TECHNET Archives

October 2001

TechNet@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Brad Saunders <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Tue, 2 Oct 2001 23:32:35 EDT
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (844 bytes) , text/html (979 bytes)
What's the benefits of CMC over CIC?


Rate of thermal conduction.  Copper rapidly conducts heat to a cold plate or
frame, but has a large CTE.  Invar has very little heat transfer qualities
but excellent CTE numbers, negative numbers some would argue.  Moly's numbers
are somewhere between the two and more conducive to transfer whereas the
Invar application works as heat "storage".   In the CIC application heat is
rapidly and evenly distributed across the entire surface of Invar and heat is
literally soaked into the Invar.

The CIC worked better in my application than Moly, but in a different
application Moly or the big B word would come into play.  The B word being
Beryllium, your Thermal Engineers will quickly let you know the pros and cons.

moly is roughly three times the expansion rate of invar; but invar has one
tenth the thermal conductity....


ATOM RSS1 RSS2