This page is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
This page is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
It's good to use a genuine placard logo like this one, since that is what people will see in the "real" world in contexts in which explosives are used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.55.200.20 (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Infoboxes
I would like to recommend that all the articles on individual chemicals that use {{Infobox Explosive}} be switched to use {{chembox new}}. Chembox new contains all the parameters of the explosives box, but also has much more. Most of the articles on explosive chemicals already use chembox new anyway. Unless there are objections, I'll probably start changing them over soon. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have converted them all now. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correction of "Antimony Trisulfide and Chlorate" section.
The formula given for the reaction has the PERchlorate(ClO4) instead of chlorate (ClO3) ion and this also makes the right side of the equation 3 oxygen atoms short compared to the left side.
GentleMiant (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the detonation page under the Theories section, there is a link to Doering which goes to the wrong article. The Doering who worked on detonations worked in the 1940s. The Doering which the page links to is a theologian from the 1400s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.221.224.7 (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the
Explosives articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Explosives articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Production/Instructions on bomb-making
Please forgive the tone of this post as I get a bit perturbed when reasonable people make it easier for unreasonable people to kill hundreds, if not thousands of innocent civilians. 1. Instructions and information on production is readily available via other sources - which would seem to counter my argument. 2. However, any person partially educated with regards to these procedures can then check here to see where he's going wrong. 3. Most wiki editors are reasonable people who don't want to see terrorists succeed or have an easier time making explosives that, when put together in small enough quantity devices to swallow or insert in a rectum or sown under the skin or inside a companion animal - is still plenty enough to bring down an aircraft on approach to a major city, i.e. with hundreds if not thousands of civilian casualties. 4. Security overall is not a factor of impenetrable defenses - it's rather a case of defense IN DEPTH, with a multitude of lines functioning in various manners, with the idea being that one of the lines will hopefully catch the idiot before the idiot gets lucky and catches his ride to "heaven". 5. Remember, we have to get lucky all the time - they only have to get lucky ONCE. 6. In these various lines of defense, EVERY. LITTLE. BIT. HELPS. 7. One of those lines of defense is not making it easier for people to find out how to make bombs. 8. Ergo, this type of information does not belong in public, I suppose unless you're a diehard anti-American, anti-Freedom, pro-Terrorism, pro-Anarchy type of person. 9. Or just clueless enough to think that making bomb-making information more widely available isn't gonna help a very diffuse, wide-spread and compartmentalized movement such as the IRA, various homegrown Euroterror idiots, the "jihad" boys, the cartels and every last Tom, Dick and Harry warlord.
The above was written in regards to PETN which was recently in the news, but applies more or less to all explosives. I therefore would motion that all Wiki Explosives pages be monitored to not include more than the absolute basic information with regards to source materials needed for production, other than in some instances. E.g., I'm fairly sure the cat's out of the bag regarding dynamite production - which isn't much of a terror threat in comparison to other substances anyway. I really don't care if people think "well, it's common knowledge already" when the fact remains - detailed specific instructions or production information make it EASIER for anyone to start up their own terrorist cell or bomb factory even without a chemist. This isn't big government trying to clamp down, I'm just an unemployed bozo who doesn't want to see terrorists go first to Wikipedia when they get a hangup in the production. Parl2001 (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Parl2001's concerns. In the wake of the 2011 Norway attacks, as a wake-up call, I would like to see the WikiProject Explosives team immediately develop simple guidelines and a mechanism to ensure that the content in this area does not go beyond the bounds of an encyclopedia into the realm of an explosives manual. I was propelled here by a discussion on the talk page of ANFO. Wikipedia will be brought into disrepute if it is seen to be the first point of contact on how to make explosives, as it easily could be as things are. My concern is not so much terrorists, who arguably will get the information they need elsewhere anyway, but mischievous youngsters (like myself when I was younger) who would be more easily put off by absence of detailed recipes for explosives. AWhiteC (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider that many people (including myself) have been injured by a lack of understanding of the true dangers of working with these materials. If you want to limit exposure to the facts under the guise of self-protection, then be my guest. But please do not undervalue the benefits of providing enough information to protect those who do not understand what is involved in the safe handling of these materials. Please also consider that even when bad guys screw up, lots of innocent people die too. It's no secret how to make UN, ANFO, and ANNM. These three energetic materials have done the most damage here in the US. What is far more interesting is how we can harness this power to perform useful work, like shearing steel, welding incompatible metals, staging spacecraft, powering ejection seats, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.55.200.20 (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this last post - knowledge in the Information Age is very easy to obtain, and basic do's and dont's are definitely helpful in protecting the younger generation from their own precocity. If one is truly interested in high-volume manufacturing methods, they can search the patent archives for prior art on literally thousands of detailed, accurate recipes and step-by-step instructions - no Wikipedia needed! So my point is that it's both easy and sufficient to explain the basic "how" in a Wiki entry without needing to specify "how much and for how long." That level of detail is what the references are for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.55.200.20 (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aluminum does not increase brisance . . .
Adding powdered metals such as magnesium or aluminum to organic explosives like TNT does not increase the brisance (i.e. the rate of pressure rise) of the explosion. But it can increase the total blast energy, though, since it can react with water which releases a lot of extra energy and liberates hydrogen, which adds to both the thermal and blast yield. This is why aluminized explosives were used for underwater demolitions, torpedoes, mines, depth charges, etc. But the distinction (and confusion) between brisance and overall blast energy is important, and should not be neglected if quality and accuracy are important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.55.200.20 (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The page on salutes has fallen in both professionalism and accuracy. Someone really needs to do real research and give better information based on more than personal or second hand experience. Some good images have been removed, such as those of the M-100's and block busters. Also, there should be more consistency in the information given on each salute. Some have more facts that could be applied to the other salutes on the list.
I've just written a stub article at Kinetite, an explosive developed in the 1880s. It could do with more work, when looking for sources (unfortunately many behind paywalls) the search term "kinetite" -"star wars" -sith is useful as there is a fictional energy ball by this name in the Star Wars universe. Thryduulf (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject X is live!
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBottalk 00:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team[reply]