perhaps ICD24 is harder to spread? Is it not worth paying >2x as much for ($17) / ICD7 is 'good enough' (7!)?
I sent BonzaiDuck a PM about this but perhaps everyone would benefit. For those who don't know, ICD7 is
a pretty good TIM...
I'll get to your PMs post-haste, after addressing what may be a misconception on your part.
In certain realms of human experience, I'm fairly ignorant. Don't buy jewelry. Wristwatch is a simple CASIO 200m water-resist $60 sports-watch. Not much familiar with precious gems, certainly no more familiar with diamond. But I believe a measure of diamond value or potential diamond value is weight, and I believe a measure of weight is the carat.
To be more specific it is a "unit of mass" applied to measuring "gemstones and pearls."
The Hope Diamond has a lot of carrots. I mean -- "carats." It could purchase the entire commodity-market of carrots, and several art-masterpieces. A single ICD diamond particle has only a teensy-weensy itty-bitty fraction of a carat.
Here are the specs for ICD24 and ICD7, in that order:
ICD24 4.5 W/m-K Thermal Conductance
0.25oC-cm2/W@ 100 ì BLT Thermal Resistance
< 40 ì Maximum Particle Diameter
4.8 Gram
ICD7 Thermal Conductance 4.5 W/m-K
Thermal Resistance0.25oC-cm2/W@ 100 µ BLT
Average Particle Size<40 µ maximum particle diameter
1.5 gram
So when you choose ICD24 over ICD7, you're getting a bigger tube and quantity of the paste. Nothing more; nothing less.