Talk:Nitroglycerin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
|
[edit] Terrorism moved from Nitroglycerin to Operation Bojinka article
I have moved the Terrorism section from the Nitroglycerin article to the Talk:Operation Bojinka#Terrorism content moved from Nitroglycerin section because it does not belong here, and it looks similar, if not identical, to the text in Operation Bojinka. -Wikibob | Talk 13:41, 2004 Apr 25 (UTC)
[edit] Error-detonation
Detonation is not always fast combustion. There are 2 kinds of explosives- high and low. low explosivse like gunpowder simply burn fast. High explosives like Nitroglycerin undergo a rapid exothermic reaction that is not combining with oxygen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 21:15, 16 May 2006 65.43.148.79 (talk • contribs) .
[edit] Colour / Color
- 'It is colored yellow when it is decomposing due to acidic pH.'
I removed this. If the (anonymous) authour of this comment meant "yellow in the presence of some particular indicator" then it shoud be left out. If it is actually yellow itself, then if someone can explain why, then they should add it. Acids are not just yellow because they are acid. TomViza 21:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I doubt that the compound itself would turn yellow in the presence of an indicator, but this is likely a reference to the formation of nitrogen oxide contaminates indicated as a result of decomposition caused by acidic pH. So if I were you, I'd put it back and in future be a little less hasty when editing content. GreatMizuti 11:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Contradiction
Surely this isn't right ...
"Early in the history of this explosive it was discovered that liquid nitroglycerin can be "desensitized" by cooling to 5 to 10 °C (40 to 50 °F), at which temperature it freezes"
"the solid is even more shock-sensitive than the liquid"
These two statements contradict each other.
- I'm not going to put this in the article, since this is pure speculation, but I think what may be happening is that since the liquid is able to conform to the shape of its container, it may be more likely to, simply move out of the way when, for example, a hammer strikes a drop of nitro, while the same would not be true of the solid. So while it may require more energy to detonate the solid, it may be easier to impart that energy. --AK7 22:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
The solid is less sensitive. There are historical instances where an explosion of the liquid material has caused heavy machinery and big blocks of iron to fall on the frozen material in storage without additional incident. The assumption the solid was more sensitive is a very early mistake not repeated in academic books for a good 60 years or so. Have just edited a bunch of mistakes out of the main article like that, adding mixed acid to glycerine instead of the other way around (shudder) adding the glycerine rapidly and deliberatly before the mixture has a chance to cool (double shudder). Ambix 19:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
A very early mistake not repeated for a good 60 years or so? How about the current Encyclopedia Brittanica? "A serious problem in the use of nitroglycerin results from its high freezing point (13{degree} C [55{degree} F]) and the fact that the solid is even more shock-sensitive than the liquid." Source: http://www.britannica.com/nobel/micro/426_77.html Anon
- Well, we all know how trust worthy that is: Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia.—WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 18:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Is detonation an exponential phenomenon?
Surely this isn't right ...
"the explosive power of nitroglycerin is derived from detonation: a shock propagates through the fuel-rich medium at a supersonic speed"
"a self-sustained cascade of near instantaneous pressure-induced decomposition into gas of the explosive material which grows upon itself exponentially"
If a shock wave propagates through the medium at a fixed speed then the rate of the explosion will increase with the square of time (because the surface area of the shock wave increases with the square of its radius, which is increasing at a fixed rate). This is not exponential growth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.3.77.218 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- The initial shockwave propagates at a single speed but I think that if it indeed does cascade it would be exponential. Oh, you're also thinking in two dimmensions! Also, my maths is a little rusty, but isn't two the exponent of a squared function? GreatMizuti 12:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- A function is exponential if one of its variables is in the exponent. Thus 2x is exponential in x, while x2 isn't. --Swift 18:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sensitivity of RDX
"In this undiluted form it is one of the most powerful high explosives, comparable to the military explosives RDX and PETN (which are not used in munitions at full concentration because of their sensitivity) as well as the plastic explosive C-4."
I do not think the previous statement is true; RDX is incredibly stable at normal temperatures. That's why the military uses it in its pure form, although I am not sure enough of this statement to change it. Anyone to back me up?
- According to the RDX page, you are right: "at room temperature, it is a very stable product." But, it also says that below -4C, it cristallyses and becomes sensitive. I don't think that would be terribly useful to the military; as a general rule they require that their munitions be equally safe/useful in all climate conditions. RDX is used as a primary part of many military explosive compositions, but it is almost never the only ingredient.--AK7 02:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I rescind my statement. Thanks for clearing that up Blutpanzer 16:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Preparation: Neutral or it will explode?
"Give it one more wash with a concentrated sodium chloride solution and then test with litmus for acidity. It should be neutral or it will explode. Keep washing until it tests neutral with litmus."
That needs to be clarified. If it were going to explode you would have already found out, and you wouldn't have had a chance to fix it. What is it really meaning to say? Heresyte 01:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
If the nitroglycerin is left being acidic, it may explode without warning after some time.
[edit] Nitrogen a common element in explosives?
- Moved the following comment here from an unrelevant section above. --Swift 08:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
ya i took out the part saying that most explosives use nitro cuz that is not true. if you are thinking about civilian then ANFO w/ a booster is the most common and in millitary RDX/C4/SEMTEX or even good ol TNT but not dynomite or blasting gel which are the only two nitro based explosve i can think of. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.4.171.44 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 24 May 2006.
Yes it is true. The so called explosive molecules on which these concoctions, RDX, C4, SEMTEX, are all predicated on the fact that nitrogen readily (thermodynamically) converts energetically (kinetically) to its 0 oxidative state, N2 (g) (a small molecule, thereby fulfilling the three criterion for an effective explosive agent). I think the issue here is that we have a clash of people who're familiar with chemistry nomenclature and people who are familiar with slang. I'd re-instate the comment: Nitrogen is a common element in explosives.
[edit] Density ?
The density of nitroglycerine is obviously alot more than 1.13 kg / m^3, I assume the m^3 is meant to be dm^3 (ie. nitroglycerine is 13% heavier then water)
[edit] Suitability of synthesis description
In early 2006 the Nitroglycerin article had a section detailing the synthesis of the chemical. In February, it was mentioned on this talk page that this information might not be suitable for Wikipedia. A slow debate started and continued with interludes untill July 2006 when the matter was resolved.
The content was removed in accordance with the Wikipedia official policy on "Instruction manuals" in the Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information section) and moved to the wikibook Chemical synthesis.
The discussion was archived at Talk:Nitroglycerin/Synthesis discussion. For the last talk page version before refactoring, see the revision as of 04:03, 28 July 2006.
- For further discussion on the topic or the archiving, please do not use the arcived discussion, but place your comments below. Once the discussion is over, these can be moved to the archive.
--Swift 22:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sulfur/Sulphur
Not to be picky, but I just think that "sulfur" should be spelled one way or the other....not both. Particularly in the manufacturing section. I'll leave it to others to decide which form is better to use (European "sulphur" as opposed to American "sulfur"), but it should be uniform throughout, or it'll look dumb.
- According to WP:CHEM guidelines (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemicals/Style_guidelines#Element_names) the spelling should be "sulfur". Accordingly, I've made the necessary spelling changes. --Ed (Edgar181) 19:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This article (but not this talk page) blocked by my employer's net nanny
Perhaps this is old news, but the article nitroglycerin is presently being blocked by the SmartFilter Internet proxy software as a "criminal skills" page. I am able to access the talk page. This is the first time I've seen a Wikipedia page blocked by this particular filter.--EngineerScotty 00:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, that was true before we edited the synthesis section so I suppose that makes sense.GreatMizuti 09:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Anal Fissure Treatment
This page really needs a citation for that, or it needs to be removed. Seriously. -OcciMoron
- Google and ye shall receive.GreatMizuti 09:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Formula?
I beleive I learned the formula should be written C2H5(O-NO2)3
[edit] warning
It seems to me that this article (especaly the manufacturing section) should contain a warning that if you try to make nitroglycerin you run a huge risk of killing yourself.--Hacky 22:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
