Talk:Copper

Template:WP1.0

Copper link to Alzheimers.

Perhaps someone with more time can add a section about the discoverd link between copper and Alzheimers. (to those who have some resistence to this, most things can be harmful if there is a vulnerability or excess of...e.g. water)

• Research as recent as 2007, conducted by Dr R. Squitti, Head of the Laboratory of Biology of AFaR and of the Laboratory of Neurobiology in the University "Campus Biomedico" added, "'Free' copper may be intrinsically toxic to older persons due to its oxidative activity, small size and ability to cross the blood brain barrier and enter the central nervous system in an unregulated fashion, similar to elevated 'free' copper's effects in other diseases of copper metabolism, such as Wilson's disease."

Thanks

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

More guesses. [1] [2] [3]

Bork (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No Table of Chemical Information

This article is missing a table of chemical information. Other elements have table in the topic right that shows a periodic table and lists the properties of the element. Could someone please repost the table? Students like me rely on it, thank you! 128.253.197.28 (talk) 02:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Some vandal decided to blow it away. Wizard191 (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Electron configuration

I know that although the expected config is [Ar]4s²3d⁹, but that from experiments it is shown the have a config of [Ar]4s¹3d¹⁰

Is the reason for this anomaly still disputed amongst chemists or is there a consensus that it is due to the "lower energy of the high spin configuration"?

It seems to me that copper and chromium are notable because of these exceptions, and I was thinking that maybe some more detail about possible explanations for the exceptions could be included in the article

just a suggestion...-Aspiring chemist (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Information for group 11:

Copper: [Ar]4s¹3d¹⁰

Silver: [Kr]5s¹4d¹⁰

Gold: [Xe]6s¹4f¹⁴5d¹⁰

Roentgenium: [Rn]7s¹5f¹⁴6d¹⁰

Hmmm... maybe that should be on Group 11 element

--121.7.203.206 (talk) 07:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Mining Map

The map showing the mines in Australia is wrong. They are in the west of Australia and there are more of them.

Please read the caption to the map. See my longer comment under uranium.. Turgan ^Talk 18:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Skin/Bio-electrical field reactions with copper jewelry?

I'm just wondering why a copper chain bracelet I made from copper wire, stays shiny as long as I wear it. Of note, I can't wear watches, as my body electricity screws them up. 99.246.242.251 (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Colombus

Some one has added that Christopher Columbus had copper sheathing on his ships. This is added on the basis of a statement on a website "copper.info". I do not know enough to be able to say for certain that this is wrong, but I had always understood that until the late 18th century, ships were sheathed with wood: lead had been tried in Britain but was found unsatisfactory. If Colombus sheathed his ships with copper, why did this become part of the regualr shipbuilding technology until nearly 300 years later? The article copper sheathing accords with what I had believed. This is based on a book by Brian Lavery, who is a leading expert on early modern shipbuilding technology. His work should cettainly be the most reliable source, after original archives (which WP does not like having cited). Comments, please. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There seem to be quite a number of websites stating this factoid. None of them are really RS but this one is interesting as it has a ref to National Geographic in its bibliography. I do not have access, but here is the ref for anyone that does;

• Scofield, John "Christopher Columbus: The Sailor Who Gave Us the New World", National Geographic Magazine, Vol.148, No. 5 November 1975.

SpinningSpark 16:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not have access to it, but the artile is quoted as saying that Columbus' last voyage fell victim to the worm, which implies that they did not have copper sheathing. The article is dealing with an ethnic story of a copper canoe in Canada. I think the author was out of his depth in dealing with copper sheathing of ships. He speculates on the Vikings wishing to have it, but adduces no direct evidence that they did. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Mechanical Properties

I added a jargon tag to the Mechanical properties section of the article because of the use of confusing jargon in the first paragraph. For instance, what is 'necking'? This term could be explained better. The first sentence does not make any sense at all; i.e. talking about a single crystal and then mentioning multiple small crystals. I'm not sure enough about this specifics of this subject to do much of an edit. I'm sure when it was written that it meant something to someone, however it does not communicate well. Does someone with a little more expertise in the mechanics of copper want to try a rewrite? Cuprum17 (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've done some wikilinking and added some referenced text on the polycrystal stuff. It still needs some work, besides anything else I think the article in now contradicting itself because - I think some of the original text is wrong, or at least confused. "Necking" is now wikilinked, but this, and also even the poly/monocrystal stuff really belong in a "strength of materials" article because it is not specific to copper. More than that, the section is purportedly "mechanical properties" but does not actually state them. This site has all the information on mechanical properties, but I do not have time to extract it and put it in the article right now - I have to go and do some real work. Too many different grades of copper to extract it and make sense in five minutes. SpinningSpark 14:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Color

Copper is one of the only metals that is coloured,does anyone know why? If so could you add it. 04cah (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the information under the color sub-heading isufficient? SpinningSpark 14:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Could it not also say copper is pink because the stable oxide it forms in air is pink ie Cu2O

Also pure copper - what color is it - I've seen it fresh - being barely pink at all - is it possible that totally unoxidised copper is silver? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.232.187 (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

But it isn't silver. It is reddish, definitely, not silver. Scratch a penny made before 1982 and the fresh, exposed copper is pink. Pennies made in and after 1982 have zinc coated in a thin sheet of copper, so if you scratch one of those deep enough you can expose the zinc which is, in fact, silver color. The Seeker 4 Talk 01:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

ultra dispersed copper scam

I got in contact with this scam by someone who is falling for it. I don't understand how the scam works. Maybe someone here knows. It could be good to create a section about this scam saying that there is no such thing as extremely expensive "ultra dispersed copper" (whatever that is supposed to mean) and that it is a scam. Since millions of people now have the habit of turning to wiki when wondering "what is ...?", that could save potential victims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.159.118.174 (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

toxicity

• National Pollutant Inventory - Copper and compounds fact sheet

It looks like every article with the word "copper" in it has had this link added - which amounts to spam. It would be better to link to copper toxicity. I've removed a few.

Corinthina Bronze

Ids ther eany one who knows enough to confirm whether League of Corinth is the correct disambiguation for "Corinthian Bronze"? My impression was that the term referred to a particular allow, rather than specifically to a place of origin. However, even if it is that, I would have expected the link to be to the city of Corinth, rathger than an alliance. Nevertheless, I do not recall that the Bible says more than that the gates of the temple were of bronze. I would suggest that we need an article explianing the term "Corinthian bronze" and an authority for the fact that the gates were of that material, as the identification of the alloy is itself a matter of interpretation. I believe I heard a lecture on "Corinthinan Bronze" by some one from the lesading archaeometallurgist from British Museum a decade and more ago, but I cannot even think of his name, let alone being able to look for an article by him. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

As we actually have an article for Corinthian bronze I would say that League of Corinth is not the best link, however it is an improvement on the link to the corinthian dab page which is where it used to go. I suspect the editor who did this found that League of Corinth is the only "ancient history" article listed on the dab page and so used that as the nearest match. SpinningSpark 16:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't Copper be in Category:Biology and pharmacology of chemical elements ?

Shouldn't Copper be in Category:Biology and pharmacology of chemical elements ? Eldin raigmore (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Image in lede section

I have just reverted the editor (Wizard191) who moved the etched copper image into the alloys subsection. This is a nice picture for the lede inserted by another editor, Alchemist-hp, but unfortunately messed the layout a little. To fix the layout, I put the image in as a left-aligned image, since the infobox is already occupying the right-aligned position. Wizard191 moved it citing MOS:IMAGE. I presume he is referring to Start an article with a right-aligned lead image or infobox. It does not exactly forbid left-aligned images and this seems like a reasonable exception even if it were so. In any case, an image of pure copper is quite inappropriate for the alloys sub-section. SpinningSpark 12:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

While not explicitly prohibited, do you think the article would pass an FA-review with it there? I don't think it would. Wizard191 (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether it would or not, but in my opinion, our aim should be to improve the article, not to rigidly comply with arbitrary rules. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it is written into policy and should trump the MoS in any review. Anyway, my main objection to your edit was not to insist that the image is kept in the lede (although imo it is an excellent image for that position), my objection is rather that where you placed it is entirely inappropriate - the image is of pure copper and you placed it in the alloys section. If there is a good reason for not having a left-justified image in the lede, then fine, put it somewhere else. SpinningSpark 17:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I agree with Spinningspark about the image; I think the current location is the best place for the image as no other section in the article really fits, and it does not at all detract from the lead. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If you guys think it's alright there, I'm not going to push the point. While I may not have moved it to the best of places, I feel that a left justified image is "off-putting". This is the first article I've been to that has one, so it feels out of place. Wizard191 (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

How about moving it down a para or two but keeping it in the lede? Would that cure the feeling of unease you get when looking at it? SpinningSpark 22:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This may be a general question for WP: PROJECT ELEMENT but what's the problem with having photos of all elements in their leads/ledes? Except for colorless gasses, where the image is funny even in the element-box. The problem here is that we created these elementboxes and they tookover and are now making us write articles other than the way we'd like to. I'd like a nice photo of the subject up front in any article about a physical THING or PERSON and elements are no exception. The element box photo is often perfectly usable, but too small. It would be a much more attractive wiki for most elements if there was a 150 px one. And (again) since the element-box-of-the-damned is in our way again, that's why people are putting the photo as left-thumbed. Once again, the box is dictating. Why don't we just say: element boxes are fine, but they don't rule? They're not the boss of us? :) SBHarris 22:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well you've answered your own question, you need to take it to WikiProject Elements, or even higher, have a pop at infoboxes in general at WP:VPP. You may even get some support, not everybody likes them. I recently saw a poor semi-newbie being chased off a bunch of Featured Articles for trying to put in infoboxes on ones that didn't have them. Personally, I think you'd be wasting your time, the're too ingrained in the community now. In any case, I don't think we have a problem with this particular article. The infobox picture is poor quality and would not be suitable for enlargement and the good one we now have in the lede is not suitable for the infobox picture as that is supposed to be the general appearance of the element. Basically it is good as it is now. SpinningSpark 23:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

<-- outdent. Okay, I'll copy this section over there, as all the general issues need addressing. Infoboxitis is something that (IMHO) can be dealt with inclusively, by adding infoboxes but making sure they don't replace other good stuff, and they don't end up dictating everything else. They're meant to help, not be fashion-nazis. In this case, where they tend to inhibit addition of a nice photo in the LEAD, they hinder the project. And for the record, I think it's a crying shame that Pussy Galore has been forced into a "James Bond franchise character" infobox. What's this encyclopedia coming to? It's some kind of obscessional madness. SBHarris 23:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well as I say, in this particular case the infobox is not causing a restriction. The whole problem was caused by trying to strictly apply the rule Thou shalt open the lede with a right-aligned image or infobox. which is a different issue. Nowhere does it say that should be the only picture in the lede, in fact Wikipedia:Layout#Images talks about not having too many in the lede which kind of implies that more than one are expected. SpinningSpark 00:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Well the layout of this article now is quite nice in my opinion at least, and if it's not against some policy, I'm going to try to add a few aesthetic pics of other elements to the thumb-left of some chem element articles, as we've done here.SBHarris 00:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Old Copper Complex

The last sentence under the Copper Age section is very misleading because it follows dates for several cultures having verified copper-smelting technology. The "Old Copper Complex" in the Great Lakes region has possible dates that predate any of the others, and it gives the erroneous impression that the Archaic culture of the Great Lakes Native North American Indians had copper smelting before anyone else! There are NO copper smelting artifacts in the Old Copper Complex- they found and used native copper, they did NOT smelt it. There has never been found ANY evidence for actual copper smelting anywhere in North America. - StevoDog21 (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Peak copper

Production is expected by some analysts to reach a peak at some point in the future and decline thereafter, according to the Hubbert peak theory.

That sentence is almost devoid of meaning. Am I really to believe that there are some analysts who do not believe that a decline follows a peak. Of course there will be a peak at some point, but when? Tomorrow, 10 years, 10,000 years? The sentence badly needs a citation - or deleting. By the way, there is an article on peak copper which shoul probably be linked there. SpinningSpark 06:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Copper plating

I don't particularly have anything to say on this right now. I just thought we ought to open a discussion on the talk page instead of flaming each other in edit summaries. SpinningSpark 02:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. My thinking behind my reverts was: it is just a single sentence, referenced, introducing a link to electroplating (a process relevant to copper) and logically extending the previous history info on plating. Why on earth deleting it, without providing a reasonable edit summary? Materialscientist (talk) 02:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

While I know that copper can be electroplated, but there's nothing in the sentence that explains how it relates to copper for the un-informed reader. I think that the sentence can be salvaged into something informative, but as it currently stands it doesn't flow at all in the history section or explain how it is relevant. Wizard191 (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

My reading of the claim is that the plant was the first modern copper-plating plant (rather than electroplating in general) but was unable to verify this as the source is not available online (but the title is about copper). If the statement checks out, perhaps it would go with the later paragraph about the first company to do flash smelting. SpinningSpark 15:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(post moved from top of page)

PLEASE USE BCE!! Not BC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.23.73 (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

See WP:ERA, BC is ok by Wikipeida guidelines. SpinningSpark 20:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggest edit

The ease with which it can be drawn into wire makes it useful for electrical work in addition to its excellent electrical properties.

Would read better as: The ease with which it can be drawn into wire in addition to its excellent electrical properties makes it useful for electrical work.

Can't edit because article is protected.