Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T14:34:05.177Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Thermal conductivity of copper and german silver at liquid helium temperatures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2008

J. F. Allen  and
E. Mendoza
J. F. Allen
Affiliation:
St John's CollegeCambridge
E. Mendoza
Affiliation:
Trinity CollegeCambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A method is described for measuring thermal conductivities of metals at liquid helium temperatures. It is shown that the method of determining the temperature gradient by directly measuring the temperature at two points along a rod is probably free from systematic error, but that the end of a heated rod in direct contact with a helium bath is not at the temperature of the surface of the bath, even in the He ii region. A description is also given of a technique for using mercury as a low-temperature solder, tight to He ii. The results for copper are in reasonable agreement with Makinson's theory of metallic conduction. Tentative extrapolation to very low temperatures in the presence of fairly large magnetic fields shows that pure copper is a reasonably good material for thermal transfer in demagnetization experiments. The results for german silver seem to indicate that only the lattice conductivity is important since it follows a T3 law, and that scattering takes place with a mean free path of the order of 10−3 cm.

Type
Research Article
Information
Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , April 1948 , pp. 280 - 288
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Philosophical Society 1948

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

(1)Grüneisen, E.Z. Phys. 46 (1927), 151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2)Makinson, R. E. B.Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 34 (1938), 474.Google Scholar
(3)Bremmer, H. and de Haas, W. J.Physica, 3 (1936), 672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(4)Grüneisen, E. and Goens, E.Z. Phys. 44 (1927), 615.Google Scholar
(5)de Haas, W. J., de Boer, J. and van den Berg, G. J.Physica, 1 (1934), 1115.Google Scholar
(6)Peierls, R.Ann. Phys., Leipzig, 10 (1931), 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(7)Blaisse, B. S., Cooke, A. H. and Hull, R. A.Physica, 6 (1939), 231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(8)Shire, E. S. and Allen, J. F.Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 34 (1938), 301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(9)de Haas, W. J. and Biermasz, Th.Physica, 5 (1938), 47, 320, 619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(10)Kapitza, P. L.J. Phys. U.S.S.R. 4 (1941), 181.Google Scholar
(11)Karweil, J. and Schäfer, K.Ann. Phys., Leipzig, 36 (1939), 567.Google Scholar