Talk:Nitroglycerin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nitroglycerin article.
Article policies
Archive
Archives
*/Synthesis discussion

Contents

[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) .

Above and beyond the difference between detonation and deflagration which you appear to be trying to describe, NG can undergo detonation at two very different speeds (both rather faster than deflagration).Bert2368 19:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[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 math 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?

Blutpanzer

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.

~~ In ALMOST all explosives, nitrogen's reluctant bonding is the key to its power. However, in a small percentage; chlorates, peroxides, gold and rare gas compounds; not nitrogen but again, an instable bond occurs. In deflagration; as in a dust or gasoline vapor explosion; a very quick burn ensues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.184.150 (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[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)

~~It should be mentioned that the Biazzi Continuous method has been in place mostly from the late 'forties. This keeps the actual amount of glyceryl trinitrate very low at any given time, and it is quickly made into a non-explosive, emulsified state along, usually, with acetanilide. The batch-process and "Angel-Buggy" days are gone, thank God!--tintinteslacoil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.184.150 (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2008 (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)
What did it say before? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tantrums (talk • contribs) 11:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

It contained a scale-ready, detailed synthesis method. Some people thought it was inappropriate, nothing anybody who knows anything didn't already know however. GreatMizuti 10:14, 25 April 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

Bonding location is important, yes, but strictly speaking the method which the formula is written depends on what in formation you're trying to communicate.GreatMizuti 10:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[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)

Yeah, even the bloody anarchists cookbook has disclaimers. I wasn't expecting to see a full-fleged recipe.60.225.9.105 15:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)sammy

You're saying that we should warn people that if try to synthesize explosives they could blow themselves up? Moreover that isn't a full-fleged sic recipe, it's an incredibly brief synthesis description that isn't too heavy on the chemistry.GreatMizuti 03:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] glyceryl trinitrate

i think this article should be renamed, simply because, though commonly used, "nitroglycerin" is incorrect· Lygophile has spoken 13:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1234 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.48.135.103 (talk) 13:46, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

In the United Kingdom, as an explosive, it is known as Nitroglycerine, the USA miss off the "e", and it has been known as this for more than 100 years. Medically it might be known as glyceryl trinitrate, but this article is not particularly medical; and there is a separate article see Glyceryl trinitrate (pharmacology), which links back to this one. Pyrotec 20:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] formula and nitrating

The formula is actually 4C3H5N3O9(my computer didnt want to write it right so its http://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/rzepa/mim/environmental/html/nitroglyc_text.htm). And then to the nitrating. In the process you dont actually nitrate the glycerin, but you do it the other way around you add glycerin to the acid solution.

Skele 18:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)(and remember im the real skele)Anarchist Cookbook rules.

Oh yeah and one more thing. According to the anarchists cookbook, in the making process you need a tub full of ice to keep the nitro from exploding and it doesnt say anything about it freezing so i doubt that it freezes at under 13 celsius. And if the nitro gets over 30 celsius it should be poured in the tub immediately.

The molecular formula of nitroglycerin is not 4C3H5N3O9, it's C3H5N3O9. This can be written C3H5(NO3)3, as is done in the article.
Ben 17:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Propellant

I find the article's very brief mention of NG's use in propellants to be unbalanced, as in the US this is currently it's largest use.

A section detailing the development of colloided powders using NG and nitrocellulose would seem to be in order- I will see what I can come up with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bert2368 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point and one I'd not noticed before. This use is well covered in smokeless powder, Poudre B, Ballistite and Cordite. You are welcome to add a new section, but I suggest you use:
Main articles: Poudre B, Ballistite, Cordite, and smokeless powder
and that way you only need to add a summary. The USA did not use nitroglycerin-based propellants in World War I and I got the impression the USA did not use them in World War II either, so its a relatively recent adoption (my lifetime anyway).Pyrotec 19:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
If you're thinking only of rifle propellants, that's true. The IMR's used in WWI and WWII rifle and machine gun ammo were single base. But the propellants for infantry mortars, bazooka rockets and some other tactical weapons were double based, and not insignifigant in quantity used. Double based ball powders were perfected before WWII, many varieties are now in military use, of course. The use of NG for commercial blasting explosives is now only of historical interest in the US- No NG based "dynamites" have been made here for quite a while.Bert2368 22:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consumption

What happens when one drinks it? melikamp (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you refer to Glyceryl trinitrate (pharmacology).Pyrotec (talk) 12:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)