Talk:Ripple Rock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All web sources concur that the explosive was "Nitramex 2H" (or 2-H), Nitromex is a DuPont explosive, but nowhere else is "2H" mentioned. Does anyone know what the 2H designation means? Maybe the can size?

[edit] largest non-nuclear man-made explosion at that time.

What does that mean? - Alureiter 09:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

It means it that at the time of the explosion, there had been no explosion that were man-made (i.e, unlike volcanos, comets, etc), that were not nuclear, and were bigger than this one. This was the biggest so far (or at least claimed to be). MickWest 21:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I just wanted that to make clear since I'm no native english speaker ;). There were several such explosions larger than this one before, e.g. the Heligoland explosion (IMHO best estimate: 4.2kt of TNT) and most likely also the Halifax explosion (calculated to be around 3kt). Maybe there hasn't been a larger explosion after this one, but the gas-pipeline explosion in sibiria was very likely larger (estimated 3kt). The Guinness book of records also lists Heligoland as "largest conventional explosion"[1]

I don't know exactly, how "strong" Nitramex is. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says:

Nitramex is similar to Nitramon but is much stronger because it contains TNT and a metallic ingredient such as aluminum.[2]

Therefore I doubt it's much stronger than TNT and guesstimate the scale of the explosion to be less than 1.5kt. If anybody knows a credible estimation, I would be glad to hear it. I'm collection those numbers, so that some day I can rank the entries in the "List of the largest man-made, non-nuclear explosions" - Alureiter 00:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd like to get that list sorted as well. It seem the phrase: "largest non-nuclear explosion" is commonly used without any fact checking - just google for it [3]. It was even used in court papers to describe the 1983 Beirut, which was only about 5 tons.

Hmm, EB describes Ripple Rock as the "largest commercial, nonnuclear blast in North America", which is probably accurate. I'll change it to that. MickWest 00:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd always heard it as "...in history", irrespective of any continental limitations. Can anyone think of a manmade explosion in Europe or Asia on this scale, prior to Ripple Rock or since?Skookum1 23:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like this might be the largest deliberate non-nuclear explosion. Most, if not all of the other entries in the list are accidents. I know this is borderline original research, but does anyone know of any larger deliberate explosions? —smably 23:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested merge

This article and the one on Seymour Narrows seem to contain essentially the same information, so I've proposed a merge. Anyone have any thoughts on which way to merge, or whether this is even a good idea at all? →smably 22:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I should have mentioned above that I think it makes more sense to merge this article into Seymour Narrows, because there are aspects unrelated to the rock that may be worth mentioning (tidal surges, use as a shipping corridor (?), etc). →smably 22:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I would oppose the merge. They're very separate entities as you mentioned in your previous comment. Jarfingle 01:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, you may be right. But if they are to remain separate, I think it's important to decide which information belongs in the Seymour Narrows article (the things I mentioned above were just examples of things that might belong in such an article, not real suggestions). If I understand correctly, the main significance of the Narrows was the presence of the rock, which was why it was so treacherous to ships. Is anyone likely to go looking for information about the Narrows without being interested in Ripple Rock? I am guessing that the answer is no, in which case it would make sense to merge this into the Narrows article. (Alternately: make this article specifically about the destruction of Ripple Rock, and move the other information to the Seymour Narrows article. Thoughts?) →smably 02:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I would support the merge, but only after seeing the article on Seymour Narrows. Given the small size of each article, merging them makes sense. Perhaps we could look at splitting them again if the combined article should grow to be unmanagably large. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 06:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Support - Most could go in Seymour Narrows including the a section on the destruction of Ripple Rock. The Ripple Rock page could be a disabigulation page listing the album and the reef structure detailed on the Seymour Narrows page.--EarthPerson 17:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and wrote a new article on Ripple Rock without reading this discussion - my apologies. Still, I think it warrants its own article, as the Seymour Narrows still presents maritime challenges even in the absence of Ripple Rock. --Leifern 17:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)