Anyone out there know how to restore copper bar that has turned “black”…
what is the bar used for?
Copper oxidizes slowly in air, corroding to produce a brown or green patina. At higher temperatures the process is much faster and produces mainly black copper oxide. The oxide can be reduced by hydrogen gas, which is a moderately strong reducing agent, producing a shiny, clean copper surface.
lol…hey Pinhead…here is the link if you want it…http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCESoft/CCA/CCA3/MAIN/REDOXCU/PAGE1.HTM
heck…everything some inspectors who call me and use from my website is PLAGIARISED from me…get over it ! It was not a technical document.
BTW…no one use my terms for inspections…you are stealing my thoughts…lol
Hey cut and paste champion!
If you were going to do a “cut and paste” you should at least be honest enough to give credit to the author and or website where you took the material from!
http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCESoft/CCA/CCA3/MAIN/REDOXCU/PAGE1.HTM
Oxidation and Reduction of Copper
A piece of copper metal is oxidized to black copper oxide by air when heated in a flame. The oxidized copper is reduced when placed in a hydrogen atmosphere. When removed from the hydrogen atmosphere, the metal is again oxidized. The equation for the reaction is included.
(30 )
Keywords
applications - practical/real-life, combination reaction, copper, descriptive chemistry, evidence of chemical reaction, hydrogen, oxygen, redox reaction, single exchange/replacement reaction
Multimedia
Play movie (QuickTime 3.0 Sorenson, duration 63 seconds, size 4.4 MB)
A piece of copper is supported over a burner and is heated. The copper begins to react more rapidly with oxygen from the air and a darker color can be seen on the surface of the copper. This is similar to the color that forms on copper cookware when it is used in a kitchen. A few seconds later the copper has become dark. It has reacted with oxygen in the air. The burner flame is turned out and an inverted funnel with hydrogen gas blowing out of it is placed over the copper. The hydrogen gas is a reducing agent. It reduces the copper oxide on the surface of the copper and causes pure copper to be formed again. The dark color disappears leaving a pure copper color. Oxidation and reduction of the copper can be repeated several times by removing and replacing the funnel until the metal cools and the reactions slow down.
The copper reacts with oxygen from the air.
Hydrogen gas …
… reduces the copper oxide.
Additional still images for this movie
Discussion
Copied by Paul Abernathy and pasted on the NACHI bulletin board without giving credit to this website!
Copper oxidizes slowly in air, corroding to produce a brown or green patina. At higher temperatures the process is much faster and produces mainly black copper oxide. The oxide can be reduced by hydrogen gas, which is a moderately strong reducing agent, producing a shiny, clean copper surface. This provides a striking illustration of oxidation and reduction of a metal.
Equations for the reactions are
2 Cu(s ) + O2(g ) –> 2 CuO(s )
CuO(s ) + H2(g ) –> Cu(s ) + H2O(g )
Demonstration Notes, Warnings, Safety Information, etc.
Exam and Quiz Questions
- When heated in air, copper changes color. Based on the color change, is the copper being oxidized or reduced?
- In the presence of hydrogen gas, the copper turns color. Based on the color that the copper turns, is the hydrogen causing oxidation or reduction? Would the hydrogen be clasified as an oxidizing agent or a reducing agent?
- What observable evidence indicates that a reaction is taking place when the copper is being heated? What are the reactants in this reaction?
- Classify the reactions shown in the video as combination, decomposition, exchange, acid-base, combustion, or redox. (There is more than one reaction, and each reaction may fall within more than one of these categories.)
Remember…Mr. Carrio has a hard on for me since he did not get his way. Never said it was a quote from me…as with all my quotes from the NEC…they are what they are. What it was …was information to HELP someone…NOT cause trouble like Mr. Carrio wishes to do.
Seems to me someone should report this to the ESOP as harrasment of the membership. I never said a thing to Mr. Carrio until he started his NORMAL stuff…I guess his buddy came over for dinner and they said…lets go for Paul again…lol…thats ok…get me another raise I dont mind.
QUOTE FROM PAUL ABERNATHY’S REPLY!
Copper oxidizes slowly in air, corroding to produce a brown or green patina. At higher temperatures the process is much faster and produces mainly black copper oxide. The oxide can be reduced by hydrogen gas, which is a moderately strong reducing agent, producing a shiny, clean copper surface.
END QUOTE:
Paul,
when you do a cut and paste of COPYRIGHTED TECHNICAL INFORMATION from someone else’s website and use it as your own material that is called PLAGIARISM!
If you use COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL you are obligated to give credit to the author and it is customary to provide a LINK to to the website!
Instead of trying to defend your deplorable actions you should have been common sense and decency to apologize!
Once again … Instead of making a bad matter you should admit your mistake and apologize!
lol…then dont ask the question pinhead…and YOU are wrong as is your buddy. And IF you knew how to use the internet you would see it clearly. Simply tried to post something to answer your question…now go way Joebu…you cant have membership again.
I believe Paul is right on all accounts.
Thanks James…it was clear that I was simply posting a reply to the persons request for information and not to gain a profit from someone elses work. heck man…I have answered electrical questions for NACHI members ( without compensation ) via e-mail, phone and message board since 2005. I believe they could cut me some slack for TRYING to help.
Anyway…you know how it goes when people are bitter…it’s all good however as I get a good laugh out of it these days…the last episode ended up getting me a $ 10,000 raise and (2) promotions…so it’s all good.
10 Big Myths about copyright explained
An attempt to answer common myths about copyright seen on the net and cover issues related to copyright and USENET/Internet publication.
- by Brad Templeton
Note that this is an essay about copyright myths. It assumes you know at least what copyright is – basically the legal exclusive right of the author of a creative work to control the copying of that work. If you didn’t know that, check out my own brief introduction to copyright for more information. Feel free to link to this document, no need to ask me. Really, NO need to ask.
- “If it doesn’t have a copyright notice, it’s not copyrighted.”
This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not. The default you should assume for other people’s works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you know otherwise. There are some old works that lost protection without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless you know for sure.
It is true that a notice strengthens the protection, by warning people, and by allowing one to get more and different damages, but it is not necessary. If it looks copyrighted, you should assume it is. This applies to pictures, too. You may not scan pictures from magazines and post them to the net, and if you come upon something unknown, you shouldn’t post that either.
The correct form for a notice is:
“Copyright [dates] by [author/owner]”
You can use C in a circle © instead of “Copyright” but “©” has never been given legal force. The phrase “All Rights Reserved” used to be required in some nations but is now not legally needed most places. In some countries it may help preserve some of the “moral rights.”
-
“If I don’t charge for it, it’s not a violation.”
False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but that’s main difference under the law. It’s still a violation if you give it away – and there can still be serious damages if you hurt the commercial value of the property. There is a USA exception for personal copying of music, which is not a violation, though courts seem to have said that doesn’t include widescale anonymous personal copying as Napster. If the work has no commercial value, the violation is mostly technical and is unlikely to result in legal action. Fair use determinations (see below) do sometimes depend on the involvement of money. -
“They can’t get me, defendants in court have powerful rights!”
Copyright law is mostly civil law. If you violate copyright you would usually get sued, not be charged with a crime. “Innocent until proven guilty” is a principle of criminal law, as is “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Sorry, but in copyright suits, these don’t apply the same way or at all. It’s mostly which side and set of evidence the judge or jury accepts or believes more, though the rules vary based on the type of infringement. In civil cases you can even be made to testify against your own interests. -
“Oh, so copyright violation isn’t a crime or anything?”
Actually, in the 90s in the USA commercial copyright violation involving more than 10 copies and value over $2500 was made a felony. So watch out. (At least you get the protections of criminal law.) On the other hand, don’t think you’re going to get people thrown in jail for posting your E-mail. The courts have much better things to do. This is a fairly new, untested statute. In one case an operator of a pirate BBS that didn’t charge was acquited because he didn’t charge, but congress amended the law to cover that.
“Unregistered Guest”, in post #6, and “Electrical Guru NOT! Guest”, in post #10, why are you using unregistered and fake names?
Your IP Addresses appears to match an INachi member in this thread that may be hurt by this if it is not him.
Please give it a rest.
I once wrote a college paper about plagiarism. Although my instructor did not care for the way that I approached the paper I still got an A. Plagiarism is after all a large joke. Plagiarism is taking someone else’s thoughts and ideas and passing them off as your own in the most basic of forms.
How long has mankind been involved in communication with each other?
Lets just go back as far as Plato for a starter. That was around 300 B.C. Tell me honestly do you think that now after 2600 years of communication that any one of us can claim to have a truly unique thought that has not been plagiarized by someone else.
If we search hard enough and long enough there is a great possibility that anything you communicate has not been previously done by someone else. I for one refuse to go about my life citing the World as a source for my thoughts. I would almost guarantee just as I stated in my arguments in the college paper that if you were to look long enough and hard enough someone somewhere has articulated a message like this before I did. Is this plagiarism on my part due to the fact that I did not give them credit?
You accuse Paul of plagiarism because you found similar information on a website. Where did the creators of the website get the information, did they cite their source and if so did that source cite its source……….
My point is that in this instance copper can be traced back to biblical times. I am sure someone there stated:
“Copper oxidizes slowly in air, corroding to produce a brown or green patina. At higher temperatures the process is much faster and produces mainly black copper oxide. The oxide can be reduced by hydrogen gas, which is a moderately strong reducing agent, producing a shiny, clean copper surface. This provides a striking illustration of oxidation and reduction of a metal.”
Maybe not in those exact words but couldn’t that be counted as a paraphrase.
If you are not willing to trace communication back to the start then do not make accusations of plagiarism it is after all just a way for people to believe that they had a brilliant unique idea.
Good info, John.
lol…look we all know WHO is behind that post anyway. Even thousands of miles can’t hide a persons intent…They obviously do not know what they are talking about so laugh with me and consider the source…
Kudos, Mr Harrison…well said.