Talk:HMX

Comment about dependency on molecular weight
The article contained:
 * (I have the details to hand, but as it is contained in a classified paper, I am unable to elaborate at this time.)

Mikkalai 17:00, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

IUPAC Name?
The Chemsketch chemistry software gives the name of this chemical as 1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7-tetrazocane. (Note the lack of 'perhydro' and the ending of '-cane' rather than '-cine', which also implies that the 'c' is pronounced differently in each case.) Is this name also correct for HMX, and if not, which is right: The software or this article? Cyrek 00:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction about sensitivity
In the article it is claimed that: HMX "is a powerful and relatively insensitive" explosive... and later: "HNIW and octanitrocubane, are more powerful and less sensitive". Although on the HNIW page they say that "all testing up to date indicates that despite great power, CL-20 (HNIW) is hyperactively sensitive, to the point that almost no American explosive manufacturer will produce it in bulk". Maybe a clarification is justified? =) Apis O-tang 23:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There are two parameters for explosives, sensitivity and sensitiveness. The latter refers to the explosive's sensitiveness to the desired method of detonation.  Sensitivity, on the other hand, refers to its sensitivity to undesired methods of detonation (rough handling, dropping, etc.).  Just to confuse matters furhter, the sensitivity is actually quoted as a figure of insensitivity (or FofI).  The larger the number the less sensitive (or more insensitive) the explosive.  FofI used to be defined by TNT having an FofI of exactly 100.  However, it has more recently been redefined around RDX as having an FofI of 80. 86.144.90.137 (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)