, (8) where A is the surface area, and r, and n are the Kapitza coefficient and exponent. The cooling power across the thermal boundary resistance bottleneck is ˆT Q K = dt R K = A r (n + 1) T n+1, (9) 0 where we have assumed the external cooler to be at zero temperature. The required surface area is thus between 4000 m 2 and m 2, at 100 µk with 100 pw cooling power, depending on n, and r. We have used the values given by Voncken et al. [20], and since based on their analysis, it is not certain whether the exponent n of the mixture is 2 or 3, the surface area margin is quite large. Even so, such a huge surface area value cannot be reached in practice as it would take several kilograms of sintered metal powder to obtain it. In the actual experiment, we cannot directly measure the rate ṅ 3, at which 3 He atoms transfer from the pure phase to the mixture phase, but rather we have control over the extraction rate of 4 He ṅ 4 out from the cell. Hence it is essential to calculate Fig. 4 Cooling power of the adiabatic melting method at different 4 He melting rates ṅ 4 calculated from Eq. (16). some pure 3 He, solid 4 He, and 3 He 4 He mixture the conversion factor ϑ in ṅ 3 = ϑn 4, which tells us how the melting rate of the solid 4 He corresponds to the phase transfer rate of 3 He. The melting rate of the solid is the same as the extraction rate of pure 4 He. In order to facilitate the melting process, the 4 He amount corresponding to the molar volume difference between the solid and liquid phases has to be removed from the cell, and vice versa if the crystal is grown. Let us denote the total volume of the experimental cell as v, and assume that it contains v = n 3 V 3 + n s V 4,s + n m V m, (10) where n 3, n s, and n m are the amounts of pure 3 He, solid 4 He, and mixture, respectively. V 3 = cm 3 /mol [13] is the molar volume of pure 3 He, and V 4,s = cm 3 /mol [12] is the molar volume of solid 4 He, while V m is as given by Eq. (5). When an infinitesimal amount of solid is melted (or grown) the contents change to v = (n 3 dn 3 ) V 3 + (n s dn s ) V 4,s + (n m + dn m ) V m. (11)

10 10 T. S. Riekki et al. Combining (10), and (11), and taking the time derivative, results in ṅ 3 V 3 + ṅ s V 4,s ṅ m V m = 0. (12) The total amount of 3 He in the system remains constant, which means ṅ 3 xṅ m = 0, (13) while the amount of 4 He is changing by the amount required to melt the crystal, giving ṅ s (1 x) ṅ m = ṅ 4, (14) where ṅ 4 is the rate at which pure 4 He is removed from the cell. Using Eqs. (13), and (14) together with (12) yields ṅ 3 = [ ] ṅ 3 V 3 + ṅ 4 + (1 x) ṅ3 V 4,s ṅ 3 V m = 0 x xv 4,s (1 + αx) V 4,l xv 3 (1 x) V 4,s ṅ 4 ϑṅ 4. (15) With numerical values, that can be found from Table 1, we get ϑ (0.84 ± 0.01). Using this, the low temperature cooling power of the adiabatic melting expressed in terms of the 4 He extraction rate becomes Q = 95 J mol K 2 ϑṅ 4T 2 J 80 mol K 2 ṅ4t 2. (16) Fig. 4 shows the cooling power up to 400 µmol/s melting rates. Since there inevitably exists some background heat leak in any real experimental setup, the lowest temperature is reached when the cooling power matches the heat leak. Furthermore, the melting process itself may cause rate dependent heat leak due to viscous effects caused by the movement of the pure 3 He mixture interface, for example. Therefore there obviously exists an optimal melting rate which maximizes the cooling power while keeping any additional losses at sustainable level. With proper cell design this should not become a serious issue. 400 µmol/s under 100 pw load should result in equilibrium at T 0.02T c 50 µk. As a side note, another useful conversion factor is the change in the amount of solid in the cell ṅ s, when ṅ 4 4 He is added or removed. We can solve it by eliminating ṅ 3, and ṅ m from Eqs. (13), (14), and (15), yielding ṅ s = [ ( ) ] ϑ ṅ ṅ 4. (17) x We can compare our analysis to the experimental crystallization pressure data by Pentti et al. [8]. In saturated 3 He 4 He mixture, at zero-temperature limit, they resolved a slope of dp dt = 1.52 Pa/mK2 by making a quadratic fit

11 Thermodynamics of the adiabatic melting of solid 4 He in liquid 3 He 11 to the experimental data. On the other hand, using the parameters described in Table 1, and the formula calculated from the Pentti s paper dp π 2 xr d (T 2 = ) , (18) ( x) T F,m T =0 we receive the value of 1.91 Pa/mK 2. The disparity between the fitting parameters by Pentti et al. and our parameters, that were independently experimentally determined values, can explain the difference: their fit had the saturation concentration 7.3%, and the mixture Fermi temperature 0.48 mk, while in our analysis they were x = 8.12%, and T F,m = mk. We both used the same T c = 2.6 mk, but Pentti et al. had a non-scaled γ-parameter value K 1 versus our scaled K 1 value, that took into account the difference in the T c between Greywall [7] and us. Fig. 5 shows the comparison between Pentti s data and ours. 5 Conclusions Adiabatic melting of solid 4 He, and its mixing with liquid 3 He is a cooling method that can be used in attempt to reach sub-100 µk temperatures in superfluid 3 He, and saturated 3 He 4 He mixture at 4 He crystallization pressure. The ability to reach the lowest possible temperature is strongly dependent on the content of the experimental volume before the melting process is initiated: relative to pure superfluid 3 He, 3 He 4 He mixture carries a large amount of entropy, and therefore its presence in the initial state can significantly limit the final temperature. The ideal initial state would contain only solid 4 He and pure 3 He, and since below the T c, the pure 3 He entropy will decrease exponentially, the total entropy content of the system drops rapidly enabling one to reach ultra-low temperatures. The question regarding the practical execution of the experiment is how to minimize the amount of the initial state mixture. If the mixture amount is determined by some intrinsic property of the setup, Fig. 5 Melting pressure of the saturated 3 He 4 He mixture as a function of the square of temperature. The pressure values are given with respect to the melting pressure in pure 4 He P4 He = MPa. The diamonds indicate the experimental data by Pentti et al. [8], and the dotted line is their fit to the data, while the solid line is the melting pressure obtained using the parameters from Table 1. such as geometry, one cannot reduce it below some threshold value. Another question is whether it is safe to assume that there are no 3 He inclusions in the crystal. Such 3 He bubbles in the crystal would remain hotter than the bulk

12 12 T. S. Riekki et al. liquid in the precooling process, and during the melting we should then be able to observe the sudden heating spikes caused by the release of these inclusions. Another crucial point is to determine where the heat leak to the experimental cell is coming from, and how to minimize it. Some of it is coming from the nuclear stage through the thermal boundary resistance bottleneck, but how much of it is originated from the vibrations of the cell and the capillaries and cables connected to it, or directly through the capillaries from the hotter parts of the cryostat. Since one can never completely get rid of the heat leak, an obvious question is, what is the optimal melting rate of the solid. The heat leak would have the least effect on the final temperature if the melting was done as quickly as possible, but if there are some viscous losses related to the movement of the pure 3 He mixture interface, then there would exists some optimum value. These questions will be addressed in the future, once our running experiment has produced sufficient amount of data to enable such analysis. Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank J. Rysti for insightful discussions. This work was supported by the Jenny and Antti Wihuri Foundation Grant No , and it utilized the facilities provided by Aalto University at OtaNano - Low Temperature Laboratory. References 1. A.P. Sebedash, J.T. Tuoriniemi, S.T. Boldarev, E.M.M. Pentti, A.J. Salmela, J. Low Temp. Phys. 148, 725 (2007). DOI /s A. Sebedash, S. Boldarev, T. Riekki, J. Tuoriniemi, J. Low Temp. Phys 187, 588 (2017). DOI /s A.P. Sebedash, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics Letters 65(3), 276 (1997). DOI / J. Bardeen, G. Baym, D. Pines, Physical Review 156(1), 207 (1967). DOI / physrev J. Rysti, J.T. Tuoriniemi, A.J. Salmela, Phys. Rev. B 85, /1 (2012). DOI /PhysRevB A. Salmela, A. Sebedash, J. Rysti, E. Pentti, J. Tuoriniemi, Physical Review B 83(13) (2011). DOI /physrevb D.S. Greywall, Physical Review B 33(11), 7520 (1986). DOI /physrevb E. Pentti, J. Tuoriniemi, A. Salmela, A. Sebedash, J. Low Temp. Phys. 146(1/2), 71 (2007). DOI /s E.M. Pentti, J.T. Tuoriniemi, A.J. Salmela, A.P. Sebedash, Phys. Rev. B 78, 1 (2008). DOI /PhysRevB G.E. Watson, J.D. Reppy, R.C. R, Phys. Rev. 188, 384 (1969). DOI /PhysRev E. Tanaka, K. Hatakeyama, S. Noma, T. Satoh, Cryogenics 40(6), 365 (2000). DOI /s (00) A. Driessen, E. van der Poll, I.F. Silvera, Physical Review B 33(5), 3269 (1986). DOI /physrevb M. Kollar, Physica B: Condensed Matter , 174 (2000). DOI / s (99) E.R. Dobbs, Helium Three (International Series of Monographs on Physics) (Oxford University Press, 2001)

13 Thermodynamics of the adiabatic melting of solid 4 He in liquid 3 He C. Pantalei, X. Rojas, D.O. Edwards, H.J. Maris, S. Balibar, Journal of Low Temperature Physics 159(3-4), 452 (2010). DOI /s R.L. Rusby, M. Durieux, A.L. Reesink, R.P. Hudson, G. Schuster, M. Kühne, W.E. Fogle, R.J. Soulen, E.D. Adams, Journal of Low Temperature Physics 126(1/2), 633 (2002). DOI /a: M.S. Manninen, A. Ranni, J. Rysti, I.A. Todoshchenko, J.T. Tuoriniemi, Journal of Low Temperature Physics 183(5-6), 399 (2016). DOI /s J. Serene, D. Rainer, Physics Reports 101(4), 221 (1983). DOI / (83) I.A. Todoschenko, H. Alles, A. Babkin, A.Y. Parshin, V. Tsepelin, Journal of Low Temperature Physics 126(5/6), 1449 (2002). DOI /a: A.P.J. Voncken, D. Riese, L.P. Roobol, R. Konig, F. Pobell, J. Low Temp. Phys. 105(1/2), 93 (1996). DOI /BF