Hold the spork, man!
Did you take the time to interpret those numbers?
per kg, it takes 0.896 kJ of energy to raise Al 1 K . . . and, per kg, it takes 0.383 kJ of energy to raise Cu 1 K . . .
Taking into account energy in must equal energy out, then we could easily say that it takes 0.896 kJ of energy to lower Al 1 K, and 0.383 kJ of energy to lower Cu 1 K . . .
So, kg for kg, it takes
less energy to raise and lower Cu 1 K than it would to raise Al 1 K . . .
For a material to require less energy to raise or lower it's temp, that says to me it's less
resistant (not a very scientific term here ) to the heat, and more willing to give off heat, which equates to being more thermally conductive.
But, that's all kg for kg. If you had a 2kg Al HS, it would be much larger than a 2kg Cu HS . . . and based on those numbers you posted, kg for kg, Cu more readibly absorbs and dissipates heat, which means . . .
. . . it's still the better material for cooling.
Its very dependant, google search its pretty much an epic sized debate.
I'll have to find more data, but as I said I've not slept so won't be doing any proper digging any time soon
But needless to say theres a reason why a combination of aluminium and copper is used in heatsinks and its not just to be cost effective.
As I said check out true vs true copper, you would expect the true copper to completely piss all over the standard version, it beats it by 1-2 Celsius or so.
It is very dependant on heatsink design/size and what airflow is available if copper is an effective heatsink.
Since I'm to tired to explain myself, quoting other people ! wooooo very layman unfortunately but finding things is hard when sleepy, still looking though.
"
Copper and aluminum are both effective materials for heat sink construction, but they have different requirements. If you want to know why, consider a great chef's kitchen.
Aluminum sure can move heat, if it has been done right. It very efficiently absorbs and transfers heat to it's environment and things that interact with it. This works great for bacon in the morning, and even for boiling water, but isn't so good for a large, thick filet mignon. That cold slab of beef sucks the heat right out of the aluminum, and there isn't any left to keep up the cooking. Many people who buy aluminum cookware have a lot of trouble doing steaks properly for this very reason. Aluminum has a low thermal capacity, and a very high thermal conductivity.
As such, aluminum just wicks heat away with little concern for anything else. It won't wick as much as copper, but it sure will move it quickly; Dumping it's capacity as soon as any heat leaves the sink, and quickly soaking up more.
Copper moves heat as well, even if it hasn't been done all that well. Copper very efficiently absorbs and transfers heat as does aluminum. It does it faster, as well. That said, copper has an incredibly high thermal capacity. That big fat steak just can't suck up all the heat that copper will hold on to, and this is where copper and aluminum differ in requirements. Copper won't readily dump all the heat energy it picks up, because it holds so much of it before it changes temperature to any great degree.
That leaves us with a problem. Copper needs help. Somehow, you have to remove all that heat from the copper, as it will just hold on to it otherwise. A copper heat sink can work much better than an aluminum one, but you have to either have loads of pipes and lots of fins and airflow, or you need peltier/water cooling with excellent transfer to help it out.
The thermal capacity of copper, when compared to an aluminum heat sink of the same design, completely removes the benefit of using copper in the first place without help. As a matter of fact, a poorly designed copper sink can be much worse than an aluminum model.
The best way to use the materials is being tried nowadays, and that is combining them. As with most good things, they work better together than apart.
"
More data using cookware as an example lol
"Copper cookware almost always compares favorably to other types of cookware. Stainless steel is not the best conductor, although its strength, durability and ease of cleaning make it a favorite among some cooks. A heavy-gauge aluminum bottom on a stainless steel pan will increase the pan's efficiency, but a thick-gauge aluminum pan is, overall, a better conductor. Aluminum, however, reacts to acidic foods by imparting a metallic taste and sometimes discoloring them -- egg whites beaten in aluminum, for instance, may turn gray. It also does not retain heat for long periods. "
and finally
"ake 2 same sized blocks of metal... one aluminium one copper... heat them to the same temperature. Now monitor temperatures as they cool... one probe in contact with the metal, one a half inch above it's surface, note what happens... The copper block will stay hotter, longer with lower free air temps. The aluminium will cool faster with higher free air temps... because the copper, being higher mass, will retain heat longer.
Yes, because of it's higher thermal conductivity copper soaks up more heat more quickly, but because of it's higher mass it's going to STAY hot. Aluminium isn't as good a heat absorber but, because of it's lower mass, it releases the heat more quickly.
"
Basically the design their using ( copper heatpipes and aluminium fins) gets you the best of both worlds.
Whilst Copper absorbs heat around twice as fast, it dissipates heat about half the rate that aluminium does due to its density.
As I said, tis dependant.
May of used wrong wording earlier maybe, again I blame tiredness !
ha ha
its named CuAl5As.
