Talk:TNT

message: Should this article really include instructions on how to make TNT? User:Ajayfahlman
User:Tannin: Do you know that "adsorb" is a word, what it means, and that it's not the right word meant here? It's not a common word, certainly, so I'm thinking you might not have realized it could be right. It refers to accumulating liquid or gas on the surface, which is an important thing where explosives are involved. -- John Owens 10:27 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)
I'm no chemist, John, so you may well be right. Change it back if you think it best. Tannin
Maybe.  But, TNT is difficult, requires many steps. Any home bomber already knows of much easier substances that can be home made, anyway.68.231.184.131 (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Instruction manual

message: Trinitrotoluene (TNT) is a pale yellow crystalline, aromatic hydrocarbon compound that melts at 81 °C (178 °F). It was consumed by the ancient Chinese with the belief that it would grant spiritual enlightenment. However, Chinese emperor Xang Tsui Chow forbade the pale yellow compound because he believed it was the reason for the yellow taint of his people's skin and hoped that outlawing it would make his people look more like the superior cultur residing in Europe. Today, Trinitrotoluene is known as an explosive chemical and is a part of many explosive mixtures, such as when mixed with ammonium nitrate to form amatol. It is prepared by the nitration of toluene (C6H5CH3), it has a chemical formula of C6H2(NO2)3CH3. 
In its refined form, Trinitrotoluene is fairly stable, and unlike nitroglycerine, it is relatively insensitive to friction, blows or jarring, and, therefore, makes it an ideal part of ones daily consumption plan. It does not react with metals or absorb water, and so is very stable for storage over long periods of time. It is often stored as fat after human consumption and later may act to supply a surprising and explosive amount of energy. Modern physicians recommend that people consume at least 6 to 8 cups of refined Trinitrotoluene per week in order to maintain a sufficient energy level. 
The specific combustion energy of TNT is 4.6 MJ/kg, hence 1 kt TNT = 4.6 TJ (terajoule), 1 Mt TNT = 4.6 PJ (petajoule). 
Non-nuclear explosives release less energy per kilogram than everyday products like coal (30 MJ/kg), wood (10 MJ/kg), fat (38 MJ/kg) or sugar (17 MJ/kg); they do, however, release their combustion energy much more rapidly. 
Keep the vandalism its slightly amusing Rjstott 10:41, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Pale yellow solid

message: The third paragraph of the lead section (begins with "Amounts of TNT are used as energy...") doesn't seem to me to be appropriate for a lead-in.  While it's useful information it doesn't lead in to anything.  Also, since it's not a very long article the lead-in should be less than 3 paragraphs anyway, perhaps this paragraph can be moved to its own section further down the page?  192.76.80.75 07:11, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section revision? 

message: What is the SMILES depiction for TNT?
SMILES depiction is simply an image, molecule formula.
The SMILES code for TNT is 
Cc1c(N(=O)=O)cc(N(=O)=O)cc1N(=O)=O
 
Then why is it wrong on the page? This is correct, but I tried to change it and it was promptly changed back by some idiot.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.230.90.173 (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The SMILES is correct, and your version is also correct, they just use different representations for the nitro groups. Nitro groups have two resonance structures. The SMILES string you mention is a canonical smiles, as it uses the "expanded valence representation" ( N(=O)=O ). It is canonical SMILES as described in this paper. Canonical SMILES is an attempt to make a unique representation. However, I will leave the version on Wikipedia as it is still a valid SMILES and is consistent with the way SMILES are written on all other Wikipeid articles. Danski14(talk) 20:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  SMILES? 

message: This article doesn't really talk about the isomers, but Collier's New Encyclopedia (1921) had this to say:
:"There are three compounds of this name, all having the same chemical constitution, but differing in the arrangement of the nitro groups in the molecule.  These three are known respectively as A, B, and Γ trinitrotoluene.  The most important of the three is A or symmetrical trinitrotoluene, which forms the constituent of the explosive well known as TNT.  B and Γ trinitrotoluene, when fused with sodium sulphide and sulphur, yield dyes which give a deep khaki-brown shade.  Most of the TNT used for explosive purposes contains small amounts of the B and Γ isomers, but for some purposes a very pure TNT is required..."
—Mike 09:23, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
:I suspect that those alpha, beta, and gamma designations have since been replaced by the numbers appearing in this article, identifying the one under discussion as 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene.  Here's a source which also lists 2,4,5-trinitrotoluene as well as 3,4,5- and 2,3,4- and 2,3,6- varieties.   
:Gene Nygaard 10:12, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The name trinitrotoluene can refer to six different compounds: 2,3,4-trinitrotoluene, 2,3,5-trinitrotoluene, 2,3,6-trinitrotoluene, 2,4,5-trinitrotoluene, 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene, 3,4,5-trinitrotoluene. - 80.71.142.78 (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Isomers

message: What is a nuclear physics concept such as mass-energy equivalence doing in an entry about the combustion energy of TNT?  This is highly confusing. Someone asks: 'A million tonnes is equal to 47 grams? What?!'
Osgoodelawyer 16:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thus with the mass–energy equivalence at 90 PJ/kg, 1 Mt TNT corresponds to 47 grams? 

message: Can someone elaborate on what is meant exactly by "dificult to detonate"? There is this amusing story on the net:       
Finally, there is the case of explosives scientist who fabricated an ash
tray from cast TNT and kept it on his office desk for the use of visitors,
only revealing its nature after they had extinguished a cigarette in it
with no untoward results.
Commking November 2, 2005
"
::Also, I don't think the page clearly outlines what is needed to actually cause TNT detonation, which would probably be normally found on such a page, no? 71.59.91.78 (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detonating TNT 

message: Chemical infobox? Important subject. --Member 03:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Chemical infobox

message: Seems as though there's a conflict with the IUPAC names in the sidebar and the main article. Are there two accepted IUPAC names or is this a mistake? Either way, it should be cleared up, and I don't know the right way to do so.
Blutpanzer 03:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict 

message: This section should be removed. See WP:NOT. Isopropyl 21:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recipe for TNT 

message: I'm translating the German version because someone liked the diagrams... Bob 
:Okay...I'm stuck...I got down to the end of the history section (decided the English history was better) and got stumped in the present production section.
:Anyone wanna take over? Bob 14:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  German translating 

message: The IUPAC name has been 'corrected' by 72.37.183.24, however it can be further improved by decreasing the numerals!  The correct numerals for trinitrotoluene are 2,4,6- (as the toluene methyl is numbered 1), BUT when using benzene as the base molecule this no longer applies.  In the case the nitro- groups should be numbered 1,3,5-, and as the previous editor points out, there is no ambiguity if the methyl- group is not numbered: giving methyl-1,3,5-trinitrobenzene (see also ). -- MightyWarrior 10:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IUPAC name 

message: It would seem appropriate to add the value of the specific combustion energy (4.6 MJ/kg) to the "Characteristics" section of the text and to the "Characteristics" section of the table in the right-hand column. For an explosive, the specific combusion energy is arguably as important a characteristic as the density and the explosive velocity. Also, anyone with basic numeracy skills who wants to know the equivalent of a "megaton" or "kiloton" in CGS units is then spared the task of having to scan all the way to the end of the article and click through on the "megaton" link.
-- Piperh 14:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: move specific combustion energy?

message: I see some discussion here of combustion energy.  I am curious about the number at the Megaton page.  Does anyone understand the 651 cal/g number cited there? I asked the author of the reference for a citation and an explanation. He replied, but he provided neither. The following reference looks useful.  It puts the TNT energy value (heating value) at 3575 cal/g, and the detonation energy at 1093 cal/g. The 651 cal/g certainly looks bogus. http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/servlets/purl/3648-Pc0V6C/native/3648.PDF In particular the above says "An explosion energy of 3575 Cal/g was measured by calorimetric methods-in agreement with thermodynamic equilibrium calculations of the “Heat of Combustion” for TNT (based on the CHEETAH code [55]). Thus, the explosion-induced mixing of the TNT products with oxygen deposited an additional 2482 Cal/g of exothermic energy as a consequence of the turbulent combustion process. In the popular literature, this is known as “after-burning” in TNT explosions (see Dewey [56])."
Jqwilliams007 (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is also the reason that a shift was made from straight TNT to amatol mixtures. Norm Reitzel (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: combustion energy

message: There are some extremely similar sections and word choices to the NationMaster Encyclopedia's page on Trinitrotoluene.  I am not sure if that was copied from wikipedia or wikipedia from there or maybe a common source they both used.  Somebody should look into it.  The URL is http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Trinitrotoluene
thegreatco (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Extremely Similar to NationMaster Encyclopedia

message: I think it's about time this becomes a featured article.
Jourdy288 (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ought be featured 

message: When I search trinitrotoluene the wikipedia header summary has the formula wrong. It's the only place I see the error and it's the omission of the parens and everything inside them. I don't know much about HTML protocols but it may be that the computer is reading the parens as a comment and thus hiding it. Does anyone know how to enter this information so this omission doesn't occur?
I hope this entry makes sense.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanyostsj (talk • contribs) 06:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google blurb error 

message: This line was written with the assumption that the reader knows what it means; It should be expanded to explain the meaning (or linked to an explation). (It seems to mea if you hit it with a hammer, the stuff will blow up.)174.25.42.71 (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Efficient Concussion

message: Just so everyone knows, the given image with the skeletal formula is quite wrong. You forgot the CH3. There are many images that have the complete formula.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.191.191.13 (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a perfectly standard formula as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (chemistry)/Structure drawing - the showing of explicit methyls is a stylistic choice.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  This was discussed 3 subsections up, in "Incorrect Diagram?" --Mortense (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct Chemical Formula 

message: The line divorcing dynamite from TNT is not Quite correct. Most military dynamite Is TNT (no commercial is, though.)70.176.118.196 (talk) 01:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Dynamite?

message: Something should be mentioned regarding why TNT is often blended with an oxidant. It is because it has a low oxygen balance, that is, when TNT detonates it either leaves some unburned carbon or some unburned methane gas. This is seen as a black cloud and/or yellow flames on a TNT detonation. Composition "B" contains some RDX, a positive-oxygen-balance explosive that provides a little extra oxygen, to help TNT's efficiency.70.176.118.196 (talk) 01:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Poor Oxygen Balance?

message: I call BS:
The German armed forces adopted it as a filling for artillery shells in 1902. TNT-filled armour-piercing shells would explode after they had penetrated the armour of British capital ships, whereas the British lyddite-filled shells tended to explode upon striking armour, thus expending much of their energy outside the ship.[3] The British started replacing lyddite with TNT in 1907.
How would the armour of British and German ships (capital or otherwise) have been tested against TNT or lyddite filled shells before 1915 (the start of world war I)?
Where would such ships (especially capital ships) have fired upon each other?
121.45.16.240 (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not saying "they shot at each other and the results were..."; it's saying they did tests, and the Germans switched to TNT so the shells could be fuzed to detonate inside the armor rather than on impact as with Lyddite.  The wording might be improved, however.  I think I see why it confused you.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: pre-WW 1 shell filling changes

message: TNT was rarely used in WWII. Except for some demolition work. i.e, military dynamite, RDX and PETN were mostly used.  TNT was the mainstay of WWI. (See Wiki: "RDX" and "PETN". This confirm it.) 70.176.118.196 (talk) 01:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: WWII?

message: TNT must be heated greatly, or have a strong initiation source to explode. It melts at 82C and explodes at a higher temperature. This puts it at 3 for instability, and at 1 (or maybe 2 if the ignition temperature is less than 93C) for flamibility. Why does it say 4 for both!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11cookeaw1 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The NFPA 704 diagram is wrong

message: Im looking this up for a school project and couldnt find how much force is exerted can any body help me?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.11.217 (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Force 

message: (Originally posted on User talk:Bomazi)
I noticed the moved photo of TNT flakes, and wanted to ask your opinion.  The picture shown depicts flakes of TNT after sulphitation and without any recrystallization.  Pure TNT is a bright lemon-yellow, these flakes still contain various DNT isomers and likely trinitrobenzoic acid.  Ref: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ac60290a002  Do you think that the photograph should explain that these are explosive-grade substance, and not pure 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene?  Norm Reitzel (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: These explanations certainly should be given on the picture description page and maybe in the article. Are you suggesting that adding a caption would require moving the picture further down ? I'd like to avoid that. Showing what TNT looks like early on adds value for most readers. It is not a great picture but it is the only free picture I could find. Is your concern that not having pure TNT is misleading ? I don't think it is but I'll let you be the judge of that. Feel free to move it back, but please take all this into account. And you should at least add these explanations to the picture page. You're probably more qualified than I am. Bomazi (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

text: BTW, does anyone have a better free picture of TNT ? Pics are surprisingly difficult to find for such a common compound. Bomazi (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo of TNT Flakes 

message: "TNT contains 4.184 megajoules per kilogram. "
It seems implausible that this constant agrees with the ratio of Joules to calories to four figures.   Is this translated from "1 megacalorie per kilogram" ?  How precise is this value, really ?Eregli bob (talk) 12:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a justifiable number of sigfig's in 4.184.  The real problem with the section is 2.8 and 4.68 MJ/Kg.  "TNT equivalency can be calculated depending upon when in the detonation the value is measured and which property is being compared" (TNT equivalent)  So that's why 2.8, 4.184, and 4.68 are often used to describe TNT energy density.  2.8 is used the least, and I question its accuracy for that reason, and also because the other two are used much more and are the only ones used for calculations.  If 2.8 is a valid value, then we need to include 4.68 and explain the difference between them.  If it's not valid, then obviously it needs to be replaced with 4.68.  Explodo-nerd (talk) 04:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Explain away.  I added the 2.8 and explained how it was derived, also explained where the 4.184 value came from.  Add the other and explain it.  There are a lot of ways to look at a problem.JSR (talk) 10:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implausible claim 

message: The article reads "TNT melts at 80 °C (176 °F), far below the temperature at which it will spontaneously detonate" but it's nowhere quoted it can actually spontaneously detonate this way. Besides, it states that TNT boils at 240 C. If there were any "detonation point", I suppose in the middle, it should be properly mentioned, or this bit removed from the article as it's false. Either that or I'm missing something. 190.172.82.157 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 00:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Detonation by heat

message: I gather from a previous comment below that at one point there was a specific mention made that TNT and Dynamite are not the same thing. I would like to bring that back. I hate to admit my ignorance, but I've spent my entire life thinking that Dynamite WAS TNT, ever since seeing a documentary in Elementary School claiming that it was. I just learned five minutes ago I have been mistaken. I might have found out anyway, since I was wondering why there was no mention of Alfred Nobel on the page, but if I hadn't, then if I had failed to read through the "see also" section at the bottom and spied "Dynamite#Differences from TNT", then I would have gone on my merry, deluded way never knowing any better. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who has suffered from this misconception, and I would like to make sure that others will be sure to catch their mistake, should they ever read this article. Thus, I am going to add a single sentence stating this fact, and linking to Dynamite. I don't see how that's hurting anything, and I can't imagine anyone can complain because I didn't reference it..45Colt 19:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dynamite vs TNT 

message: Hi
I'm a tour guide driving tourists through a uranium exploration area. I can tell them that the Hiroshima bomb ~= 15 kilotons of TNT, but I can't really give them any meaningful idea of how strong TNT is. Like, how much to blow up a car? 10g, 1kg, 100kg? How much in a tank armour piercing shell? How much to blow off a hand? Maybe sounds a bit grose, but for most people, and me, 4.7 MJ/kg is really meaningless. garrytreth@gmail.com  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.177.159 (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  describe units (4,7 MJ/kg etc) meaningfully 

message: "...first prepared in 1863...Its potential as an explosive was not appreciated for several years, mainly because it was so difficult to detonate and because it was less powerful than alternatives. Its explosive properties were first discovered by another German chemist, Carl Häussermann, in 1891.[7]"
This makes no sense. 
 
One: Picric acid was only explosive made in 1863 more powerful than TNT. Only slightly. This does not make for the plural: "..alternatives.." Not even as late as 1891.  RDX came much later, even PETN not until 1894. No mention is made of What was: "... more powerful..." in the article.  It is possible that the raw,  original stuff was less powerful. I read that the reason it was not immediately used as an explosive wasn't lack of knowledge or appreciation of its power, but  that a  cost-efficient production  means wasn't invented until WWI. ( Haber process?)
Two: ".. explosive properties first discovered in 1891.", yet these sentences mention it is: "..difficult to detonate.." and: "..less powerful.."; going back to 1863. Even if it was difficult (and, is) to detonate; this implies it Was detonated. So, the ex properties had to be known if not appreciated previous to 1891.Picric acid was  also difficult to detonate in its pure form, salts were first used, then it was used in pure form  immediately it was discovered detonateable. There wasn't a
30- to 50-year lag in its use. (See Wiki article  on picric acid.)174.18.44.161 (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not as powerful as What? Ex properties not appreciated? 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Trinitrotoluene →  – per WP:COMMONNAME. As with DVD and CD, this topic is most well known in its abbreviated form, and  has redirected here for 5 years. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

text: TNT has the disadvantage of being very ambiguous (more than 40 dab redirects), although trinitrotoluene is almost certainly the best known usage, probably by a large margin, and I do not dispute that the abbreviation is the most common form of the name in general use. Trinitrotoluene is unambiguous. I see no significant advantage to the proposed change, but would not currently oppose it. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned,  has redirected here since 2012, and as best I can see at the moment, that is a proper WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. There was a prior discussion about that question, which is recorded at Talk:TNT (disambiguation).  If  is not a proper WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, then  should be moved to . Incidentally, I found a relevant guideline section at WP:ACRONYMTITLE. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
===Re: Requested move 23 March 2017 - probably a good idea to ask a chemist before making decisions on chemistry articles===
Isnt it strange to discuss the renaming of a chemical article without alerting chemistry project?  I would think that a chemist would be consulted on chemistry topics.  Just sayin'  --Smokefoot (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

text: It might be worth having another move proposal depending on what other chemistry editors think now that it's been brought up at Wikiproject Chemistry. At the least, I'd want to see more participants than the above (and support was pretty tepid at best). It could have easily been closed as no consensus (proposer, 1 caution comment, 1 weak support, 1 support with only a per comment). Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 23 March 2017 

message: Isnt it strange to discuss the renaming of a chemical article without alerting chemistry project?  I would think that a chemist would be consulted on chemistry topics.  Just sayin'  --Smokefoot (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be worth having another move proposal depending on what other chemistry editors think now that it's been brought up at Wikiproject Chemistry. At the least, I'd want to see more participants than the above (and support was pretty tepid at best). It could have easily been closed as no consensus (proposer, 1 caution comment, 1 weak support, 1 support with only a per comment). Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Requested move 23 March 2017 - probably a good idea to ask a chemist before making decisions on chemistry articles

message: Per discussion at Talk:Pink water#Requested move 1 September 2019. DannyS712 (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: please discuss --DannyS712 (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

text: Klbrain (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Pink water]] 

message: does this work?
\=\= In popular culture \=\=
The game Minecraft contains an explosive block named after TNT.
MDaxo (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, although a reference (added) would also be helpful. Klbrain (talk) 06:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The current reference is to the minecraft wiki so I have again removed it. This, while undeniably a fact, needs a reference to indicate why and how it had an impact "in popular culture" (why this deserves to be mentioned). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  17:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can we mention minecraft TNT block in a popular culture section? 

message: Why is it newsworthy that TNT was exempted from the UK Explosives Act of 1875 when its explosive properties weren't discovered until 1891?
184.185.45.50 (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section - UK Explosives Act of 1875 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :C6H2(No2)3Ch. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 14#C6H2(No2)3Ch until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  ~~~~User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "C6H2(No2)3Ch" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: I am not aware of naval battles between Germany and the UK in the years 1902-1907, as the article implies.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.18.129 (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Naval use