this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2026
778 points (100.0% liked)
History Memes
2896 readers
861 users here now
A place to share history memes!
Rules:
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.
-
No fascism (including tankies/red fash), atrocity denial or apologia, etc.
-
Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.
-
Follow all Piefed.social rules.
-
History referenced must be 20+ years old.
-
Avoid posting AI-generated content whenever possible.
Banner courtesy of @setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world
OTHER COMMS IN THE HISTORYVERSE:
- !historyruins@piefed.social
- !historyart@piefed.social
- !historyartifacts@piefed.social
- !historyphotos@piefed.social
- !askhistorians@piefed.social
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why copper? Aluminum works way better as a dissipation surface.
Copper has more mass, heat capacity, and thermal conductivity per litre.
Is aluminium actually more effective as a dissipation surface? I hadn't heard that.
Copper is better conductor but it's worse at dissipation. Do the experience yourself, heat a block of each and then touch them afterwards.
Is that not because the copper holds more heat, so stays hot for longer at the same dissipation?
Maybe you're right, but I remember than in the 2000s I've had identical cpu heatsinks in both copper/aluminum versions, and the aluminum one had better performance. And then they started to make hybrid ones, stating that the copper part was to allow rapid heat transference and the aluminum parts to improve dissipation. But maybe it was all marketing.
Aluminium is significantly cheaper, that's why they make coolers with a copper base and alu fins. It's a good compromise.
I just thought of another reason for using Al this way.
Since the heat is being transferred to air, which would be much slower than the 2, using larger fins with lesser thermal conductivity might be more desirable than smaller fins with higher conductivity.
This would also be accompanied with other design changes like greater fin-fin gap, which is better for use with lower pressure fans.
So overall cheaper design and lesser noise.
Of course one could still use Copper fins with the same design for marginal performance increase, at the cost of more weight.
Aluminium is cheaper and lighter.
This seems to suggest that the metal-air transmission is virtually identical between the two, and cites some sources: https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/255731/copper-or-aluminum-heatsink
Dissipation = thermal conductivity. Copper is better in both, it's just heavier and far more expensive. Are you sure you put the same amount of energy into both blocks there? A copper heatsink can generally be much smaller than an aluminium one.
The problems and complications with your method:
Technically, copper is better at heat dissipation. Aluminum is prefered because it's cheaper and lighter. For an aluminum heat sink, you could have an smaller equally performing copper heat sink. In fact, this is the case for when weight and cost isn't a priority. Some heatsinks even use a copper core to wick away heat to the rest of the aluminum heat sink.
From what I have always understood, copper is technically better, but it isn't dramatically better and it is heavier and more expensive. You likely couldn't make a heatsink like the full sized Noctua's and just mount them the way we do because of the weight alone. The price would also likely be double to triple.