Talk:Copper(II) oxide

message: It is my understanding that copper (II) oxide is green, what with pennies and copper alloys forming a green patina over time.  Where was the picture in the description found and why is it black?  Note that some Wikipedia pages call copper (II) oxide a green powder. Kyoobur9000 (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: It's Not Easy Being Green

message: The "health effects" section mentions that prolonged exposure to the substance can cause Wilson's disease.  When I checked the source , the MSDS described increased copper toxicity in people with Wilson's disease, but did not claim that exposure to copper could cause the disease.
A check of the Wilson's disease page indicates that the disease is only hereditary in nature, so I am removing the claim.  --Pyrochem 00:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wilson's disease 

message: Is the melting point correct?
I thougth it was 1026 dergrees celsius.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.56.104 (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melting point? 

message: I have a question about the equilibrium condition that exists between copper II hydroxide and copper II oxide. Here is the reaction:
Cu(OH)2 + heat ←→ CuO + H2O
When heat is added, it drives the equilibrium to the right, forming more copper II oxide. When it is exposed to excessive moisture, it absorbs water to form copper II hydroxide again. But why does copper II hydroxide turn into copper II oxide when it is moist? I think that that would contradict Le Chatalier's principle. Just a question. --Cheminterest (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copper II oxide - Copper II hydroxide equilibrium 

message: Is copper(ii) oxide protective to the copper from further damage?
Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 05:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protective layer? 

message: What in the world is the basis for this claim?  Copper(II)oxide thermite is called Cadweld.  It has been used for decades with no more danger of explosion than iron bearing thermite mixtures.  I have shot many charges of Cadweld and have some pictures that clearly are not explosions. Please reevaluate the source material on this "explosive".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:7705:75E0:B91F:2C05:D00E:545 (talk) 10:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "When cupric oxide is substituted for iron oxide in thermite the resulting mixture is a low explosive, not an incendiary." 

message: I deleted the sentence describing the use of CuO in Li batteries. 1) There was no reference provided. 2) CuO is not a typical cathode material for any Li-based battery. 3) The sentence seemed to imply Li metal was used as the anode, which is definitely wrong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Barile (talk • contribs) 04:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted battery claim 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Copper(II) oxide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080302034606/http://www.npi.gov.au:80/database/substance-info/profiles/27.html to http://www.npi.gov.au/database/substance-info/profiles/27.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Paramelaconite is a natural Cu(I) Cu(II) oxide - it is not equal to Cu(II) oxide. Only tenorite fits to CuO.Eudialytos (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. --Vsmith (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not paramelaconite 

message: Hello, currently the article states:
    >The work function of bulk CuO is 5.3eV[4]
    >Copper(II) oxide is a p-type semiconductor, with a narrow band gap of 1.2 eV.
These seemingly contradictory statements can be both true if the second sentence is referring to some kind of special form of CuO (e.g. a thin film?). Since the second sentence is unsourced, I suggest removing it unless a source backing up this claim is found, and the sentence amended to reflect the particular type of CuO in question.
64.106.125.231 (talk) 07:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Band Gap