Copper has much higher thermal conductivity versus aluminum.
230 vs 130 I believe.
I also don't see why it's relevant. If I attach a heat source to a solid chunk of metal, and that chunk of metal were theoretically insulated on all sides so that it weren't allowed to radiate heat, then it doesn't matter what's it made of or how big it is. It will eventually over-heat. The heatsink ultimatley needs radiating area to remove the heat.
When dealing with power LEDs, and volumes of metal in ranges of only an ounce or two, then the 'heat battery' effect of a heat-sink doesn't apply but for only a short period of time. Surface area to radiate heat trumps everything else. Obviously if you make the heatsink too thin then the finite thermal conductivity acts as a bottleneck, but if it's too thick and doesn't have sufficient radiating area then the same problem occurs.
In any respect, what I'm getting at is surface area to radiate heat is really the most important factor when dealing with these size heat-sinks. Making them a bit thicker won't fix the problem.
Very useful indeed. I spent the better part of yesterday playing around with both the online calculator and their downloadable software. The forced air heat sinks interested me more as I use those for cooling thermoelectric modules. The calculators returned results which pretty much agree with reality. Their downloadable software lets you do cool things like input static pressure versus airflow for fans. The software uses this along with the pressure drop in the heat sink to calculate the flow rate, and in turn the temperature rise. Very useful for doing "what if?" scenarios like trying different fans with different heat sinks, or even designing your own heat sinks. It's a big time saver to simulate things first, find out what works well, and what doesn't.yes it does. i found that an 1/8" aluminum baseplate is a good thickness for an aluminum natural convection heatsink. this was the result of experimentation with a free online heatsink calculator, which can be found here. When I built the actual heatsink the results of the online tool turned out to be accurate.
results from the online tool also support the idea that a copper baseplate is a significant improvement over aluminum, but that copper fins have little additional value over aluminum.
it's definitely a useful tool.
Very useful indeed. I spent the better part of yesterday playing around with both the online calculator and their downloadable software. The forced air heat sinks interested me more as I use those for cooling thermoelectric modules. The calculators returned results which pretty much agree with reality. Their downloadable software lets you do cool things like input static pressure versus airflow for fans. The software uses this along with the pressure drop in the heat sink to calculate the flow rate, and in turn the temperature rise. Very useful for doing "what if?" scenarios like trying different fans with different heat sinks, or even designing your own heat sinks. It's a big time saver to simulate things first, find out what works well, and what doesn't.
Correct that copper fins don't provide much improvement over aluminum. For one forced air heat sink I tried the improvement was only about 8%. The value of a copper baseplate depends of course upon the size of your heat source. For a very small source a copper baseplate is a tremendous improvement. When the sizes of the heat source and base are close the improvement is more modest. For example, I did a 68mmx83mm heat sink which had a source size of 40mm x 40mm. While the copper baseplate cut the temperature rise there by close to 40%, it only contributed a small amount to the overall thermal resistance. The net improvement was only something like 6%.
Would be great to use thermal-imaging techniques on flashlights...