heh, this topic always spawns a bit of a furor...
About the AMDmb article - that particular paragraph you picked out is indeed unclear and possibly misleading. Attempting to quantize heat in this manner is confusing in this instance, when being able to conduct "as much" or "more" heat is easily misunderstood without further definition of the statement.
[Edit: I turned out to be wrong. see my next post below]
In particular, the statement "on a weight-basis, aluminum can conduct more heat than copper" is in fact incorrect.
The conductivity value of these metals is measured in W/m K - Cu being 385 and Al 205. Density and mass/weight is no part of this value - they only come into play regarding specific heat, of which aluminum does have a higher value than copper. However specific heat has no relevance whatsoever to conduction, and is of no consequence in a system in thermal equilibrium.
Another thing to note: any weight/mass distinctions previously made are pretty much inapplicable, since on the surface of the earth they're functionally equivalent.
The rest of the article seems accurate, though, during a quick skim of its contents.
Last edited by flyingass; 06-29-2003 at 11:34 PM.
|