Talk:Torpex

Question
What does it mean to be a 'secondary exposive' ? --Hooperbloob 06:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * See http://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/section2/2_10_1.html - I'll make the article a little clearer. Megapixie 06:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Generally, Primary high explosives are defined as those that will spontaneously switch from "conflagration" to "detonation", even if they are not confined in a vessel. A good example is Mercury Fulminate, which has had extensive use in detonators such as "Dynamite caps". The caps would detonate with sufficient force and "brisance" to initiate secondary explosives like Nitroglycerine (more properly: Glycerol Trinitrate) or TNT; the conflagration stage being set off by a simple burning fuse or the glowing filiment of an electrical circuit. Secondary high explosives, as implied above, must be initiated by shock from some kind of detonator. On rare occasions, however, Ammonium Nitrate, for example, has been known to detonate when under intense thermal stress, especially if compressed - e.g. The Texas City Texas barge blast. amx 02:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abock (talk • contribs) A review of the current article indicates that it some significant deficiencies. For example, the sentence beginning with "Although both RDX and TNT have a negative oxygen balance.." has been overwritten with an oxygen balance analysis (in parentheses), and is no longer a complete sentence. Consequently, after a bit more research on naval explosives, I plan to generally rewrite the Development section. amx 03:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Obsolete?
I beg to differ that Torpex is obsolete, except maybe in military use. James McVeigh stole a very fresh shipment of torpex from a Kansas mine, he added it to the drums he had filled with ammonium nitrate and nitromethane.68.231.184.217 (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that its primary purpose is for military use, calling Torpex obsolete seems appropriate to me. Some fanatical idiot could blow up a bank with black powder, that still doesn't mean that it isn't obsolete either.--172.190.100.150 (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear 172.190.100.150, you are missing the point here. The mental state of the purchaser is irrelevant: if he was able to buy a fresh shipment of a product it can't be obsolete.  And btw, black powder isn't obsolete, see Gunpowder. Wellset (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

"Calcium carbonate" should be Calcium chloride
Calcium carbonate is not a dessicant (moisture absorbant): calcium chloride is. It seems very likely that Calcium carbonate is a misprint for calcium chloride in the section Development.

Unfortunately I don't have access to the entire book, but from Google Books I learn that Rowland, Buford and Boyd says "..the addition of anhydrous calcium chloride as a drying agent was found to remove the moisture". Calcium carbonate is not mentioned. Wellset (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I note that an anonymous editor has now replaced calcium carbonate by calcium chloride, but without citation. Wellset (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)