1lb cube of 99% pure copper?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Coulin
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Copper Cube Dimension
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the dimensions and properties of a one-pound cube of 99% pure copper, specifically whether the stated dimensions of approximately 1.5 inches on a side are consistent with the expected volume for relatively pure copper. Participants explore calculations related to volume, density, and the implications of impurities in the material.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants calculate the expected volume of a pure copper cube and compare it to the actual measurements, noting discrepancies that could arise from measurement imprecision.
  • One participant corrects the units of volume from squared to cubed, emphasizing the importance of accurate unit representation.
  • Another participant discusses the impact of the cube's dimensions on its volume, suggesting that slight variations in size could significantly affect calculations.
  • Participants present calculations to determine the side length of the cube based on its weight and density, factoring in the purity of the copper.
  • There is a suggestion to consider the propagation of uncertainty in measurements to assess whether the observed differences fall within a reasonable range.
  • Some participants speculate on the nature of the 1% impurity in the copper, discussing how it might affect the overall density and volume of the cube.
  • One participant estimates that the impurity could minimally affect the volume and dimensions of the cube, suggesting changes on the order of a fraction of a millimeter.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints on the calculations and implications of the cube's dimensions and purity, with no clear consensus reached on the accuracy of the measurements or the significance of the impurities.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential limitations in measurements, including imprecision and the effects of impurities, but do not resolve these issues definitively.

Coulin
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I've been wrestling with something for a bit. I have one pound of copper (99%) in cube-form. Roughly 1.5 inches on a side. It's essentially a paperweight.

Are those dimensions in the ballpark for relatively pure copper?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Coulin said:
I've been wrestling with something for a bit. I have one pound of copper (99%) in cube-form. Roughly 1.5 inches on a side. It's essentially a paperweight.

Are those dimensions in the ballpark for relatively pure copper?
The volume of the cube is easy to calculate, the density of the cube is easy to find, easy to put them together to get an answer. Can you give it a shot.
 
I can, I was struggling with the cubic centimeter. Thank you for the push. It's close enough that it's likely the imprecision of measurement that can make up the difference. A pure cube of copper would be 50.625 cmsqd. The results on my item were 55.3.

I was looking at it the other day and saw that it was the same size as three other paperweight cubes on my desk. One is a fidget toy, one is a Lucite display and one is a wooden block. Their manufacture dates span over a decade.

I enjoy copper, aesthetically. I'm trying to figure out why one pound of copper has the same (within a tolerance of a few millimeters) dimensions as things specifically manufactured to be aesthetically pleasing.
 
Coulin said:
A pure cube of copper would be 50.625 cmsqd.
I'll assume the figure is correct, but the units aren't. They should be cm cubed, not squared. The volume should be written as ##50.625 \text{ cm}^3## or as 50. 625 cc, where cc is the common abbreviation for cubic centimeters.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: WWGD
You have a typo: 60.625 cc
 
hutchphd said:
You have a typo: 60.625 cc
Fixed the typo.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: hutchphd
Coulin said:
I've been wrestling with something for a bit. I have one pound of copper (99%) in cube-form. Roughly 1.5 inches on a side. It's essentially a paperweight.

Are those dimensions in the ballpark for relatively pure copper?
Depends on the size of your ballpark.

"Roughly 1.5 inches on a side" -- if it is 1.495 inches on a side, that reduces its volume by a factor of 0.99. If it isn't really a cube (flat sides, parallel and square) who knows? And how pure is "relatively pure"?

EDIT: Here is a good starting point for the different copper alloys
https://www.onlinemetals.com/en/product-guide#copper
 
Data:
1 lb of Cu
There are 453.592 grams in a pound
the density of Cu is 8.94 g per cubic cm
1 cubic centimeter is 0.03102 cubic inches

Calculation:
$$
\left( 1\,lb\, Cu \right)\left(\frac{453.592\,g\,Cu}{1\,lb\,Cu}\right)\left( \frac{1\,cm^3}{8.94\,g\,Cu} \right)\left( \frac{0.0610237\,in^3}{1\,cm^3} \right)=3.096181\,in^3
$$
Now, to find the distance of each side of the cube just take the cube root, i.e. raise to the power of 1/3:
$$
=1.457501\,in
$$
Now to account for the weight percent purity of the copper, start with 0.99 of a pound, you'll get something like 1.452626 in on a side. Of course that 1% impurity has its own density, etc.
Anyways, the key here is to realize that units of measure cancel, just like numbers do.
 
Maybe you can check for the propagation of uncertainty/error in your measurements to see of the difference falls within a reasonable range too?
 
  • #10
Steve Zissou said:
Of course that 1% impurity has its own density, etc.
That impurity is almost certainly going to be a similar metal.
iron: 7.9, nickel: 8.9, zinc: 7.1, tin: 7.3, arsenic: 5.7, lead: 11.3 (which, together, average 8.0)

So, a 1% impurity of a metal (or combination of metals) might - at worst - change the volume/density by an amount on the order of 1/10th of 1%, or - at best - by virtually nothing.

So somewhere between 3.1 and 3.095 volume.

Which, at worst, changes the length of the sides by < 2mil - or about the width of a human hair.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Steve Zissou
  • #11
DaveC426913 said:
That impurity is almost certainly going to be a similar metal.
iron: 7.9, nickel: 8.9, zinc: 7.1, tin: 7.3, 5.7, 11.3 (which, together, average 8.0)

So, a 1% impurity of a metal (or combination of metals) might change the volume/density by an amount on the order of 1/10th of 1% - or by virtually nothing.
Yep
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
High School The M paradox
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
696
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
9K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K