Calculating Copper Cu Charge Density

AI Thread Summary
To calculate the charge density of copper (Cu), the atomic mass of 63.5 g/mol and a density of 8920 kg/m³ are used. The conversion of atomic mass to kilograms involves multiplying by 1.66 x 10^-27 kg, resulting in approximately 1.0541 x 10^-25 kg per atom. Dividing the density by the mass per atom gives a calculated atom density of about 8.46 x 10^28 atoms/m³, which is significantly higher than the expected value of around 10^9 atoms/m³ found in sources like Wikipedia. The discussion also questions the origin and units of the conversion factor 1.66 x 10^-27. Understanding these calculations is crucial for accurately determining copper's charge density.
j-lee00
Messages
93
Reaction score
0
How do I work out the charge density of Copper Cu, if


atomic mass =63.5
Density = 8920 kgm^-3

Assume 1 electron per cu atom.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
j-lee00 said:
How do I work out the charge density of Copper Cu, if


atomic mass =63.5
Density = 8920 kgm^-3

Assume 1 electron per cu atom.

Can you define charge density?
 
number of electrons per unit volume
 
j-lee00 said:
number of electrons per unit volume

OK, so assume, say 1m3. How many atoms of copper are there in this volume?
 
To convert atomic mass to kg, I do

63.5 x 1.66^10-27 = 1.0541 x 10^-25kg

Then

8920 kgm^-3 / 1.0541 x 10^-25kg = 8.462195238 x10^28m^-3

but it should be around 10^9 says wikepedia?
 
j-lee00 said:
To convert atomic mass to kg, I do

63.5 x 1.66^10-27 = 1.0541 x 10^-25kg

Then

8920 kgm^-3 / 1.0541 x 10^-25kg = 8.462195238 x10^28m^-3

but it should be around 10^9 says wikepedia?

Where does the 1.66 x 10-27 come from? (does that have any units?)
 
Last edited:
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top