Talk:Copper/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Copper#Methods

Cu(II) oxide decays to Cu(I)oxide over 1300°C, and further to Cu(0) above 1800°C. I have never heard this is actually used to produce the metal. The linked article on copper production gives the right details, but the version presented here is nonsense. --129.13.72.197 (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Copper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Other uses: musical instruments

Regarding <quote>the metallic reeds of harmonicas, reed organs, and accordions</quote> : I always understood these are made of blue steel? Jan olieslagers (talk) 05:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Brass and phosphor bronze are also used, see this discussion, and this one on the relative merits. However, in my opinion, going into this detail on a use of copper alloys is getting off topic for the copper article when we have other more suitable articles on copper alloys: list of copper alloys, brass, bronze etc. SpinningSpark 13:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Copper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Date of discovery contradiction

The lead says that first use of copper was 8000 BC, but this is contradicted by the infobox and article body which say 9000 BC. It's bad enough having a thousand year error in Wikipedia, but I don't think we should be highlighting our mistake in the same article. I was tempted to change the lead, it's cited to EB which seems to have had the same information for over a century so might just be out of date. However, the Proquest cite for the 9000 BC date is a deadlink so I can't assess the reliablility of that source. A quick check of book sources didn't find any giving a date as early as 9000 BC (all in range 6000-8000 BC). So, should we lose the 9000 BC date? SpinningSpark 09:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Cesium is NOT yellow

This article on copper wrongly stated that metallic cesium is yellow. It's not. Pure metallic cesium is colorless like other metals. Only takes on a yellow hue when exposed to oxygen. See here http://www.chemistryexplained.com/Ce-Co/Cesium.html I am correcting this error. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

This is wrong (having been refuted long ago) and I have reverted it: see Talk:Caesium. Double sharp (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2017

Add photo of native copper specimen. Native Copper Specimen from Keweenaw Peninsula, MI. Iroquois Copper Mine Chadith (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

This is clearly a promotional image from the company, so I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia. I don't think it even belongs on a talk page, so I have replaced it with a link. SpinningSpark 22:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Copper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Dietary Reference Intakes

I am creating the same format for DRIs for all essential vitamins and minerals. DRIs are a U.S. - based system that identifies Estimated Average Requirements (EARs), Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs), in some instances Adequate Intakes (AIs) if there is not enough information to establish EARs and RDAs, plus Tolerable Upper Intake Levels (ULs). Another major regulatory agency that has established ULs is the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). ULs for both are provided, as they often differ. If there is a UL (for some vitamins none has been determined) then rationale may be covered in a Toxicity section. In addition to DRIs, the U.S. also established Daily Values, using this on food and dietary supplement labels as % DV. Most of the DVs were revised in May 2016. What I have written can be improved. It lacks RDA from EFSA or other major countries. It lacks an estimate of what percentages of people are deficient - although that is often covered in a separate section on deficiency and consequences of deficiency. I am creating this Subject in all of the Talk pages of the vitamin and mineral entries I have edited. Comments and improvements are welcome.David notMD (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Changed section title to Dietary recommendations and added information on European Union system of recommendations.David notMD (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

"it increased sixfold"

After your edit we still have a problem because the real ratio is 6.25, not 6. So how about:

  • "it increased by over 500%"

or even

  • "it increased by 525%"?

By the way: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-fold
Vikom (talk) 03:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

This is precisely the problem: when you say something "increased sixfold", it is not clear if it means that it has increased to six times what it originally was (e.g. 100 to 600), or if it means that the increase was six times the original (e.g. 100 to 700, where the increase is 600). I am not sure why there is a need to give the ratio at all, but I think that "was multiplied by 6.25" is a much better way of expressing this without the risk of this kind of confusion. Double sharp (talk) 04:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I have removed the ratio altogether, since I find it is not saying anything particularly useful that the actual costs don't already tell you (the wide range Cu prices have spread across). Double sharp (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
The whole point of this section is the volatility of prices over time, and in this case I favour simplicity over exactitude, so I suggest: "its price increased more than sixfold from the 60-year low", which emphasises the range. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Once again, because of the potential ambiguity, if this is to be retained I would favour "its price increased to more than six times what it was at the 60-year low" or similar. Double sharp (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

Issue 1 - This article about Copper says gold and iron were used before copper. But the chemical timeline article says gold and iron weren't used until long after copper (6000 BC and 5000 BC for gold and iron, vs 8000 BC or 9000 BC for copper, depending on the source).

Issue 2 - This article about Copper says copper was the first metal that was smelt. But the Smelting article says lead was smelt before copper (6500 BC for lead vs 5500-5000 BC for copper).

I suspect this article about Copper is wrong on both counts. Although I'm not an expert, so I'll leave it to someone else to fix whichever article(s) is wrong. - 173.171.160.127 (talk) 04:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Issue 3 - The chemical reaction in the Biological role section of this article is not correct. It does not even balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.98.114.144 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2018

wazup 209.106.136.3 (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC) wazup

 Not done: --DannyS712 (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Chemical structure?

Does anyone know the chemical structure for copper? Asking for a friend, so smart people, HMU --Redoct878 (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

As given in the infobox, the crystal structure of Cu under ambient conditions is face centred cubic (fcc). Polyamorph (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2021

Please add helpful information below directly under "Occurrence" sub heading.

Copper is the 25th most abundant element in Earth's crust, representing 50 ppm compared with 75 ppm for zinc, and 14 ppm for lead.[1] Ravensbrew (talk) 04:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Emsley 2001, pp. 124, 231, 449 and 503
 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Probably wrong link in History

In the subsection Ancient and post-classical of History, in the second paragraqph there is a link leading to the biology article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supergene instead of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supergene_(geology), as probably was intended and fits context better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.84.250.1 (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for noticing. BiologicalMe (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2022

Can I edit 107.196.237.244 (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.

Production Chapter Errata

There are some errors in Copper#Methods chapter:

  • Cuprous Sulfide Converts to Cuprous Oxide:
2 Cu2S + 2 O2 → 2 Cu2O + 2 SO2
  • Production of blister copper:
2 Cu2O + Cu2S → 6 Cu + 2 SO2

I can't edit article, please correct them. --DoroWolf (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I can edit now. Help is no longer needed.--DoroWolf (talk) 06:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Chemistry

Description of copper+air 119.2.125.166 (talk) 07:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

In Copper#Chemical it is explained that copper reacts with oxygen in the air to form an oxide. The kind of oxide that is formed depends on the environmental conditions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2022

An editor has accidentally used the Cyrillic letter с (Es) instead of the Latin letter c in two words in this article. This wasn't vandalism, just an error by an editor with a Cyrillic keyboard.

In the following text, both "сyprium" and "сuprum" are using the Cyrillic letter instead of the Latin one, which apart from being wrong causes the font's kerning to be off.

Please change the following: 

''aes сyprium'' (metal of Cyprus), later corrupted to ''сuprum''

to the identically looking: 

''aes cyprium'' (metal of Cyprus), later corrupted to ''cuprum''

31.209.210.42 (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done Nice catch. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

permissible current density in air is incorrect

The maximum permissible current density of copper in open air is stated to be "approximately 3.1E6 A/m2 of cross-sectional area, above which it begins to heat excessively". I believe this to be incorrect by an order of magnitude (closer to 31E6 A/m^2). For example, for a, 18 AWG wire, with diameter of 0.001 m and area ~7.9E-7 m^2, the max current density would be 2.4 A = 3.1E6 A/m^2 * 7.9E-7 m^2. This is clearly not correct. The correct max current is ~ 24 A for a single 18 AWG wire in air (which corresponds to ~100C temperature, but rapidly increases in temperature with small increases in current). In summary, I believe the article should be corrected with 31.E6 rather than 3.1E6. 75.135.188.17 (talk) 13:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Needs a WP:SCIRS source. Zefr (talk) 05:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit request (red color)

The "Physical" section contains the line "the energy difference between these shells corresponds to orange light.[citation needed]"

That should read "the energy difference between these shells corresponds to absorption of blue light."

The energy difference between the d & s shells corresponds to blue light. Reflected light without the blue makes the copper appear red.

Two citations are: https://www.flinnsci.com/api/library/Download485982234af046b491724d3736c93c51

and

http://ee.iitm.ac.in/~hsr/ec301/copper.pdf

1.159.58.220 (talk) 02:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

The flinnsci link leads to a 404 page. Do you have an archive or alternate link?
--MtPenguinMonster (talk) 05:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Additionally, the other source mentions nothing about the energy levels of d & s electron shells, but it does say that blue light corresponds to the cutoff frequency of silver, not copper. Do you have a source which doesn't contradict your claim?
--MtPenguinMonster (talk) 05:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Lemonaka (talk) 07:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Today, the flinnsci pdf is at https://www.flinnsci.com/api/library/Download/485982234af046b491724d3736c93c51. If it moves again, you may be able to find it by searching for "when light is shined upon copper metal, the copper atoms absorb some of the light in the blue-green region of the spectrum"
I'm sorry that it appears that the other pdf contradicts the claim. That's a misunderstanding of the paper. The flinnsci pdf is written for students with minimal scientific understanding, and the iitm.ac pdf is for people who already understand the subject.

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2023

Blackwellj28 (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)What copper can be made for 1.kitchen sinks   2.table tops 3. Jewelry 4. Door knobs and door handles 5. Railings 6. Tools 7. Musical instruments 8. Wire.
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Fire diamond inaccuracy

According to a website, the fire diamond is a level one health hazard and a level one fire hazard.[1]

References

  1. ^ "NFPA Label for all the elements in the Periodic Table". periodictable.com. Retrieved 2018-07-01.

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2023

There is a grammatical error in the Folk-medicine section. Change: "In one trial for osteoarthritis and one trial for rheumatoid arthritis, no differences is found between copper bracelet and control (non-copper) bracelet." To: "In one trial for osteoarthritis and one trial for rheumatoid arthritis, no differences were found between copper bracelet and control (non-copper) bracelet." Shrekinspector (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done–small jars tc 18:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ERTH 4303 Resources of the Earth

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2023 and 15 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hylaversicolor (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Shrekinspector, Pg.pinapple.

— Assignment last updated by ChloejWard (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Additions to History section of article

I essentially only want to edit the history section (copper age & ancient and post-classical) of the copper page and expand upon the relatively little known history of copper usage by very early north American indigenous peoples starting approximately 10,000 years ago. I want to include these additions to the history section of the main copper page because currently the history section is biased towards Eurasia and does not represent historically marginalized peoples from around the world. I understand why this is the case as most of our recorded history comes from this region of the world but as new finding from North America challenge traditional perspectives I feel that the history section should be as up to date and unbiased as possible, reflecting the true historical use of copper globally. Hylaversicolor (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Sounds very interesting. I am looking forward into reading this new info. DePiep (talk) 04:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

sentence needs revision based on the latest findings

The following sentence in quotations needs to be edited because more recent findings may make the following sentence potentially inaccurate. although mining did occur on Isle Royale between 800 and 1600, it does appear to be the earliest evidence of mining copper in the region and more recent publications suggest mining began in the region 8000 years before present. "In North America, copper mining began with marginal workings by Native Americans. Native copper is known to have been extracted from sites on Isle Royale with primitive stone tools between 800 and 1600". Findings from this more recent publication suggest copper mining began in North America 8000 years ago. The sentence in quotations has a reference dated to 1995 and evidence from the more recent scientific study was published in 2013. Hylaversicolor (talk) Hylaversicolor (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@Hylaversicolor: Where can I find this 2013 study? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Here is the 2013 study. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es304499c Pompeani, David P.; Abbott, Mark B.; Steinman, Byron A.; Bain, Daniel J. (2013-05-14). "Lake Sediments Record Prehistoric Lead Pollution Related to Early Copper Production in North America". Environmental Science & Technology. 47 (11): 5545–5552. doi:10.1021/es304499c. ISSN 0013-936X. Hylaversicolor (talk) Hylaversicolor (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

Cuprum isn't a corruption, just unlatinized. 2600:1700:6801:C10:68C7:4A0B:2425:7003 (talk) 04:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Modern history

I'd like to add a sentence to reflect Britain's and the industrial revolution's impact on copper, ... and another for the impact of German miners ... and another to acknowledge the slave trade. However I'm conscious this page was initially about the element Cu, and that there are other pages / articles. Other editors may feel the article warrants a more detailed history for their country or specific interest in mining, smelting milling, coppersmiths etc. Before making changes I thought I'd start a discussion to see if there is any interest.

My proposal:

Add "Germany was a major producer of copper in the 16th century,[1] with mines at Mansfeld and Rammelsberg." before "The Great Copper Mountain ..." and "In the first decade of the 19th century Britain produced over 70% of the World’s copper from Cornish ore smelted in South Wales using Welsh coal.[1] This was helped by the industrial revolution with the use of steam pumps to drain mines.[2] Copper was the “red gold” of Africa and was cast into manilas to trade for slaves, while copper sugar pans were used to refine the sugar cane.[3] As British ore was exhausted New World mines increased in importance with the United States of America becoming dominant for most of the 20th Century and Chile in the 21st century (see List of countries by copper production)" after "Sweden had a copper backed currency."

References

[1] https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/_/oXjppt5BYjEC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA2 Stephen Hughes Copperopolis 2008

[2] https://copper.org/education/history/60centuries/industrial_age/itseffect.php (Cites B Webster Smith “60 centuries of copper”)

[3] https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/_/UVQAAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA254 Penny magazine June 1842 “A day at a copper and lead factory” pp.249 - 256

See also https://web.archive.org/web/20211110124326/https://copperalliance.org.uk/about-copper/copper-history/copper-through-the-ages/ History of copper through the ages from the copper age to modern times OldCroydonian (talk) 11:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Richest square mile

I wondered why Kernow/Cornwall and the richest square mile (due to copper) was not mentioned in the Copper article 85.10.117.114 (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Who makes this claim? And what is the precise nature of the claim? Can you provide a couple of reliable references for it? Feline Hymnic (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
As a relative newbie, I struggle to know how much detail is relevant in an encyclopaedia, especially in a general article like Copper. My feeling is that Kernow's important contribution to the copper industry is best served by a separate article that can provide more context and detail than a general article. There are already articles on Mining in Cornwall and Devon - Wikipedia, Cornish Copper Company - Wikipedia, History of Cornwall - Wikipedia and Cornwall - Wikipedia, which may be appropriate to expand. A link from the See also section of Copper - Wikipedia would be appropriate and hopefully uncontentious... OldCroydonian (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2023

I would like to add an "Environmental Impact" subsection to the "Production" section. Here is what I suggest for the content of that subsection:

The environmental on climate cost of copper mining, as measured in 2019, is estimated at 3.7 kg CO2eq per kg of copper[1]. A more recent report from Codelco, a major producer in Chile, states that in 2020 the company emitted 2.8t CO2eq per ton (2.8 kg CO2eq per kg) of fine copper[2]. Greenhouse gas emissions primarily arise from electricity consumed by the company, especially when sourced from fossil fuels, and from engines required for copper extraction and refinement. Companies that mine land often mismanage waste, rendering the area sterile for life. Additionally, nearby rivers and forests are also negatively impacted. The Philippines is an example of a region where land is overexploited by mining companies[3].

Copper mining waste in Valea Şesei, Romania, has significantly altered nearby water properties. The water in the affected areas is highly acidic, with a pH range of 2.1–4.9, and shows elevated electrical conductivity levels between 280–1561 mS/cm[4]. These changes in water chemistry make the environment inhospitable for fish, essentially rendering the water uninhabitable for aquatic life[5].

Research111 (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. But there are some spelling mistakes. I could fix those if you don't mind. Adding where emissions come from may be redundant, as effectively every industrial process causes GHG emissions.
A paragraph on wastes would also be good, and the anti-microbial properties of copper could be pointed out as a contributing factor (if I'm not mistaken). KetchupSalt (talk) 07:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
KetchupSalt: I think you should move forward implementing this, and make adjustments if you think they should be made (after all, you'd do the same if Research111 had directly edited the article themselves).
I'm marking this as responded-to. Research111: if you think this edit request needs further attention, please feel free to reactivate it by changing the "answered=" parameter to "no".
--Pinchme123 (talk) 23:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I added point of KetchupSalt and fixed mistakes. Now seem good to go ? Research111 (talk) 09:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
antimicrobial properties is already listed in Applications/Antimicrobial of the article.
I add waste effect Research111 (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 Done Tollens (talk) 06:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.mineralinfo.fr/sites/default/files/documents/2021-10/presentation_comes_20210517_com.pdf
  2. ^ Annual Report 2020, page 109: https://www.codelco.com/sites/site/docs/20221206/20221206220556/annual_memory_2020.pdf
  3. ^ https://www.amnesty.fr/responsabilite-des-entreprises/actualites/philippines-attention-terrain-mine
  4. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5579155/
  5. ^ https://federalmetals.ca/how-does-copper-mining-affect-the-environment/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Copper/Archive_3&oldid=1203382634"