Talk:RDX

message: What exactly does "100% Nitric Acid" mean? Is it supposed to be 1.0 molar or just pure substance?  
I suspect it is an error, but by the common language rules 100% without modifiers means pure, or with 0% contnent of other agents.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SouzieQ (talk • contribs).
A: HNO3 forms an azeotrope with water at 68% (16N), but it can be redistilled under different conditions to hit close to 100%.  On the Nitric acid page, this is called "White Fuming Nitric Acid."  I'll add that info there.
under properties you state:
It is a heterocycle and has the molecular shape of a ring. It starts to decompose at about 170°C and melts at 204°C. Its structural formula is: hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine or (CH2-N-NO2)3.
My question is: why does it decompose before it melts?
can you supply the reference for this statement?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.164.160.100 (talk • contribs).
Sources would include the CRC or just about anything else that mentions the chemical properties.
All it means is that it starts to exothermically decompose after being heated to a temperature which is lower than whatever its melting point is.  It's unstable above the decomposition temperature.  You can't melt it if it decomposes at a lower temperature than whatever its theoretical melting point is.  Georgewilliamherbert 20:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nitric Acid? 

message: I believe this article should be renamed to RDX; the chemical name is virtually unknown in either common usage or the explosives industry other than researchers or chemists involved in the production of explosives.  RDX and Hexogen are by far the dominant terms, and RDX is the common one in the United States.   Georgewilliamherbert 23:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename to RDX? 

message: *BACHMANANN, SHEEHAN, JACS,  1949
*Hale, JACS, 1925
should we ad synthesis references or should we leave them out?--Stone 13:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: The references to use of RDX by Indian terrorists need to be put in a separate section - perhaps Illegal Uses of RDX. As they stand now, they disrupt the context of the entry.
teneriff 01:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it all.  I hadn't realized it snuck back in.  Thanks for noticing.  Georgewilliamherbert 03:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Indian References

message: Does anybody know the decomposition reaction of RDX or the products of a Nitroamine decomposition? I see the composition reaction is listed but it would be interesting to see what it forms when it detonates.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sedecrem (talk • contribs) 10:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decomposition 

message: The first sentence claims that "H-6" is an alternate name for RDX. I think this is incorrect and the result of a Wikipedia editor's mistaken conflation of Composition H6, which contains RDX, with RDX itself. I have thus removed "H-6" as an alternate name for RDX. —Lowellian (reply) 17:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: H-6 as common name

message: "The American Bachmann process for RDX was found to be richer in HMX than the United Kingdom's RDX and there is a suggestion this later led to a HMX plant being set up at ROF Bridgwater in 1955 using the Bachmann process." Can somebody explain how this is important to RDX & include it? And source the "suggestion"? And, BTW, give Bachmann a first name? (I'm guessing it isn't Randy.)  Trekphiler (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it aught to be obvious to you. An RDX plant was set up which also produced recoverable HMX as a byproduct. How about you providing bachmann a first name & referencing it? Since Randy was born in 1943 its hardly likely, but does he does appear to have an honorary doctorate in music: unreferenced, with no date or awarding institute.Pyrotec (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Werner Emmanuel Bachmann is the chemist you are searching for! --Stone (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: So what?

message: German Wikipedia states Dr. Georg Friedrich Henning as Inventor of Hexogen.
As the german article has more details than this one I suppose it´s correct (it has the patent number/date + a short article about the inventor himself).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.166.36.153 (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I can't read German sentences (only some words). Henning is recorded in the UK as the discoverer of the chemical known as Hexogen; and he patented it, but it appears that he did not consider its use as an explosive.Pyrotec (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What point are you trying to make? Both the German and the English version record Henning as having obtained a patent in the 1890s; but it was not developed as an explosive until the 1920s / 1930s. The German-language Hexogen article has less references than the English-language RDX version; and Hans Hamming appears to be a Pharmacist, but that article has no references. Henning's patent describes the method of manufacture, but it was first made by Lenze in 1921. The German references are given in Urbański (1967), Volume 3, Chapter IV - read the English-language RDX article. Pyrotec (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inventor Hans Henning? 

message: The term "continuous process" is misleading.  The process was a batch process.  However, several production lines were set-up, so that the overall production vs time gave the appearance of being continuous.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.0.129 (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bachman Process at the Holston Ordnance Works 

message: I've recently contributed to this article, mainly on topics of toxicity. Most of my sources can be easily obtained; the one a bit more tricky to get is the following. It's an absolutely fascinating read, both informative and entertaining. Hope that helps. --Document hippo (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toxicity 2 

message: Article cites Urbanski for the name G. C. V. Herz and a 1922 US patent. That patent goes to an Edmund von Herz. Glrx (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: * I've checked, Urbanski III (First English Edition) does indeed quote G C V Herz: Ref 4: British Patent 145793 (1921) and US Patent 1402693 (1922). Reference 5, below, refers to G C Hale so perhaps it was a copyediting error in the original book or in the English translation. Pyrotec (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: * Thanks. I changed G C V Herz to Edmund von Herz in the text and added a note about the correction. The Brit patent number should be 145791. He did a lot work on explosives.... Glrx (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

text: * Thanks, now found it on www.espacenet.com ; another typo in Urbanski. I'll add a page no(s) for your new cite tommorrow. Pyrotec (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  von Herz 

message: Citation: "However, it is very sensitive when crystallized, below −4 °C."
Does that describe one condition "crystallized and below −4 °C" or to conditions?
There was another one, but I don' t remember. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obscure grammar, affecting sense 

message: Where does 'LOW' in these categories come from?? Compared to most explosives (except PETN) it is much more sensitive. Msjayhawk (talk) 04:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Sensitivity to Shock and Friction

message: Some history is missing here, but I don't know where the reference is. The UK recognized that thicker hulls on U-boats would make the then current torpedoes obsolete. There was a choice: build torpedoes that could carry more TNT (possibly requiring the redesign of some submarines) or pack the current torpedoes with a more powerful explosive. The US military, on the other hand, thought TNT worked for WWI, so it should also work for WWII. Glrx (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK reason to develop RDX 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on RDX. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20151231230123/http://www.adi-limited.com/2-01-050-030-000.html to http://www.adi-limited.com/2-01-050-030-000.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I noted that a citation was needed for C-4. The page C-4 provides one, and after verifying it, I substituted the composition cited there along with the citation. The deleted sentence indicated that dioctyl adipate (DOA) and diethylhexyl were also suitable plasticizers and specified SAE 10 non-detergent motor oil. After finding citations for C-4, I went on to Composition A and Composition B. Since all of these are manufactured products, rather than pure chemicals, their composition varies. The table from which the A-3 data were taken illustrates this.
Anobium625 (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Composition A, Composition B, Composition C-4, PBX, and Semtex citations 

message: In the synthesis section, the method mentioned is simple nitration of hexamine with WFNA, but the reaction shown indicates that ammonium nitrate and acetic anhydride are also present. Is this a different method? If not, why are these extra reagents not mentioned in the Synthesis section text? There are a few places in the body of the article where acetic anhydride is mentioned, but it seems like that is only when formaldehyde or paraformaldehyde is used as the starting point.Sbreheny (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synthesis 

message: T4 should probably be spelled T4, look at Britannica, or look into other literature, that it's italian abbreviation, then full-text search archive.org e.g. "esplosiva T4" and look into some older books. —Mykhal (talk) 19:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  T₄ 

message: two unrelated problems I see. First is in the lead the formula is claimed to be (O2N2CH2)3. I'd have to play around with that to see if it provides a unique structure, but I'm guessing it doesn't. My point is that its not clear (me chemist) what it represents, so isn't useful as it is. I'd say its formula is (O2N)3(NCH2)3 although that doesn't clearly indicate the hexahydrotriazine ring, it makes some attempt to impose some structure... perhaps (O2N)3-cyclo-(NCH2)3 would be clearer or even (O2N)3-cyclo-(NC(H2)NC(H2)NC(H2)). IDK. Why not just use its atomic formula (H6C3N3O6)? The second thing is that the info box gives what it claims is an LD50. The species (mouse, rat, giraffe, etc.) as well as the pathway (dermal, oral, etc.) are part of the "number" and should be included with it - always. Otherwise, it will be assumed to be the LD50 of humans, by ingestion, and almost certainly an estimated rather than measured number.2604:CB00:1D1C:7A00:1547:51F7:BCB:E5BD (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formula and LD50