I have read all the posted links, and performed hours more searches on this, and fail to see a statement refuting my understanding as a myth.
The closest was..
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=6907
Quote:
|
An expert tells us: "With heat sinks, aluminum is cheap and light, but copper is better thermally. In Watts per degree C per square centimetre, copper = 4.83 and Aluminium = 3.0
|
"Thermally" being the term used does not refer eplicitly to the dual nature of thermal conductivity or dissipation to my understanding. It does refer to a process in which heat removal gains were improved in a patent of using BOTH Aluminium and CU in
this article *LINK*.
My belief remains that copper is the better conductor, and draws the heat into itself, while alum. can shed the heat more efficiently instead of retaining it. Please follow the *LINK* and explain why IBM wouldn't use just the "thermally better" copper instead of the combination of the different metals.
Also view the patent here..
Switech , and the user
BorgBob has some great usages of this technique that I am following carefully.
I appreciate all links on this, as they helped me understand the entire process better. (I read every one!)