Calculating Copper Density: Is My Bar Pure?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CuriousMister
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Copper Density
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the density measurement of a 1-pound .999 fine copper bar, which was calculated to be 9.745 g/cc, higher than the expected density of copper at 8.96 g/cc. The discrepancy raises concerns about the purity of the copper bar, suggesting it may contain denser metals. Participants emphasize the importance of accurate volume measurement, noting that errors in volumetric evaluation could significantly affect density calculations. Suggestions include using precise instruments for measuring volume and considering the impact of measurement resolution. Overall, the conversation highlights the complexities of accurately determining the density of solid objects.
CuriousMister
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I recently bought a 1-pound .999 fine copper bar. I was curious to know how closely the density of my bar was with the actual density of copper (about 8.96 g/cc). My bar measured 1 pound .5 oz (467.76 g). I calculated the volume two ways, water displacement and measurement; the volume is 48cc. Therefore the density is calculated as 9.745 g/cc (467.76/48). Why is my bar denser than the actual density of copper. It makes me think the bar isn't pure, but is mixed with another denser metal. Any thoughts?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
8% deviation.
How precisely did you measure the volume?

Can you measure the apparent weight of the copper bar when submerged in water and held up by a rope?
 
There probably is significant error in volume calculation. If the volume was 52 mL instead of 48 mL, the density would be very close to the actual density. On second thought, my volume displacement measurement was probably less than the least measurable quantity on the graduated cylinder I used.
 
Oooh. Fun.

First of all, please note that you can only claim that your density is ## 9.7 \frac{g}{c^3} ## on account that your volume only has two significant figures.
I'd have to agree that it's like an error in volumetric evaluation. It's pretty difficult to measure the volume of physical objects. Is the bar a perfect rectangular solid, and what was the resolution of instrument to measure length? Using fluid displacement would be the way to go, but even then do you have a flask that can measure extremely fine gradations in the change of volume? Putting it in a standard measuring cup and estimating would easily create a deviation. Describe how you arrived at your volumetric measure.
 
Hello! Let's say I have a cavity resonant at 10 GHz with a Q factor of 1000. Given the Lorentzian shape of the cavity, I can also drive the cavity at, say 100 MHz. Of course the response will be very very weak, but non-zero given that the Loretzian shape never really reaches zero. I am trying to understand how are the magnetic and electric field distributions of the field at 100 MHz relative to the ones at 10 GHz? In particular, if inside the cavity I have some structure, such as 2 plates...
Back
Top