Talk:Arctic Silver

Differences between old versions

Im just wondering.....whats the difference between Arctic silver 5 and its previous avatars? Can anyone shed some light on it? Pdinc 03:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish Arctic Silver would post at least their thermal resistance improvements for II, 3, and 5 on their company website. We won't likely see details about how they formulate the microparticulates, however. --Lexein (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong units

The figures listed are called "thermal conductivity", but are in the wrong units. Thermal conductivity is measured in W/(m·K). Thermal conductance is measured in W/(K), and heat transfer coefficient is measured in W/(m²·K). "Thermal resistance" is similarly wrong. — Omegatron 14:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Thermal resistance" in degrees/watt has become a standard metric in electronics applications.

I've added the Infineon book as a reference to Thermal resistance in electronics article.

Just noticed Omegatron is no longer active on WP, so no reply is expected.

--Lexein (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArctiClean added

I added ArctiClean, an emulsifier and surface purifier. --KJRehberg 04:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has this been reviewed anywhere? Please help improve the article. --Lexein (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

High pressure scenarios?

"It is not electrically conductive, which makes it a better choice than Arctic Silver when there is a possibility that the thermal compound could come in contact with the pins of an integrated circuit in a high pressure scenario, such as those encountered when using thermoelectric cooling." Why would thermoelectric cooling create a high pressure scenario? Presumably a Peltier element and a conventional heat sink would be attached using the same mechanism. Bad ideas 00:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic Silver 5 description

The Arctic Silver 5 description is a copy and pate of http://www.arcticsilver.com/as5.htm MoHaG 09:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any other sources?

The only sources are from the manufacturer itself. Is this a problem? 67.164.7.42 (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point?

Just my personal opinion, but this article doesn't seem to add any benefit to mankind or wikipedia. It's a collation of a manufacturer's products. No info about company history, corporate structure, stock/revenue. Compare Microsoft and you see the only similarity is the introductory paragraph. Microsoft article talks about their products halfway down, and each has a quality article associated with it and has a purpose other than advertising what they have.

I don't have emotional attachments to any thermal grease, haven't been burned by one brand or another, and have no conflicting interests but this article would do well if a large stone was tied to its neck and it was thrown into the ocean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.217.93.152 (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple. This company's products are popular, and hence it deserves an article. --IO Device (talk) 03:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is an ad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.154.70 (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I spent some time to try to find notable, verifiable sources. It's tough. Most articles are blogs. There are a couple of surveys and multi-product roundup/reviews, but nothing (yet) to back up the history and various claims in the article. I will add the one good cite I found, but until a few more sources are found, ~~it really does look like an ad. Sorry, Artic sockpuppets, just help make this article better.~~ --Lexein (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just struckout text above. Not such an ad anymore. --Lexein (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There should be plenty of non-blog sources that should pass muster for this, since it's a very popular compound and has to have been not only reviewed many times but included in discussions of overclocking and putting together computers, etc. You might find some articles on amd and intel's websites, and toms's hardware and some overclocking sites are a pretty good bet to find reviews and other articles. Yes, tom's has a blog on it, but it also has real articles written by experts as god as any magazine. I don't doubt that there are also articles from computer magazines on it or on heat sink compound in general that talk about this product. That should give you a start. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 05:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was an old (March) discussion, which has been superceded in the meantime by a couple of good-sized reviews, and one survey. Also, see the "sources" list at the bottom. --Lexein (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Arctic Silver Employees or fans

I see you've gotten into an edit war - deleting REFIMPROVE and ADVERTISING tags. Stop it. You can improve the article:

Find more high-quality, verifiable sources for:

The company's founding date. This might exist in incorporation or trademark registration documents online.
More notable reviews, endorsements, criticism in magazines and books (like system building guides)

~~Shorten the EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF PRODUCTS down to two paragraphs (pastes and adhesives). Then it won't be a raw ad anymore. Take the hint.~~ Struck, I was wrong. --Lexein.
Explain some of the technology behind the microparticles and their shape. The shape is referred to in the interview, but are there any other sources, without revealing trade secrets?

--Lexein (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have asked Wikipedia several times to remove this Arctic Silver article as it has been used and abused multiple times with people posting false and incorrect information. Since the Powers That Be refuse to remove the article, it is important that it be factual with proper product ingredients, real company and product history, and accurate specifications. I agree that the compounds should be grouped together in a single paragraph as should the adhesives. Just the opinion of a real Arctic Silver Guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASguy (talk • contribs) 17:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the article doesn't suck ~~except for the exhaustive list. But even that doesn't suck if superlatives and excess verbiage is trimmed, just like shrubbery.~~ Struck --Lexein.

ASguy, glad to have you. Please go ahead and create your user talk page by clicking on ASguy(talk) (above). Then you'll have a stable in-wikipedia discussion place. It's okay for you to edit the Arctic Silver article if you always provide high quality (non-blog) verifiable 3rd-party sources.
IMHO deleting the article isn't the solution, and the powers-that-be are us, the editors, really. According to WP:ROUGH most articles suffer 5% vandalism or unhelpful edits. It's a burden all popular articles or subjects must endure. In this article's case, tech-heads love their computers, and solutions which work. This results in very intense feelings about products, and that spills over into Wikipedia. We just stay civil, check in once a week, and apply steady, calming, Wikipedia policy pressure to ooze articles back in to shape.
My most recent edit, reverting the History section and adding the Visalia location, and AS5 and adhesives text back in, illustrates my point: 10-year old history isn't advertising. The company's change in direction is a valid part of that history. The interview citation backs up the content, so I restored it.
Uncited "near ubiquity" was bugging me. Uncited "Market dominance" put me over the edge, so that's gone. Such declarations must _always_ have some sort of reference material to back them up, and should really be written as quoting that source, rather than simple declaratives.

Hope this helps.

--Lexein (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my complaints about the list of products. There's informative stuff there, which just needs more and better sources. A naked list, with no history, is worse. --00:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible sources

This Google search returns quite a few published reviews, some of which are quick-and-dirty. Curing time is important squeezing the last few percent of performance from most high-performance TIMs which have multiple phase changes, before measurements are conducted. Many reviews produce conflicting results because of small sample size, time restrictions, or improper preparation. The following reviews had some semblance of validity:

Maximum PC - AS3 vs 4 others Jan 2006, Followup Letter Feb 2006 Result: "any compound is better than none, premium products may not be worth the money". (But in my opinion, the cost of the products are all < $10, so price shouldn't be a factor at all for individual systems, where hundreds of dollars are spent on high performance CPUs. But that's original research, so forget it.)
Maximum PC - AS5 vs CoolLaboratory Liquid Pro, July 2006 High-temp result: equivalent.
A+ complete study guide David Groth, 2003 3rd Edition, Sybex Inc., Alameda, CA. ISBN-13: 978-0782142433 - A guide to COMPTIA.org's A+ exam for computer support technicians.

Pg. 401: "Another way of increasing efficiency (even if only slightly) is by using a different thermal compound." "By using a different thermal compound, you can decrease the temperature by as much as 5°C. Arctic Silver is one..."

Build Your Own PC Morris Rosenthal 2004, McGraw-Hill Osborne Media; 4th ed. ISBN-13: 978-0072255591, Pg. 112. Example of installation.
Repairing PCs Scott Mueller 2007. Que; 18 edition (October 7, 2007) ISBN-13: 978-0789736970 pg. 1352 "One brand, Arctic Silver, has even developed a following sufficient to cause others to counterfeit the product and name. The important thing to note is that in the extensive tests I've seen, there has been only a couple of degrees difference in CPU temperatures under full load when substituting one thermal grease for another. If you want the best, choose a compound with embedded silver."
Repairing and upgrading your PC Robert Thompson & Barbara Fritchman Thompson, 2006, O'Reilly Media; 1st edition (2006) ISBN-13: 978-0596008666 Pg. 163: "Use a silver based compound..." "Don't pay extra for "premium" brands like Arctic Silver. They cost more [than Antec Silver] and our testing shows little or no difference in cooling efficiency."
Concentrator Photovoltaics (Springer Series in Optical Sciences) Springer; 1st edition (October 3, 2007) ISBN-13: 978-3540687962 Antonio Luque, Vi︠a︡cheslav Mikhaĭlovich Andreev, Pg 144-145 In a concentrator photovoltaic system, to thermally bond a directly bonded copper substrate (DBC)(holding photovoltaic cells) to a heat exchanger, "a thermal pad..., thermal interface..., thermal compound (such as Arctic Silver III), or thermal glue (such as Arctic Alumina adhesive)" are considered.

--Lexein (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

I've moved this addition here for discussion:

However, a field test by a computer technician found that there was no difference in performance between 20% zinc oxide USP ointment (available at any pharmacy), ordinary silicone heat transfer grease, and Artic Silver. All produced a temperature of 59C on the same computer with the same external air temperature. This test can be duplicated by anyone willing to do it.

This was discussed at length at my talk page and User Talk:Psycano --Lexein (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: that discussion has been reconstituted here for convenience. --Lexein (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

I added a WP:HIDDEN comment in the article text to strongly suggest that IP editors add edit summaries, and discuss large deletions before taking action. --Lexein (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden comments

Arguing should not be done in hidden comments in articles, because Wikipedia is not a battleground. Discussion should occur in Talk pages. I had commented out the advertising template, because the blatancy had been addressed by reviews. I wrote:

<!--{{Advertising|date=March 2010|2=(non-blatant) advertising.  More 3rd-party references needed.}}-->
<!-- I think, because of the inclusion of B+ reviews, this cannot be considered blatant advertising anymore. --Lexein -->

Psycano wrote here (deleting my "I think...") :

<!--{{Advertising|date=March 2010|2= advertising. The verifiability of all or part of this article is 
disputed. More 3rd-party references needed.<b>This article is written like an advertisement. Please help rewrite 
this article from a neutral point of view. For blatant advertising that would require a fundamental rewrite to 
become encyclopedic, use {{db-spam}} to mark for speedy deletion. }}</nowiki>--> 
<!-- This article is advertising. Furthermore, data contradicting the Artic Silver company claims was removed 
from this article. The article should NOT include any information on the companies products, as this can be 
found by going to the companies website, link provided. There is a substantial mass of data that contradicts 
Artic Silver's claims of being the best, and no opposing viewpoint has been included.  Psycano -->

Historically, the "data contradicting the Arctic Silver claims" was added by Psycano here (which I reverted as needing WP:RS), and again here, reverted as unsourced, and extensively discussed on Psycano's talk page as original research, and on my talk page - discussion reassembled here for convenience. The products were mentioned in 3rd party tests, and so were no longer considered blatant advertising anymore. Further, several sources were listed by me above as fertile sources for mixed reviews of Arctic Silver products. Since I already added reliably-sourced reviews, perhaps the interested editor could see fit to add reliably sourced reviews, to reach the desired balance. rather than waging a hidden-comments battle. If "there is a substantial mass of data that contradicts Artic Silver's claims of being the best," we should cite those sources, if they're not blogs, wikis, press releases, forums, or original research. Also, please note that this article contains no unsourced claims of "best" nor any clear hyperbole. --Lexein (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attack moved to Talk

This attack, added here has been removed, and must not be replaced, without a thorough rewrite, with inline citations of reliable, specific, verifiable, independent, 3rd party sources. --Lexein (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC) --Lexein (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Devolution to "grease" reverted

"Thermal interface compound (or material)" is standard mechanical engineering, and semiconductor cooling industry (far beyond case modders) parlance, as listed in the titles of the independent RS cited. It's not marketing speak, promo, or undue, to use the term. The revision which reduced that to "thermal compound" was not opposed because it still generally agreed with both the industry usage, and with plain English understanding of the concept. But "thermal grease" is both reductive, and dismissive of large variety of materials used to improve thermal conductivity in whatever carrier material is selected, be that "grease", silicone, or any other material. "Grease" is unsupported as the primary descriptor in the cited sources, so I've reverted it out. --Lexein (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]