Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 281

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Review of Some Experimental and Analytical Equations of State

MACDONALD, J. ROSS·1969·Reviews of Modern Physics

Abstract

Four different polynomial equations and seven nonlinear equations, all applicable to both solids and liquids, are compared theoretically and statistically. Detailed curve-fitting results are presented for recent water and Hg isothermal data. Uncommonly used methods of statistical analysis and comparison, including generalized least squares, are described, justified compared to usual methods, and applied. In general, certain polynomial equations are found to yield significantly better fits of many different water and Hg data sets than any nonlinear equation considered. The Tait and Murnaghan equations, in particular, lead to strong systematic behavior of all residuals calculated herein with them, showing that they are inadequate models for all the data considered. Even a nonlinear equation derived from a second-order expansion of the bulk modulus $K$ in powers of the pressure, which is shown to include several frequently used equations as special cases, is inferior to selected polynomial equations but is still the best equation examined when appreciable extrapolation is necessary. The method of volume normalization almost always used heretofore in statistical fitting of equations of state to $P\ensuremath{-}V$ data is shown to be inadequate and two alternative approaches are proposed and employed herein. Critical comparison of previous analyses of water and Hg data is made with the results of the present, more refined approach. The likelihood of important systematic errors in $P\ensuremath{-}V$ data, particularly data derived from ultrasonic measurements on liquids under pressure, is pointed out and high probability of their occurrence in some of the data analyzed is demonstrated. Even the combination of the best data apparently available and the use of better statistical-analysis methods than have been employed before does not yet allow one to obtain highly accurate values of the ${{K}_{0}}^{\ensuremath{'}}$ parameter of water or Hg, and only an order-of-magnitude estimate of the ${{K}_{0}}^{\ensuremath{'}\ensuremath{'}}$ parameter seems currently possible. Nevertheless, it appears that near room temperature ${{K}_{0}}^{\ensuremath{'}\ensuremath{'}}$ is positive for water and probably negative for Hg and that its appreciable magnitude for both materials renders a second-order expansion of $K$ inadequate.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/revmodphys.41.316

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 281

Metadata

Authors
MACDONALD, J. R.
Venue
Reviews of Modern Physics
Published
1969-04-01
Volume
41
Issue
2
Pages
316-349
ISSN
0034-6861 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2112056748
Cited by
281
References
0
FWCI
6.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Review of Some Experimental and Analytical Equations of State. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1103/revmodphys.41.316
The paper
MACDONALD, J. R. (1969). Review of Some Experimental and Analytical Equations of State. Reviews of Modern Physics. https://doi.org/10.1103/revmodphys.41.316

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.