Talk:Plastic explosive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OK, I have made such extensive changes to this page that I list my reasons here. Edits included:

1. Deleted "usually" from "usually soft and hand malleable", since by definition they must be. Changed "have the added benefit" to "may have the added benefit", since this need not be the case.
2. First plastic explosive was (so far as my researches can discover) Nobel 808, invented well before WWII and not based on RDX.
3. RDX + beeswax is Composition A, which was not obsoleted by C4 (it is still manufactured), and although pressable is not considered a plastic explosive.
4. The composition C series was begun during WW II, not the sixties.
5. PBX (polymer bonded explosives) are unrelated to plastic explosives (except in that they both go bang). In fact one of their key features is that they set very hard!
6. While plastic explosives are generally fairly safe, they are not necessarily safer to handle than "traditional" explosives. In fact there are several "blasting agents" in long use which are much more stable.
7. Change "Well-known varieties include" to "Varieties include", since Semtex and C4 are the only ones that are actually well known.
8. Detasheet is an interesting material, but it is semi-rubbery, not plastic (despite the Wiki page which also requires correction).
9. Tried to clarify relationship to terrorism; my information is that it is not that common, actually.

--Roger 12 September 2003

Yeah, but you took out a number of examples like wax, and oils and other parts too. Reasons for that?

Also, the PBX ambig page shunts directly here, if PBX are not plastic explosives, could you put something up there explaining what they are, and why they are not plastic esplosives?

~ender 2003-09-12 04:23:MST

It said that "Current binders are a range of oils, waxes and plasticizers such as ..." and then listed two materials that are neither oils nor waxes. Furthermore "Current..."? Apart from a trace of mineral oil in some formulations of C4, I don't know of any modern ones that do so. If you know of some examples, please add them.

Which bits do you mean by "other parts too"?

I'm working on a PBX stub now. -- Roger 11:31 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If I knew more, I'd be editting the article myself :P

For example talk about why plastic explosives were around:

dangerously sensitive and needed impossibly careful handling. To reduce the sensitivity the explosive could be mixed with inert agents. The first efforts in wartime mixed the explosives with materials like beeswax, although possessing many of the properties of plastic explosive they were unpleasant to handle and degraded rapidly.

adding binders and stabilizers, the resultant material was safer and easier to handle than traditional explosives and also held a greater charge per volume.

I'd say that C4 was an example of plasticizers, and hence not a reason to remove oils and waxes.

Current binders for plastic explosives are a range of oils, waxes and plasticizers; such as polyisobutylene and di(2-ethylhexyl)sebacate used as the binder and plasticizer in C-4.

~ender 2003-09-12 04:52:MST

OK, adding why plastic explosive is used is a good idea, and I will do so. But the section you are quoting in italics is not it; in fact it's very close to plain wrong. RDX + beeswax, as I mentioned above in point 3, is not a plastic explosive at all. The adding binders and stabilizers part is a reference to Semtex, which I actually added more info to, but took out the safer and easier to handle because it isn't really true (there are some "traditional" explosives that Semtex is safer than, and others that it is not).

I don't know why a trace of oil is listed in some compositions of C4, but it is not described as the plasticizer; that is di(2-ethylhexyl)sebacate. As I said before, I do not know of any current PE that uses oil as its plasticizer. --Roger 12:15 12 September 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Detonation?

Shouldn't something be mentioned about how plastic explosive is detonated and what definitely does NOT cause it to detonate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.50.133.22 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Probably not. Detonation of explosives is already covered under explosive materials, and there is nothing more specific that can be said for plastic explosives. For example different grades of semtex span a wide range of sensitivities. But feel free to add something if you like. -- Securiger 07:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I have suggested that Nobel 808 be merged into this article. Nobel 808 still has only two sentences after two years, and I have never found any more information than is listed there already. We might as well merge it to this article, and make it a redirect. -- Securiger 09:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm against meging noble 808 and c2 explosive since they are two separete compounds. There also other stabilizing materaials should we merge them too ? i think not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.11.51.102 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we merge Nobel 808 with C2 (we don't even have an article on C2 explosive, it's a redirect to this article!). I'm suggesting that because the Nobel 808 article is a 2 sentence substub, and quite possibly will always be a substub (because the stuff added in early 2004 is the only publicly available information on the subject that any of us have been able to find in more than two years), it would make more sense to merge it into this article, so folks are more likely to come across it, read about it, and — if sufficiently interested — possibly do some more research. As for merging other articles: if we can only find two sentences worth of information on the subject then yes, absolutely they should be merged. We are not talking about discarding information here, just arranging it so it is easy to read, use and research. The 90% of the world that still doesn't have ADSL does not want to go loading up a new page to discover we only have two sentences which could just as well be included in the main article. (BTW, Nobel 808 was an explosive, not a stabiliser.) -- Securiger 06:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

My (draicone) say: I'm for the merger, nobel 808 clearly isn't a very informative article and it makes sense to put it into this article.

[edit] Just an editing note...

Removed C2 link as it was a self link.