Talk:ANFO

message: I recently (apr 14/2005) made a major edit... almost a total rewrite of the article. I removed the "disputed" banner; hopefully it doesn't apply anymore.
I haven't cited any sources because most of my information comes from a course I have recently taken on blasting for mining applications. I am a student of mine engineering at a Canadian university, and while I don't consider myself an expert on explosives, I felt I could contribute an article of a higher standard than the previous one. 
I have focused on the technical details of the explosive, and less on the terrorist uses of ANFO. I don't think that sort of thing deserves more than a cursory mention in this article. I've also put the use of ANFO into proper context - it is the most prevalent explosive in the world, rather than a terrorist weapon first, a stump blasting tool second, and a mining explosive third.
I welcome any comments. --D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.87.19 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 15 April 2005
::Okay, here's a comment: You don't use proper nomenclature. Scary to think that you took a course on blasting but didn't take proper notes. Did you pass the class? Sheesh.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: This article needs citations on most of the TNT equivalents.  I am having a very hard time understanding how ANFO based explosives can have an REF (TNT equivalence) of .8 to 1.6.  My reference (field manual 5-250 explosives and demolition) has an REF of .42 for commercially manufactured ANFO. 0.8 Is high, and 1.6 is in the realm of Semtex and PETN based plastic explosives.  Unless there are citations I am going to have to assume that significant sections of this article are factually inaccurate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.79.191.174 (talk) 04:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have added tags to these problems to the article; assuming that the current listed TNT equivalences are improperly quoted, why not add your referenced info and correct the article?  Yaf (talk) 05:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  TNT equivalences 

message: I added an article on ANNM. I hope it helps. Incredibleman007 (talk) 09:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ANNM 

message: What is this "two quarts per 50 pounds" nonsense?  I realize it apparently comes from some external source, but it still doesn't make any sense.  Sounds like it is written by some of the many people who aren't really sure how many quarts there are in a gallon; sensible people would say something like 1 gallon per 100 pounds, especially since NOBODY anywhere in the world ever buys fuel oil by the "quart", and using a more round number than 50 pounds.  Gene Nygaard (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nonsense units

message: I have calculated with the help of the formular
3NH4NO3 + 2CH3NO2 -> 4N2 + 2CO2 + 9H2O
the weight from the NH4NO3 and CH3NO2 needed.
It results: 
3 x 80.04g/mol = 240.12  (240.12 / 362.2g x 100) = 66
2 x 61.04g/mol = 122.08  (122.08 / 362.2g x 100) = 34
It results a ANNM composition of 66:34, but in the wikipedia article is writting 
that's 60:40. 
I have searched by google: i have found that the composition of the ANNM is mostly
75:25. What's right now? Is the indicated formular wrong?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.141.131.161 (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the same calculation with the same result. This may not be an error - an excess of nitromethane may give the best effect - but if so I would like to see an authoritative reference. FredV (talk) 09:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ANNM - 60:40 by weight? 

message: Why isn't it stated clearly that AN is an 'OXIDIZER' and that the fuel oil is the 'FUEL'.
Can wikipidia be a little more user friendly.--70.240.144.54 (talk) 07:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fuel oil? 

message: *ANNM is sometimes referred to as "poor man's RDX" because it has a similar RE factor to RDX when mixed correctly and it is much cheaper and easier to obtain. ANNM is also more sensitive to shock than standard ANFO and is therefore easier to detonate. These factors, plus its higher destructive power make it a popular explosive among recreational users.
"Recreational users" of high explosives? Is this verifiable? Can we explain what form this recreation takes?    Will Beback  talk   22:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recreational users? 

message: WHY YOU NOT mention the Explosive velocity??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.201.207 (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explosive velocity 

message: Throughout the article, both the name ANFO and AN/FO is used. While both are valid names as discussed in the introduction of this article, should one version be used rather than the other?
Sire TRM (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistance of lable ANFO or AN/FO 

message: Why was this reinstatement made? Surely it was right for User:Biotechscientist to remove this, for obvious reasons (see 2011 Norway attacks). AWhiteC (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How, exactly, is removing that section going to prevent such terrorist attacks in the future? – IVAN3MAN (talk) 01:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't going to prevent them; it is just going to make them more difficult. Are you in favour of making it unnecessarily easy? AWhiteC (talk) 09:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with AWhiteC - Wikipedia should not be a terrorist manual, or, indeed, a manual of any kind ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual.2C_guidebook.2C_textbook.2C_or_scientific_journal ). Perhaps you would like to set up a separate page dedicated to the preparation of this explosive and see how long it lasts? FOARP (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not censored and “I don't like it” is not a valid rationale for removing information from an article. Even if the information in question was a step by step recipe for making a bomb (it's not; it's basic information on a chemical compound), the only valid rationale for its removal would be that Wikipedia is not a manual or textbook. As it is the text merely fulfills Wikipedia's mission: it is properly sourced information about a chemical compound that is much used in demolishion, agriculture, and mining. Incidentally, this information—and much more detailed information to boot—is widely available in books, magazines, on the Internet, and in basic chemistry textbooks. No terrorist will be in the slightest inconvenienced by Wikipedia purposefully dumbing down and removing information from its articles.PS. AWhiteC, you may want to see Have you stopped beating your wife --Xover (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Xover; the information in question, in the article, is no more informative than the list of ingredients that one finds on a packet of biscuits/cookies at the local grocery store. – IVAN3MAN (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The information given is not a chemical compound, it is a recipe - it does not list a chemical make up, but instead says how to mix it - this is the difference FOARP (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Xover and IVAN3MAN, Wikipedia is the first place the world looks at for information. It should therefore set an example for the rest of the Internet by restricting information that could only be useful to mischievous youngsters (oh, and terrorists, but they will get the information anyway). Is it legal in developed-country jurisdictions to publish information valuable to terrorists (such as the text removed here by Biotechscientist but subsequently reinstated by IVAN3MAN)? The Internet will be more harshly censored one day than it is now – probably too harshly. It would therefore be advisable to drop the extreme libertarianism right now, to fend off that eventuality. I note that there is a "WikiProject Explosives" (see top of page); the people working on this should formulate responsible rules about content in this area, otherwise they will bring Wikipedia into very bad repute, and may cause it to be blocked by some countries. AWhiteC (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: AWhiteC, I sympathize with your point of view, truly I do; but you seem to me to have some misapprehensions about how Wikipedia works and what its goals and policies are. You are here arguing what you think Wikipedia should be, but we have to edit this article according to how Wikipedia's policies actually are. This article's talk page is not the right place if you want to change policy; the correct place to do that would be the talk page for WP:NOTCENSORED. In the meantime, Wikipedia editing happens in accordance with the Bold, Revert, Discuss guideline: and editor boldly makes a change; another disputes it and reverts the change; and the original editor then must Discuss it on the articles Talk page in order to gain consenus. When a change is disputed—particularly to long-standing sourced material such as this—the burden is on the editor that wants to make the change to gain consensus for his desired changes. Right now what you are doing is called edit-warring, which is not a desireable way to interact with other editors (Wikipedia is a collaborative project founded on seeking consensus to resolve disputes). Please self-revert your removal of the relevant material and pursue your desired changes by one of the avenues I have outline above. --Xover (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I concur with Xover; I could not have said it better myself. Nevertheless, and not wanting to detract from the seriousness of the incident, I would like to remind both AWhiteC and FOARP that the ANFO bomb killed just 8 of the total 76 people that were killed during the terrorist attacks in Norway on 22 July 2011; the remaining 68 deaths were the result of shootings with a Ruger Mini-14 Carbine and a Glock 17 pistol by the perpetrator. So, are you going to insist that the Wikipedia articles on those two subjects should also be censored, lest they will encourage other gun nuts? – IVAN3MAN (talk) 04:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

text: If the page on shotguns included a list of instructions on how to create a sawn-off, I would also object. Similarly if the page on "straw purchases" advised people on the best way of making a straw purchase of firearms is. I do not object to the listing of the chemical composition of ANFO, I object to the listing of a recipe for making ANFO. Again, Wikipedia is not a manual, still less is it a terrorist or murderer's manual. FOARP (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: FOARP makes a good point. Having reviewed Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, I feel that Wikipedia is not a manual overrides Wikipedia is not censored in this case. I appear to be banging my head against a bureaucratic brick wall here. The peaked cap brigade are quoting Wikipedia rules at me rather than using their judgement. I intend to take this up elsewhere, such as "WikiProject Explosives". AWhiteC (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have looked at that section again, and I disagree that it is "a recipe"; it merely states a fact about the composition of ANFO and no more, and it does not go into any detail about the method of mixing the ingredients – which anyone can easily find out via Google! Also, has it not occurred to either of you, FOARP and AWhiteC, that deleting that section will not prevent someone from finding out what that section was by simply reviewing the history of the article in question? – IVAN3MAN (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

text: I disagree, it clearly describes the proportion in which materials should be mixed to make ANFO, and, rather than chemical components identified in scientific terms, lists the household-available ingredients from which to acheive the "best" results. This is not a description of chemical make-up. It is a recipe. This is the difference between describing the make-up of Chlorine gas (Cl2), and saying how you can make it out of house-hold materials such as bleach. FOARP (talk) 12:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Except in this case the chemical compound in question is Ammonium Nitrate/Fuel Oil (ANFO); so describing the proportions involved of the two substances is entirely in line with the purpose of the article: freely available encyclopedic coverage of all the world's knowledge. --Xover (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danger of abuse 

message: Looking at the source, the assertion that aluminium would demolition power by 10-30 percent over plain ANFO is a claim made by the terrorist in question in his 'manifesto'.  Is that a properly authoritative source for this claim? Dlabtot (talk) 01:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:   aluminium increasing demolition power by 10-30 percent over plain ANFO 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on ANFO. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100607130249/http://www.timesunion.com:80/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=720948 to http://www.timesunion.com/ASPStories/story.asp?StoryID=720948
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Martin I. Wayne, “China’s war on terrorism: counter-insurgency, politics, and internal security,” (New York, NY: Routeledge, 2008).
This is a source for the section where the Shijiazhuang bombings are called "the worst terrorist attack in Chinese history" found on theS hijiazhuang bombings page. I have no idea how Wikipedia works but I think this might help with that citation needed tag.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.253.19.238 (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newbie Needs Help 

message: The chemistry section states that the reaction of AN with long-chain alkanes (fuel oil) produces nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water.
The balanced reaction is {(3\mathit{n}+1)NH4NO3}+C_\mathit{n}H2_{\mathit{n}+2}\to{(3\mathit{n}+1)N2}+{\mathit{n}CO2}+{(7\mathit{n}+3)H2O}. By my periodic table, NH4NO3 weighs 80.043\,\frac{g}{mol} and C_\mathit{n}H2_{\mathit{n}+2} weighs (14.027n+2.016)\,\frac{g}{mol}. Accounting for stoichiometry, this gives an ideal AN-to-alkane weight ratio of \frac{80.043(3n+1)}{14.027n+2.016}\approx 17.119 in the long-chain limit, or 94.48% AN to 5.52% alkanes. This approximation is pretty close; #2 fuel oil has n between 10 and 20, so the real numbers are 94.55% AN to 5.45% FO, to within \pm0.03% in either direction.
But the article's chemistry section also states that the ideal stoichiometric balance is about 94.3% AN to 5.7% FO, which is way outside the tolerance. So if that ratio actually is stoichiometric, then there are side reactions and/or reaction products not listed in the article, which makes the article somewhat misleading (by way of omission). I could easily see detonation producing carbon monoxide, for example, or elemental carbon like TNT. Alternately, the article may be stating the ideal (non-stoichiometric) balance. After all, the section goes on to claim that, in practice, a slight excess of fuel oil is added to ensure that the AN is completely consumed.
Some references or clarification would be helpful. Dave Blau (talk) 07:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemistry note 

message: The bloomberg source is behind a paywall and the Norwegian is full of speculation on the size of the bomb. None supports ANNM. I have not found sources to support ANNM. ANFO plus aluminium powder does not make ANNM. 
Anyone able to read the bloomberg source please check if it supports ANNM and if not please revert to ANFO. 
178.232.9.131 (talk) 12:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  oslo bombing annm?