Characterization of swaged mixed metal heat sinks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present experimental study investigates the thermal performance of four heatsink combinations based on the forced convection heat transfer mode. The four designs consist of an all aluminum, all copper, copper baseplate/aluminum fin and aluminum baseplate/copper fin heatsink. Each heat sink combination was tested in pairs of heatsinks placed within a vertical wind tunnel of Plexiglas walls such that the fins were positioned vertically and parallel to the airflow inside the tunnel. A block heater providing 800 watts and covering 60% of the baseplate was placed in between two identical heat sinks. Experiments were performed for an approach velocity ranging from 2 m/s to 8 m/s. The average rise in temperature of eight measured locations was used to calculate the thermal resistance. The all copper heatsink provided the lowest thermal resistance while the all aluminum heatsink returned the highest value. The experiments show that there is marginal improvement of 3% in the performance of the copper-base/aluminum-fin heatsink due to the higher conductivity of the copper base. The experiments show that the thermal performance can be improved by up to 14% by increasing the thermal conductivity of the fin material, as in the case of the aluminum-base/copper-fin heatsink.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".