Talk:Copper(I) chloride

Precautions
The article says  Avoid bringing CuCl into contact with alkynes. Why? RJFJR 15:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry I missed this till now. It forms a copper(I) acetylide, and such things can be very explosive. Walkerma 03:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review
This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good Articles' Sweeps Review. As of September 23, 2007, this article continues to meet the GA criteria, and will continue to be listed. I made a few minor changes, mainly converting the citations to inline citation format. Cheers! Dr. Cash 18:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Color on Copper(I) chloride image appears wrong.
Copper(I) Chloride should, as described in the article, be white (The crystals are clear). The image however shows green crystals. I suspect this is an image of Copper(II) chloride which in fact does have green crystals. 68.208.176.4 (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC) MCK


 * It is CuCl, but as noted at copper(II) bromide, samples are usually coloured due to the presence of copper(II) impurities.


 * Ben (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is almost certainly due to surface oxidation. All older samples of CuCl look bright green from the CuCl2 present.  The original picture used in this article was Image:Copper%28I%29_chloride.jpg, one of my early efforts;  that picture was taken using a freshly opened bottle of almost-new CuCl, and so the sample is lighter in colour, but the picture is not nearly as good as Ben's.  If I take some more pictures, I'll see if I can get one showing a lighter colour.  Walkerma (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Oxidation states
The article states that "copper can exist in multiple redox states, including I, II, and III." This contradicts the transition metal article, which claims copper can only exist in oxidation states I and II. Which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.48.248 (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Cu(III) is rare but does exist: http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=Cu(III)&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8.


 * So this article is correct. Cu(II) and Cu(I) are miles more common than Cu(III).


 * Ben (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Move
Copperchloride

A DOUBT
sir,
 * can i know the structure of Cu2Cl2 ? Cuprous Chloride in dimeric form? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.80.57 (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Older books often talk about cuprous chloride as Cu2Cl2, but you don't see this any more. I think you're right - it was seen as dimeric - but now I think that view is largely discredited, though that is merely my supposition.  Walkerma (talk) 02:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Semiconducting Properties
To "smokefoot".

Why did you revert out my additions re the semiconducting properties of CuCl ? I see no reason given,. So far is I know the reference to Dr. Lucas' Ph.D thesis is correct, and the material is also available from many other references. The compound has very interesting semiconducting properties, and these deserve mention in any article on the material.

I also feel that its double salt with NH4Cl has interesting optical properties and should also be mentioned. I won't waste the time mentioning this if you are going to revert the edit again for unstated reasons.

Should the material be incorrect, or need further substantiation, please be so kind as to inform me of at least the reason for the reversion. Although there have been different figures given for some properties such as the bandgap value, I believe the figures to be reasonably substantiated.

If my contribution is inadequate, perhaps you might feel that you can make your own contribution to the article on this interesting facet of the material's properties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpecke (talk • contribs) 02:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your contribution was definitely NOT inferior, just inappropriate in my humble opinion. Here are some comments:
 * your material appeared highly specialized for an overview of CuCl.
 * WIkipedia seeks more contextualized sources than PhD theses (see WP:SECONDARY), we are not a mechanism to report cutting edge research - that function is fulfilled by journals and blogs.
 * The work is close to original research (see WP:OR): readers of Wikipedia seek general information, not to hear that a PhD candidate thinks that the lattice matching of CuCl and Si could be useful.  If we listed that kind of info for all compounds, each article would be very long list of possible uses (we chemists have great imaginations, as I am sure you can understand!).
 * But since you obviously have a lot of knowledge, perhaps you would be willing to contribute more general information, such as on polymorophs of CuCl, or the nature of gas-phase CuCl, the band gap of CuCl, or perhaps other general topics.ones
 * Thank you again for leaving a note and I hope that my deletion did not overly sour your to this project. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

To Smokefoot:
I feel you have not bothered to do any literature survey at all on the topic. The comments I have included are based on long established properties of the material, not any recently discovered ones. I have included the reference to Dr Lucas' thesis because of his very wide ranging review of the properties of CuCl, as well as a broad literature review, not because of any cutting edge research he has done. May I suggest you look at it?

What you seem not to realize is that CuCl has encouraged very wide interest over many years for properties other than its merely chemical ones. The lattice matching with silicon is important because it permits integration with the widely established low cost integrated circuit industry.

I hoped by inclusion of a short summary to stimulate general interest in a material with promise, and also give a short introduction as to why.

Should you feel some abbreviation or alteration is necessary or useful, then fine, but it is a pity to shut the door on a whole interesting field, and not a narrow one as you claim.
 * You do not understand the concept of generality. Look at the references in the current article - they are largely to books, general sources.  Once CuCl becomes "integration with the widely established low cost integrated circuit industry." then the information is of general interest.  Otherwise good luck with publishing and patenting in the open literature, where ideas are vetted. If you have general sources to "long established properties" (your term) then describe those properties, citing the general sources.  And Wikipedia is not a forum to "stimulate general interest in a material with promise", unless that "interest" is so broad as to be notable.  Otherwise, as I said before, ten thousand scientists (me included) would submit lists about our favorite compounds to "stimulate interest".  Another way to think about the topic - if you do research on a compound, then you are probably too biased to write about that material very objectively.  The same idea applies to me too, all editors think that their compound is under-rated in novelty or is insufficiently noticed in our busy world.  This is the reason that I encourage you to demonstrate your breadth and write about another general topic.  If the semiconducting properties of CuCl become truly important, this area will be discussed by other authors because of the heavy, heavy weight of broad importance. --Smokefoot (talk) 11:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously our opinions differ. I referrred to a lesser known paper because I believe it to be one of the best general references. I still believe you have not bothered to look at it, or your opinion might be different. As to "generality" there are many long standing references to CuCl's unusual semiconducting properties, including Gmelin from nearly 100 years ago. Perhaps you might take the trouble to get an opinion from someone who has a less narrow perspective than your own. The fact that you use your ability to revert any reference to these properties acts more to your discredit than to the improvement of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.103.7 (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC) 123.243.103.7 (talk) 04:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Gpecke (talk) 11:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Usage in forensic science?
The November 1931 issue of Popular Science (p.23) mentions the use of copper chloride in identifying serial numbers that have been filed off of guns. I would love to add this information, but the article does not specify which copper chloride compound it is referring to (I or II). Would someone read the article and verify where to put it? Here is the Google book link: Popular Science (Nov 1931). Thanks.--Metron4 (talk) 05:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would put that link into the forensics or a gun-related article. A lot of various copper chlorides is used in the world, and I would doubt that this application rises above a very tiny niche (but fascinating) app.  --Smokefoot (talk) 05:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

NFPA 704 Rating
Is there a citation somewhere for the safety diamond ratings? I'm reading the MSDS that's in the article but only find it as a "2" on the health rating. --Diadophus (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Copper(I) chloride. 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) 16:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Wrong formula
The image with cyclooctadiene incorrectly shows CuCl2. Chemical Engineer (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like CuCl2 is reduced in situ by SO2 to generate (perhaps finely divided or solubilized form of) CuCl. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Chemical Engineer (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)