Copper VS Aluminum

M

medel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 18, 2006
Messages
193
I keep seeing review sites state that copper absorbs heat better than aluminum but aluminum disipates heat better. Am I crazy or does this seem twisted? Wouldn't that mean that a copper block attached to an aluminum block would become warm while the aluminum cooled? I thought aluminum was used for fins for weight/price reasons while copper cores were often kept in an otherwise all-aluminum cooler in order to move heat away from the cpu and spread it to the aluminum. Is my view on thermodynamics really this horrible?
 
Copper is better at absorbing head through a direct contact with a heat source, but aluminium is better at releasing heat to the air. That's why you'll tend to see copper heatpipes and bases on heatsinks but aluminium fins, especially when the heatsink is passive or low airflow. However, with good air flow, an all copper design should provide a better cooling solution.
 
Are you saying that aluminum has a higher radiant heat transfer rate while copper has a higher conductive?
 
holli4pirating said:
Copper is better at absorbing head through a direct contact with a heat source, but aluminium is better at releasing heat to the air. That's why you'll tend to see copper heatpipes and bases on heatsinks but aluminium fins, especially when the heatsink is passive or low airflow. However, with good air flow, an all copper design should provide a better cooling solution.
Click to expand...


WRONG

Copper has a higher thermal conductivity than Aluminum, as well as a higher emissivity. Copper is better at absorbing and emitting heat then copper[Edit Aluminum, Thanks J-Mag]. The only reason aluminum is used is because it is cheaper and lighter. In terms of heat transfer copper is better in every way.
 
Erasmus354 said:
WRONG

Copper has a higher thermal conductivity than Aluminum, as well as a higher emissivity. Copper is better at absorbing and emitting heat then Aluminum. The only reason aluminum is used is because it is cheaper and lighter. In terms of heat transfer copper is better in every way.
Click to expand...

Fixed and agreed.
 
ok, so I was correct the first time and reviewers generally don't think about what they write. Sounds about right. :D Thanks
 
Erasmus354 said:
WRONG

Copper has a higher thermal conductivity than Aluminum, as well as a higher emissivity. Copper is better at absorbing and emitting heat then copper[Edit Aluminum, Thanks J-Mag]. The only reason aluminum is used is because it is cheaper and lighter. In terms of heat transfer copper is better in every way.
Click to expand...
Like almost everything $$ drives the issue.
Its not really surprising though as aluminum can give depending on air flow nearly the same cooling performance for substantially less cost. OCers.com had a article on this years ago. If I remember the percentages right, aluminum has like 80-90% the overall performance of copper whereas the price back then was something like 40 cents on the dollar.
 
So overall, would it be easy to say that copper needs more energy to sustain the same elevated temperature as alumium would need?
I've always wondered about Pewter. I remember as a kid when you touched pewter jugs they alway felt really cold, meaning they were absorbing the heat from your hand very well.
 
If you really want to go crazy. Get a heatsink made of copper silver and gold. Well it works nicely for water blocks.
 
I searched ocers.com but couldn't find the article. I wanna remember that silver actually exceeded golds thermal performance; but please don't quote me on that.
 
If I remember correctly Copper outperforms Gold in terms of thermal transfer/dissipation........Silver is better than Copper and Diamond is better than lots of things (Copper, Silver, Gold, Aluminium included)

I don't know why this whole "aluminium releases heat better" myth came about, let alone how it became so widely believed
 
DaMiEn said:
If I remember correctly Copper outperforms Gold in terms of thermal transfer/dissipation........Silver is better than Copper and Diamond is better than lots of things (Copper, Silver, Gold, Aluminium included)

I don't know why this whole "aluminium releases heat better" myth came about, let alone how it became so widely believed
Click to expand...

It was prob with ppl that made it up that was on a budget.
 
I would think coolers like the scythe ninja use aluminum just for the fact that it keeps the hauss from weighing 2kg and costing $100. Sometimes it makes sense design wise even though it's not the "best", temp-wise, it could be.
 
jnex26 said:
Purified Synthetic diamond is apparently the best thermal conductor.

Imagine a pure synthetic diamond heat sink.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conductivity ( I Know it's not the most relaible source)
Click to expand...
I can only imagine the jewelry companies and fraud that would follow them finding a way to make synthetic diamonds cheaply and in mass quantities, given that the perfect diamond is actually a fake one. :/
 
Erasmus354 said:
WRONG

Copper has a higher thermal conductivity than Aluminum, as well as a higher emissivity. Copper is better at absorbing and emitting heat then copper[Edit Aluminum, Thanks J-Mag]. The only reason aluminum is used is because it is cheaper and lighter. In terms of heat transfer copper is better in every way.
Click to expand...

Apologies, this is what I have read/heard from others.
 
I can only imagine the jewelry companies and fraud that would follow them finding a way to make synthetic diamonds cheaply and in mass quantities, given that the perfect diamond is actually a fake one. :/
Click to expand...

Uhhh, don't they already? Cubic Zarconia?
 
EnJoY120 said:
He means actual artificial diamonds Shawn, as in diamonds that are created in a lab.
Click to expand...
I guess it could be on the same level though, they are both synthetic, just that they are made out of different materials. They would both be just as worthless due to how they are created though, since a real diamond takes 1000s of years to make. I would hope that people arn't spending 1000s of dollars on cubic zirconias thinking they are real diamonds. :/
 
From what I remember, thermal conductivity is actually one of the tell-tale ways of distinguishing between cubic zirconia and diamond. CZ transfers heat very poorly, while diamond transfers very well.
 
hughJ said:
From what I remember, thermal conductivity is actually one of the tell-tale ways of distinguishing between cubic zirconia and diamond. CZ transfers heat very poorly, while diamond transfers very well.
Click to expand...

Woah necropost!
 
ThirtySixBelow said:
I guess it could be on the same level though, they are both synthetic, just that they are made out of different materials. They would both be just as worthless due to how they are created though, since a real diamond takes 1000s of years to make. I would hope that people arn't spending 1000s of dollars on cubic zirconias thinking they are real diamonds. :/
Click to expand...

No real carbon based diamonds can be made, but the cost is higher than an actual natural diamond of similar carat. And it's usually discolored, but they use em for research. But apparently they've been perfecting them, kinda like how they artificially make pearls now.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2005-10-06-man-made-diamonds_x.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top