|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
For Sale Ads |
Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.
Original Message
I think we're using the same numbers..
Posted by Commuteman on August 25, 2003 at 17:28:12:
You said Cu at 400w/mk. there's gotta be a length in there somewhere..Cu is 10.2 watts/inch-degree C. (sorry about the units, they say memory is the second thing to go)I found a couple of references to this number:
4 Watts per cm per degree C, which agrees with your 10.2 watts per inch per degree. Converting to MKS should give 400W per meter per Kelvin, unless I got the conversion the wrong way round and it's 0.04 W per meter per K....
Let me think this through....
The equation is actually something like:
dQ/dt (watts) = -k dT/dx (degrees/meter)
(the whole assumes unit area, BTW...)since dT/dx is degrees/distance, I think k has to be watts per degree per distance to be dimensionally correct....
Example: a 1 degree per centimeter gradient = a 100 degree per meter gradient, so....
I GOT IT THE WRONG WAY ROUND.... the thermal conductivity if Cu is 0.04W/m/K. Damn! So what effect does that have.....
The right calc is:
1.5x10-7 Watts = 0.04W/mK x 10-6m2 x (temp gradient)
(using 0.04W/mK for the approximate thermal conducivity of CU and Ag at 300K)So, temp gradient is 1.5/4 x 10 = 3.75K/m.
Ok, now I need to go think about your Seebeck effect theory here...
Maybe tomorrow!
Peter