Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Lapping a Heatsink

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
May 6, 2006 10:17:16 AM

I'd like some recomendations for lapping a heat sink. What paper(s) to use, any tips, techniques, ect.

I'm sure I'm not the only one here who's never lapped one before, so give as much detail as possable :) 

More about : lapping heatsink

May 6, 2006 10:59:05 AM

Get a 2000grit sandpaper and a polisher. Place the sandpaper on a flate surface and tape it down securely. Then evenly start rubbing/lapping the hsf on the sandpaper as level as possible. You can use water or honing oil for better result. Once finished to the desired result then use a soft cloth and metal polisher compound to polish the hsf for a mirror like surface.
May 6, 2006 11:12:58 AM

Strangely enough I use a strop and oils.

A Strop is the stiff piece of leather that is used to sharpen cutthroat razors. Strops can be found in many antique shops.
Related resources
May 6, 2006 11:32:44 AM

A flat piece of glass and some wet & dry sand paper in a few different grades.
That's what I've used for things in the past.
Change the direction that you are rubbing in from time to time.
May 8, 2006 12:12:27 AM

search easypc heatsink lapping kit on google and then buy on eof the premium kits with the glass. It'll work optimally.
May 8, 2006 1:16:28 AM

Quote:
search easypc heatsink lapping kit on google and then buy on eof the premium kits with the glass. It'll work optimally.


I've always wondered why you'd lap a heatsink when all you do is eliminate spots where AS5 can go into. The thing is that AS5 is generally more conductive than copper or aluminium. Obviously if the bottom of the heatsink is so rough that it doesn't sit on the processor at all then it's best to lap the heatsink but I wouldn't bother otherwise.
May 8, 2006 8:04:57 AM

If I plan to lap my zalman 9500 what griit sandpaper should I start with?
a b K Overclocking
May 8, 2006 8:41:53 AM

Zalman 9500 is probably already smooth and flat, so finishing it with 1200 should be good.

Most other coolers...you can cut them flat with 600 and jump straight to 1200 if you would rather spend a little more time than money.
May 8, 2006 9:07:44 AM

Quote:
Get a 2000grit sandpaper and a polisher.

You'll be wasting your time starting with 2000. *shakes head*

Well, my mistake but it depends on the surface smoothness/roughness of the heatsink contact surface.

As for my heatsink was smooth out already but not mirror like surface, so I just used the 2000grit sandpaper and polisher.
May 8, 2006 12:56:36 PM

Quote:
That's because the silver particles in AS5 aren't large enough to fit into the machining groove on a typical HSF.
According to calculation the roughness created by 1200grit sandpaper fits the particle in AS5 perfectly.
http://www.overclockers.com/articles1303/

It's the same reason why people get better performance with Artic Silver Ceramique or MX-1 when the metal surfaces is treated at 2000 grit due to smaller particle size than AS5.

The thing is that AS5 is generally more conductive than copper or aluminium.

Wrong. Metallic to metallic contact is the most thermal conductive method.
Overall thermal conduction of AS5 is same or less than actual metal and is only useful in filling in the micro pits.

AS5's conductivity is higher than that of Aluminium and is only just behind copper in conductivity :)  There will always be microscopic pits on both surfaces and this means that you're always going to need to have "goop" in the middle to provide a connection and as you say.

My unlapped heatsink with AS5 that I applied with my bare finger is keeping my CPU nice and cool at 25 degrees celsius (reported by mobo which of course could be wrong) when the temperature inside is probably about 20 degrees.

With the labour involved with lapping my HS and a going to the trouble of reapplying AS5 by other means you would want to hope that it cools your CPU to a temperature that is lower than ambient.

*sniggers*

Rather than spending a couple of hours lapping your heatsink just put the damn thing in your fricking computer. The increase in productivity from the fact that your PC will actually be turned on will outweigh that extra 3.338758mhz that you get out of it with your "increased cooling"

I could understand someone doing this if the bottom of their heatsink was rough as anything but most decent coolers are fine. and if you bought a low quality cooler then you probably wouldn't care about overclocking anyway!

Just my rant-tastic 2 cents :p 
May 8, 2006 5:36:04 PM

Quote:
Rather than spending a couple of hours lapping your heatsink just put the damn thing in your fricking computer. The increase in productivity from the fact that your PC will actually be turned on will outweigh that extra 3.338758mhz that you get out of it with your "increased cooling"

I could understand someone doing this if the bottom of their heatsink was rough as anything but most decent coolers are fine. and if you bought a low quality cooler then you probably wouldn't care about overclocking anyway!


Well, you have a decent perspective about the time/benefit angle. I know that lots of people lap their heatsinks - at least they call it lapping when most of them actually just grind them. Lapping traditionally involved using a "lap" substrate along with a polishing compound and a lubricant as opposed to sandpaper, which is considered grinding. Anyway, having taught metallography to numerous people over a period of about a decade, I can tell you with a high degree of certainty that very few people can grind and polish something the size of a heat sink and keep it anywhere near flat. My comment is based upon teaching the techniques to students, then actually measuring the flatness of their ground and polished surfaces. Even if you use an automated grinding/polishing device that costs upwards of $100K, flatness is not guaranteed, but you stand a far better chance with a good machine than you do by hand. It's almost an art form to grind and polish by hand.

I have used one device that works very well for soft metals like copper when flatness is a priority. It uses a metal bed that has a powerful sonicator below it. The metal bed has some sort of cloth stretched across it that supports the grinding/polishing media, which can be anything from silicon carbide to diamond or even colloidal silica. You add a lubricant that can be water, kerosine, hexane, etc., depending on the application. The surface to be ground/polished is mounted in a jig then set onto the bed and it rides around on the vibrating surface like a bumper car. To do it up right, you'd want to polish your CPU the same way, to the same finish and I've never had the guts to do it just yet, but I'm thinking about it. I'd think that if you went down to 0.1 micron diamond or colloidal silica at 0.05 micron, you'd need an even finer thermal grease than Arctic Ceramique.
May 8, 2006 6:18:57 PM

I use my 5 and 1 micron fiber polishing paper, if it's good enough to terminate single mode fiber, it's good enough for a cpu cooler :) 
May 8, 2006 6:25:02 PM

Quote:
I use my 5 and 1 micron fiber polishing paper, if it's good enough to terminate single mode fiber, it's good enough for a cpu cooler :) 


The medium is fine, no doubt about it. A true one micron finish on CU looks like a mirror. It's the proper application that's tricky, especially by hand. The thing hand lappers (sounds porn, eh?) have going for them with CPU HS's is that the most important area for flatness is the center and the center is typically the one of the last areas to go out of flat if you screw up.
May 8, 2006 7:11:56 PM

I use a small piece of very flat metal and wrap the paper around it, it's pretty flat, better than sandpaper and a block of wood :)  And since it takes off such a small amount of material, making the surface curved would be pretty hard.
May 8, 2006 8:15:02 PM

I looked into lapping a little while ago and determaind that the most effective way to get a lower temp is to remove the heat spreader from the cpu then slap your hsf right onto the cpu with some as5 inbetween.

this is how to do it for an amd a64 cpu. anyway dont think any others would be much different
http://forums.extremeoverclocking.com/showthread.php?t=178897

more polishing of the hsf surface could help but removing that ihs will defiatly help if you like to risk you cpu for it
May 8, 2006 8:21:35 PM

Ah!! I'm not that gutsy!
May 8, 2006 9:28:24 PM

Quote:
I use a small piece of very flat metal and wrap the paper around it, it's pretty flat, better than sandpaper and a block of wood :)  And since it takes off such a small amount of material, making the surface curved would be pretty hard.


Think so? I recommend a little trip into the literature. It's easy to curve a surface by sanding, lapping, whatever. With HS's, it probably isn't as easy to notice because the surface you mate with isn't totally rigid and the HS is most likey to crown if you get it out of flat - so it just deforms the IHS when you draw it down.
May 8, 2006 10:51:34 PM

Look I know a lot of people are giving you a lot of recomendations. But unless you are a serious Overclocking diehard then the difference you'll get by using any sanding paper above 1200 grit is very minimal. At best you'll probably see only about 1C - 2C of temp difference on your Cpu. So unless you have ABSOLUTELY nothing else you can upgrade that has too do with you cooling then dont worry too much about it.

So all you have to do is get a Lapping Kit from "EasyPckits.com" and you'll be in business. Oh and to anyone who says that you'll benefit from using AS ceramique for 2000 grit and Arctic 5 for 1200grit should really look at the extremely small difference in temp that it will give you. I mean "C'mon"! , just sand it to 2000grit put on "ANY Arctic Silver product you wish, and you will have guaranteed low temps!
May 8, 2006 10:53:36 PM

Oh and if you get a kit from Easy Pc, just make sure you get one that comes with the glass, so that you can warap the sandpaper around it. That way when you sand the heatsink it will be perfectly smooth.
May 9, 2006 3:54:52 PM

I agree with what OEM-NIB-OBO had to say, unless you are seriously into ocing this is just not worth it. If you’re into ocing that much just take off the IHS like I suggested above because it is way more effective and though this may sound dumb I would be inclined to believe it is less likely to mess something up.

I haven’t done this but from the directions I posted above it doesn’t seem nearly as complicated, takes less time, and works better than lapping, but that’s just my ballpark guess no experience to back it up.

If you want to do this just for the experience though go for it, there's a first for everything. One more thing that you might want to think about is actually lapping the IHS to the HSF using lapping compound. You can buy it at Auto Zone or any automotive parts store, I even think wal mart might have it (they own auto zone don’t see why not).

Lapping compound is a lot like as5 because all it is this grease with metal in it made to be like liquid sand paper. All you need is the two parts to lap together. Put some on the parts then gently rub them together in O / | - 8 patterns and they are done. The good thing about that is the two parts match each other perfectly if you do it right. Might want to practice a little on something that doesn't matter first as with the sanding too
May 9, 2006 6:35:04 PM

Yes you are very right, thankyou
May 10, 2006 4:35:51 PM

I must agree that laping by hand would not give a even surface...

I like the idea of using sonicaction, we use a set up similar to "Clue69Less" for giving the edge to surgical tools and microtomes. Microtomes used to slice thin tissue sections including bones for microscopy etc.

The sonicator is just like a water bath, however the liquid (and the heat sink) is moved rapidly in a short motion by high frequency soundwaves (ie 'Sonic -action'). We usually use some sort of low molecular weight highly crosslinked sephadex gel as an abarisive media.

However, the people at Zalman do a pretty godd job when they pump out those heat sinks, laping one of these will give you only a very marginal increase in heat transfer. I laped my HSF only because a scratched it by accident.
May 10, 2006 10:54:34 PM

Why not put the Zalman 7700 HSF under a microscope and look to see if its a flush surface or not? A 0.1nm disparity will come out looking like a Mt Everist.

Basically we can use the microscope to magnify a surface by about a 400 times. Microscopes do go up to about x1000 but then we need immersion oil and light need light to pass through the HSF which is physically impossible.

If we cant figure it out using a microscope we will move to SEM (scanning electron microscopy) a magnification of about a million times.

eg people have used it and have noticed that the human hair is not smoth surface it is actually rough etc etc.

If its not flush from the Zalman factory we can lap it and see if there is any difference or if there is room for improvement!

Because im sure that some of you out there using sand paper and harsh abarisive materials will make the surface worse!

And yes we do have a microscopes at our university......
May 11, 2006 12:34:14 AM

I can get a fiber perfectly flat to the eye through a 800x optical fiber scope, course you don't want fibers flat, but I did one just to see.
May 11, 2006 12:59:44 AM

But you must agree analysis of the HSF is better done using a micrscope than running your fingers over it and saying "oooooh its baby smoth"!

The microscope would be much more accurate at picking up bumps and groves left after laping.
a b K Overclocking
May 11, 2006 1:08:01 AM

Not necessary, that's what heatsink compound is for.

I knew a retired engineer who could run his fingernails across a piece of glass and tell you the texture, no microscope needed!
May 11, 2006 3:12:25 AM

Quote:
Why not put the Zalman 7700 HSF under a microscope and look to see if its a flush surface or not? A 0.1nm disparity will come out looking like a Mt Everist.


Not with your typical light microscope it won't.

Quote:
Basically we can use the microscope to magnify a surface by about a 400 times. Microscopes do go up to about x1000 but then we need immersion oil and light need light to pass through the HSF which is physically impossible.


That is extremely misleading. For example, using a technique like differential interference contrast (and a very high quality light microscope) you can visualize defects on the order of a fraction of a wavelength. So effective magnigications pushing 2,000 to 3,000 are not unheard of without immersion oil. I've done it, but it's common stuff in the field, so no biggie. And with a flat surface like a HS, one could go even higher using nearfield techniques. Oh, and light does NOT need to pass through the HS - it's called reflected light microscopy.

Quote:
If we cant figure it out using a microscope we will move to SEM (scanning electron microscopy) a magnification of about a million times.


The problem is that most SEMs can't handle a sample as large as the Zalman 9500 - and mounting it so as to not trash the copper fins wouldn't be trivial.

Quote:
Because im sure that some of you out there using sand paper and harsh abarisive materials will make the surface worse!


You can get sandpaper at least down to FEPA grit 4000. FEPA is finer per grade number than the stuff you get at the hardware store. So a skilled operator can get an FEPA 4000 prep to look optically perfect - like a mirror. Lapping by hand? Very few could lap to FEPA 4000 and get a uniform finish by hand. That kind of skill was rare 30 years ago when lots of people did hand lapping and it's even more rare now since most people use a machine. I doubt that Zalman hand laps...

Quote:
And yes we do have a microscopes at our university......


But do they teach you all of the little details of theory and operation? Based on your comments above, I'm unconvinced.
May 11, 2006 3:15:32 AM

Quote:
Not necessary, that's what heatsink compound is for.

I knew a retired engineer who could run his fingernails across a piece of glass and tell you the texture, no microscope needed!


He must be using the Force, Luke.
a b K Overclocking
May 11, 2006 4:39:09 AM

He's a machined surface expert, after 30 years in the field he has a lot of experience handling machined surfaces.
May 11, 2006 4:48:15 AM

To Clue69Less:

Reflected light microscopy? Is that like confocal light microscopy With an irridium laser? Where the a laser is used at the light source where you can create z stacks? Yes we have have its a pain to use.

The SEM we have can hande things the size of a petri dish easy. It would not take a 9500 but we could fit a 7700. (not that i mentiond anythink aobut a 9500 in my original post)

And yes we parctice the theory.... we call it honours masters and a phd.
May 11, 2006 1:30:20 PM

I don't have a masters or a Phd but I do have a thought maybe wun911 or just somebody smarter that I can answer.

This is my question, AS5 particles are close to the size of 1200 grit sandpaper scratches (or so Im told, Ill assume this for my example if I am wrong feel free to fill in the right info) now if you polish your surfaces down to 4000 grit won't this cause the silver particles to act like ball bearings with only the smallest surface contact thus reducing the heat transfer and making the whole polish past 1200 pointless?
May 11, 2006 6:37:54 PM

I believe the particals are actually like crystals, not round, so there are flat surfaces that push up to each other making a solid connection between particles. At least that's what I've heard.
May 11, 2006 7:14:53 PM

Quote:
I'd like some recomendations for lapping a heat sink. What paper(s) to use, any tips, techniques, ect.

I'm sure I'm not the only one here who's never lapped one before, so give as much detail as possable :) 


If your so anal that you want to waste time (yes, waste time) lapping, just take the dam thing to any half competant machinist and have it re-surfaced properly. It'll take 15 minutes, cost about $15, you wont waste your time and you dont have to worry about rounding the surface
May 12, 2006 4:41:01 AM

Quote:
Reflected light microscopy? Is that like confocal light microscopy With an irridium laser? Where the a laser is used at the light source where you can create z stacks? Yes we have have its a pain to use.


Not necessarily. Confocal is cool but it's slower and at times provides less resolution than Nomarski.

Quote:
And yes we parctice the theory.... we call it honours masters and a phd.


Study up, finals tomorrow.
May 12, 2006 4:46:35 AM

Quote:
This is my question, AS5 particles are close to the size of 1200 grit sandpaper scratches (or so Im told, Ill assume this for my example if I am wrong feel free to fill in the right info) now if you polish your surfaces down to 4000 grit won't this cause the silver particles to act like ball bearings with only the smallest surface contact thus reducing the heat transfer and making the whole polish past 1200 pointless?


You can always try a finer heat sink grease, like AS Ceramique. And also realize that copper is very soft - hard particles like AS C will at least partially deform the surface of the Cu and thus make up some of the difference.
May 13, 2006 1:40:48 AM

Quote:
That's because the silver particles in AS5 aren't large enough to fit into the machining groove on a typical HSF.
According to calculation the roughness created by 1200grit sandpaper fits the particle in AS5 perfectly.
http://www.overclockers.com/articles1303/

It's the same reason why people get better performance with Artic Silver Ceramique or MX-1 when the metal surfaces is treated at 2000 grit due to smaller particle size than AS5.

The thing is that AS5 is generally more conductive than copper or aluminium.

Wrong. Metallic to metallic contact is the most thermal conductive method.
Overall thermal conduction of AS5 is same or less than actual metal and is only useful in filling in the micro pits.

AS5's conductivity is higher than that of Aluminium and is only just behind copper in conductivity :)  There will always be microscopic pits on both surfaces and this means that you're always going to need to have "goop" in the middle to provide a connection and as you say.

My unlapped heatsink with AS5 that I applied with my bare finger is keeping my CPU nice and cool at 25 degrees celsius (reported by mobo which of course could be wrong) when the temperature inside is probably about 20 degrees.

With the labour involved with lapping my HS and a going to the trouble of reapplying AS5 by other means you would want to hope that it cools your CPU to a temperature that is lower than ambient.

*sniggers*

Rather than spending a couple of hours lapping your heatsink just put the damn thing in your fricking computer. The increase in productivity from the fact that your PC will actually be turned on will outweigh that extra 3.338758mhz that you get out of it with your "increased cooling"

I could understand someone doing this if the bottom of their heatsink was rough as anything but most decent coolers are fine. and if you bought a low quality cooler then you probably wouldn't care about overclocking anyway!

Just my rant-tastic 2 cents :p 
Bullshit, you're saying an entire HSF made of AS5(if that's even possible will beat a HSF made of copper of the same design.

AS5 is not pure silver, it's a gel mixture. Overall thermal conductivity will be lower than most metal.

Perhaps you should google the thermal conductivity of AS5 as well as copper and aluminium :wink: You might be pleasantly surprised.
May 13, 2006 7:22:05 PM

Quote:
Perhaps you should google the thermal conductivity of AS5 as well as copper and aluminium :wink: You might be pleasantly surprised.


You might want to include the references you found and look at the specifics. For example, were the Cu and Al numbers you looked at for a bulk metal and for the AS5 for a thin film? Also, who published those numbers and were the pubs peer-reviewed or were they advertisements?
May 15, 2006 10:48:38 AM

Sorry I forgot that posting on a forum was like publishing my opinion in a scientific journal. As I said...... google is your friend!!!!

I find your suggestion that my figures were plucked from advertisments rather amusing. Perhaps you have been a victim of the evil propoganda that the aluminium foundation gives out. But not me :) 
May 15, 2006 8:51:32 PM

Quote:
Sorry I forgot that posting on a forum was like publishing my opinion in a scientific journal. As I said...... google is your friend!!!!


Google is potentially your friend. It's still up to you to separate the wheat from the chaff. Or do you believe that all info on the Internet indexed by Google is based in fact?

Quote:
I find your suggestion that my figures were plucked from advertisments rather amusing.


Suggestion? I wrote:

>Also, who published those numbers and were the pubs peer-reviewed
>or were they advertisements?

Dude, I didn't suggest, I ASKED! Believe it or not, there is a difference! Apparently, the differences are lost on you. Pity.

Back to the point - a long time ago on a planet far, far - no wait! It was right here on Earth. Anyway, the team I worked on was looking at the thermal conductivity (TC) of various materials being used in certain military apps. The TC literature has more than its share of, shall we say... Misinformation! And when you start talking about matrials such as a thermal paste, bulk vs. film is a huge variable. Even for well-understood bulk materials, methods for measuring them as a thin film had loads of problems just a decade ago, so there are plenty of questionable numbers in the literature. And if you find yourself a "publication" that turns out to be an infomercial, all bets are off. So my QUESTION was not only sincere - it is valid.
May 16, 2006 1:37:07 AM

Ok here's evidence of my "bullshitting" :roll:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Silver

Thermal conductivity of 0.001 in (25 micrometre) layer: >350 kW/(m²·K)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper

Thermal conductivity 401 W/(m·K)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium

Thermal conductivity 237 W/(m·K)

Google anywhere else and I challenge you to find values which are mindblowingly different.

Seriously..... just because this forum is full of tards who like to post crap like that they overclocked their 386 to 75Ghz and it now does superPi is negative 20 seconds doesn't mean that you should treat everyone with the same contempt as you would treat them with......

Some other sites claim that AS5 has a thermal conductivity rating of >400 kW/(m²·K) so I thought I'd choose a more conservative (and probably more correct) rating of >350 kW/(m²·K) ......... Oh and I do realise that it's probably the same value as on the AS website but you do realise that companies can get sued for reporting false specifications :wink:

This has been a public announcement from the Arctic Silver board.

*EDIT* Oh crap I forgot to edit that last bit out...... :roll:

P.S Yes I am being sarcastic.
May 16, 2006 2:03:05 AM

Quote:
Google anywhere else and I challenge you to find values which are mindblowingly different.


I'll wait till you wager a large sum.

Quote:
Some other sites claim that AS5 has a thermal conductivity rating of >400 kW/(m²·K) so I thought I'd choose a more conservative (and probably more correct) rating of >350 kW/(m²·K) ......... Oh and I do realise that it's probably the same value as on the AS website but you do realise that companies can get sued for reporting false specifications :wink:


You say >350 is "probably more correct". What data are you basing your conclusion on? Your rant would be more meaningful if your number for AS was attached to a refereed publication. What is the source for the wiki AS numbers? Is it even remotely possible that they came from AS? If so, doesn't that bother you in the least?

It's cool to use online searches for quick info but when you truly have to rely on reported measurements, the only way to go is with refereed publications, hopefully 2 or 3 measurements made by different research groups, hopefully using different measurement techniques.

Remember cold fusion?
May 16, 2006 2:11:24 AM

Quote:
Google anywhere else and I challenge you to find values which are mindblowingly different.


I'll wait till you wager a large sum.

Quote:
Some other sites claim that AS5 has a thermal conductivity rating of >400 kW/(m²·K) so I thought I'd choose a more conservative (and probably more correct) rating of >350 kW/(m²·K) ......... Oh and I do realise that it's probably the same value as on the AS website but you do realise that companies can get sued for reporting false specifications :wink:


You say >350 is "probably more correct". What data are you basing your conclusion on? Your rant would be more meaningful if your number for AS was attached to a refereed publication. What is the source for the wiki AS numbers? Is it even remotely possible that they came from AS? If so, doesn't that bother you in the least?

It's cool to use online searches for quick info but when you truly have to rely on reported measurements, the only way to go is with refereed publications, hopefully 2 or 3 measurements made by different research groups, hopefully using different measurement techniques.

Remember cold fusion?

Tell you what....... perhaps you should find something to prove me wrong. Otherwise. Go make love to yourself and quit being argumentative purely for the sake of being argumentative.

Perhaps you may find that no one with the ability to test these things cares about cooling CPU's and computer components enough to test the thermal conductivity of CPU heatsinks that forums full of pendantic idiots use to cool their CPU's and GPU's
May 16, 2006 2:22:11 AM

Quote:
Tell you what....... perhaps you should find something to prove me wrong. Otherwise. Go make love to yourself and quit being argumentative purely for the sake of being argumentative.

Perhaps you may find that no one with the ability to test these things cares about cooling CPU's and computer components enough to test the thermal conductivity of CPU heatsinks that forums full of pendantic idiots use to cool their CPU's and GPU's


That's a hilarious cop-out. If the only group willing invest in measuring the TC of AS5 is AS and you're willing to swallow it, then you get what you deserve. On the other hand, if the numbers you cite are from credible sources, then they should be willing to identify themselves and their methods. What kind of scientific methodology do you believe in?
May 16, 2006 2:32:44 AM

The thing about this is that I don't actually believe that you're alive and that you're posting replies to me. Please post some scientifically published data and reports to assure me that you are actually alive and are posting replies to me.

Anyway..... you have no evidence to suggest anything contrary to the claims that AS make about their product do you? :roll: When you have some evidence to prove that anything fishy is going on then I'm more than happy to listen.
May 16, 2006 2:51:41 AM

Quote:
Ok here's evidence of my "bullshitting" :roll:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Silver


That wiki page includes:

"Arctic Silver 5 is a high density polysynthetic silver thermal compound, which has become the company's most popular product. The product features a silver purity of over 99% and it is over 88% thermally conductive material by weight. It does not contain any silicone and contains sub-micrometre zinc oxide, aluminium oxide and boron nitride particles which help maintain long term stability.

Thermal conductivity of 0.001 in (25 micrometre) layer: >350 kW/(m²·K)"

The AS web site spec page includes:

"Contains 99.9% pure silver: Arctic Silver 5 uses three unique shapes and sizes of pure silver particles to maximize particle-to-particle contact area and thermal transfer. Arctic Silver 5 contains over 88% thermally Conductive filler by weight. In addition to micronized silver, Arctic Silver 5 also contains sub-micron zinc oxide, aluminum oxide and boron nitride particles. These thermally-enhanced ceramic particles improve the compound's performance and long-term stability. Arctic Silver 5 does not contain any silicone.

Thermal Conductance:
>350,000W/m2 °C (0.001 inch layer) "

I'd like to point out that (LOL) those are NOT letter for letter exact duplicates. But are you willing to bet the farm that the wiki page comes from a source other than AS? Really?

Quote:
Seriously..... just because this forum is full of tards


Like you that spam for AS?

Quote:
Oh and I do realise that it's probably the same value as on the AS website but you do realise that companies can get sued for reporting false specifications :wink:

This has been a public announcement from the Arctic Silver board.

*EDIT* Oh crap I forgot to edit that last bit out...... :roll:


How appropriate!

Quote:
P.S Yes I am being sarcastic.


That ain't all spammeister! Hey, I use AS products myself. But I'd not even consider pretending that unreferenced wiki pages are the equivalent of a refereed scientific publication. You really need to learn the difference between spam and science.
May 16, 2006 2:59:58 AM

Quote:
The thing about this is that I don't actually believe that you're alive and that you're posting replies to me. Please post some scientifically published data and reports to assure me that you are actually alive and are posting replies to me.

Anyway..... you have no evidence to suggest anything contrary to the claims that AS make about their product do you? :roll: When you have some evidence to prove that anything fishy is going on then I'm more than happy to listen.


I know you're alive - it's your brain that appears fully dead. To clarify - it's not an issue whether I have conflicting references - it's that product spec sheets produced by manufacturers do not equate with peer-reviewed publications.

Spammer.
May 16, 2006 3:04:20 AM

Perhaps you should check the definition of spam again before you try to make me out to be some kind of spammer :roll:

I actually said that the AS site and the Wiki entry are probably the same thing but anyway that was obviously lost on you.....

Like I said before. No scientific organisation gives a crap about nooblets like you who use AS products to cool their CPU. Generally scientific bodies do studies into things that interest a large proportion of the population or things that will benefit significant numbers of people. So basically people don't publish scientific papers on AS5 and other CPU cooling compounds generally used to cool PC componentry.

The proof as they say is in the pudding. People who lap their heatsink's and CPU heatspreaders to achieve this mythical state of heat transfer get results which are no better or not much better than when you use AS5. So AS5 can't be that much worse than copper when copper is prepared ideally for maximum heat transfer efficiency.

If you seriously think that AS are lying why don't you go and sue them or something or you could just go and make love to yourself as I suggested before.
May 16, 2006 3:35:49 AM

Quote:
Perhaps you should check the definition of spam again before you try to make me out to be some kind of spammer :roll:


Oh, sorry, I meant to say "Unwitting Spammer"

Quote:
I actually said that the AS site and the Wiki entry are probably the same thing but anyway that was obviously lost on you.....


Not lost on me at all. I even took the time to compare. I doubt you did until I posted the info.

Quote:
No scientific organisation gives a crap about nooblets like you who use AS products to cool their CPU.


You understand very little about science. Go listen to System's tune "Science" and maybe you'll learn something. Much of science today is all about the money. That's why it's so important to see corroborative results by unaffiliated research groups. I have to laugh at you calling me a noob - I've published articles about the causes for loss of TC in non-metallic substrates, so I in fact do know a bit about the science. You, on the other hand, eat wiki spam and regurgitate it without the tinyiest bit of thought about who might profit from such a forum.

Quote:
Generally scientific bodies do studies into things that interest a large proportion of the population or things that will benefit significant numbers of people. So basically people don't publish scientific papers on AS5 and other CPU cooling compounds generally used to cool PC componentry.


Put your money where your mouth is! I can easily pull up examples that disprove your statement. Bet me $100 each and I'll get to work on it.

Quote:
The proof as they say is in the pudding. People who lap their heatsink's and CPU heatspreaders to achieve this mythical state of heat transfer get results which are no better or not much better than when you use AS5. So AS5 can't be that much worse than copper when copper is prepared ideally for maximum heat transfer efficiency.


Show the proof.

Quote:
If you seriously think that AS are lying why don't you go and sue them


You totally miss the point. So I'll got over it one more time. If wiki simply regurgitates the AS website, then just reference the AS website. As in: acknowledge where you got the data. If you don't know where it came from, then that in itself should be cause for concern. To pretend that 25 micron AS TC data from the AS website is as reliable as the community-accepted TC of bulk Cu just shows that you don't understand measurement science. And while you're out there pondering the meaning of TC measurements, maybe read up a little on it so you have something to contribute. As it is, you're boring in the sheer immensity of your ignorance.
May 16, 2006 5:42:48 AM

Quote:
Perhaps you should check the definition of spam again before you try to make me out to be some kind of spammer :roll:


Oh, sorry, I meant to say "Unwitting Spammer"

Quote:
I actually said that the AS site and the Wiki entry are probably the same thing but anyway that was obviously lost on you.....


Not lost on me at all. I even took the time to compare. I doubt you did until I posted the info.

Quote:
No scientific organisation gives a crap about nooblets like you who use AS products to cool their CPU.


You understand very little about science. Go listen to System's tune "Science" and maybe you'll learn something. Much of science today is all about the money. That's why it's so important to see corroborative results by unaffiliated research groups. I have to laugh at you calling me a noob - I've published articles about the causes for loss of TC in non-metallic substrates, so I in fact do know a bit about the science. You, on the other hand, eat wiki spam and regurgitate it without the tinyiest bit of thought about who might profit from such a forum.

Quote:
Generally scientific bodies do studies into things that interest a large proportion of the population or things that will benefit significant numbers of people. So basically people don't publish scientific papers on AS5 and other CPU cooling compounds generally used to cool PC componentry.


Put your money where your mouth is! I can easily pull up examples that disprove your statement. Bet me $100 each and I'll get to work on it.

Quote:
The proof as they say is in the pudding. People who lap their heatsink's and CPU heatspreaders to achieve this mythical state of heat transfer get results which are no better or not much better than when you use AS5. So AS5 can't be that much worse than copper when copper is prepared ideally for maximum heat transfer efficiency.


Show the proof.

Quote:
If you seriously think that AS are lying why don't you go and sue them


You totally miss the point. So I'll got over it one more time. If wiki simply regurgitates the AS website, then just reference the AS website. As in: acknowledge where you got the data. If you don't know where it came from, then that in itself should be cause for concern. To pretend that 25 micron AS TC data from the AS website is as reliable as the community-accepted TC of bulk Cu just shows that you don't understand measurement science. And while you're out there pondering the meaning of TC measurements, maybe read up a little on it so you have something to contribute. As it is, you're boring in the sheer immensity of your ignorance.

Stop stroking it dude......

I don't need to bet anything......

As I said before. AS5 is more thermally conductive than aluminium and only just behind copper as a conductor of heat. You prove me wrong and I'll give you a wowwy pop :roll:
!