Comment on "On the ionization equilibrium of hot hydrogen plasma and thermodynamic consistency of formulating finite partition functions"

TL;DR

This paper clarifies that previous claims of inconsistency in plasma thermodynamics models are due to an omission of the configurational factor in the partition function, reaffirming the importance of correct factor inclusion.

Contribution

It demonstrates that the alleged inconsistencies are caused by omitting the configurational factor, correcting a misconception in the occupation probability formalism.

Findings

Incorrect claims stem from missing configurational factor

Reaffirms the validity of the occupation probability formalism

Provides comments on recent related publications

Abstract

Zaghloul [Phys. Plasmas 17, 062701 (2010); arXiv:1010.1161v1] reconsiders the occupation probability formalism in plasma thermodynamics and claims inconsistencies in previous models. I show that the origin of this incorrect claim is an omission of the configurational factor from the partition function. This arXiv version is supplemented with two appendices, where I add remarks and comments on two more recent publications of the same author on the same subject: on his response to this Comment [Phys. Plasmas 17, 124705 (2010)] and on his criticism towards the Hummer and Mihalas's (1988) formalism [Phys. Plasmas 17, 122903 (2010); arXiv:1010.1102v1].