Talk:Cupronickel

Melting point

The melting point is stated for 70/30, but what about the more common 75/25 ? Anyone know it?139.130.36.190 (talk) 03:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"broken" sentence

Can anyone please fix the following sentence: "Like all copper alloys, nickel silver can only be hardened mechanically by, for example, Cold Forging or hot rolling. anneal to approximately 500 ° C re-aligns the crystal structure, so that the material becomes soft again[23][24]."?

You'll find it at the end of the article. I am not into metallurgy, so I don't want to make things worse. I guess it should read: "Like all copper alloys, nickel-silver can only be hardened mechanically by, for example, cold forging. Hot rolling or annealing to approximately 500°C re-aligns the crystal structure, so that the material becomes soft again[23][24].".

But I am not sure.

Ron Werner (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed it for now, can be re-added when cleaned up. Vsmith (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"Cupronickel" vs. "Nickel silver"

What is the difference between cupronickel and nickel silver? Could it be merely that different names are used in different applications? If they are the same alloy, the two articles should be merged. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Nickel silver is a sub-group of cupronickel alloys, but they're distinct (would we merge brass and bronze?). Nickel silver (German silver) et al. are used, under those names, for decorative purposes. Cupronickels are broader than this, chiefly for corrosion resistance. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Then, perhaps this relationship should be made clear, and the definition of "nickel silver" should be tightened to make it clear that it is only a specific subset of the cupronickels. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I repeat the request. Both articles should give at least a rough idea of the composition range, in the lead paragraph.

WP:SOFIXIT

I would, if I knew the answer! All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 04:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Another broken sentence

In 1973, Cheng and Schwitter in their new analyses argued the only place the Bactrian alloys (copper, lead, iron, nickel and cobalt) were closely similar to Chinese paktong, and that out of nine known Asian nickel deposits, only those in China could provide same identical chemical content ratios makes no sense. A later sentence in the graph says this has been disproved, so why include it at all? Qemist (talk) 05:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

History section lacks reliable references

The claim about the Romans is unreferenced. The claim about the Aegean bronze age is unreferenced. The claim about the Chinese use 3rd century BCE is supported only by the caption of a picture accompanying an article in a chinese "general interest monthly". The claim about Bactrian coinage is supported by reference to an amateur coin-collecting website. Overall the article seems to imply that cupronickel was invented by the Chinese then "re-discovered" in the West, yet if the claim that the Greeks used it in the Aegean bronze age is correct then that considerably antedates the 3rd century BCE. Qemist (talk) 06:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Section "Western Rediscovery" confusing

The Western re-discovery section is in dire need of attention. The second sentence of the second paragraph is a mess, there's no introduction of whoever the heck Peat, Cookson, and Fyfe were, and the rest of the section seems disjointed and self-contradictory. The only reason I'm not doing anything about this myself is that I'm no expert and I'm afraid of accidentally destroying real information, the signal/noise ratio is so poor. --Proginoskes (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Table of mechanical properties is erroneous

Assuming that the properties of cu-no alloys given by Copper.org is correct, the author has swapped yield and tensile strength values by row and column. The alloy providing the highest strength should be 66-30-2-2 and not 70-30 as stated. Mdt-son (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Quickfixed. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 03:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Melchior

Isn't the Swiss franc made of Melchior? Is Melchior = Cupronickel? --KpoT (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Pantaleon.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Pantaleon.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 21 September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Current coinage in Poland

According to Polish Wikipedia, some kind of cupronickel is used in production of 10gr, 20gr, 50gr and 1zł coins, as well as parts of 2zł and 5zł (PLN). Shall this be added to the section on currently used coins? --89.76.84.80 (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Melting Point/Range?

Wys is this important physical property not given? The Yowser (talk) 09:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

"Nickel Bronze?"

I have heard the claim that in at least some portions of the Anglophone world, cupronickel alloys are commonly called "nickel bronze." And while this seems logical enough, just as there is a family of "aluminum bronze" alloys, is this really a common terminology? If so, in what parts of the world is this term used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.40.24 (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)