Talk:TNT

Instruction manual

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)

As the guy above me said, TNT is a hard compound to make. With the current "Instructions" given, it still takes about 2-3 hours of hard calculations, and a good deal of experimenting, to get it right. Unless one is a good chemist, there is a pretty good chance one would mess up alot,, and do bodily harm to themselves in the process. Wertyu739 (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Combustion energy compared to fat/sugar

The combustion energy comparaison to fat and sugar per unit of mass is dubious at best as it doesn't count the mass of oxygen needed to extract energy from sugar and fat... JidGom 14:21 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm not actually going to do the stoichiometry right now (bother me later if you really want to know), but I'm pretty sure that sugar and fat are still more efficient if you count in the sugar. -Smack 06:36 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thanks to Google I found hints about heating energy of TNT. I insert them again.

Pale yellow solid

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)

68.231.184.131 (talk)TNT is made with Toluene, not benzine.68.231.184.131 (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Lead section revision?

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)

SMILES?

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)

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)

Isomers

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. [1]

Gene Nygaard 10:12, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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)

Thus with the mass–energy equivalence at 90 PJ/kg, 1 Mt TNT corresponds to 47 grams?

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)

Detonating TNT

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)

You can detonate TNT easily, using any fire.Agre22 (talk) 02:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)agre22

No you cannot. Have you Tried it?

It takes a large #8 miltary blasting cap or a primer to insure TNT's conplete detonation. Only NH4NO3 is self-tamping by fire. 68.231.184.131 (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Chemical infobox

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

User:Guest 15 December 2005

One problem with TNT is that it's a Carbon rich explosive. Thus, the detonation of pure TNT tends to release the excess Carbon as a sooty (black) smoke. Addition of Ammonium Nitrate (thus producing Amatol) provides the extra Oxygen needed to push the stoichometry closer to the ideal value, thus releasing less soot. This can be important in battlefield applications since the sooty smoke from pure TNT may obscure potential targets.

Conflict

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)

Recipe for TNT

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

The synthesis is done in a stepwise procedure. First toluene is nitrated with a mixture of sulfuric and nitric acid. Even lower-concentrated acid mixtures are capable of doing the first and second introduction of a nitrogroup. The nitrogroups decrease the reactivity of the toluene drastically, because they are electron-withdrawing groups. After separation the mono- and dinitrotoluene is fully nitrated with a mixture of nitric acid and oleum (sulfuric acid with up to 60% dissolved SO₃), this mixture is far more reactive and is capable of introducing the last nitrogroup. The waste acid from this process is used for the first step of the reaction in industrial synthesis.

This was the text befor the exact manual and it was good to understand but not to redo it, and you are right!--Stone 12:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

i think its a mixture of carbon, nitric acid, and sulfer
the nitric acid can be made with the following formulas
NH3(g) + O2(g) → NO(g) + H2O(g)
NO(g) + O2 <=> NO2(g) delta H > 0 (means jou must put energie in it to go this way
NO2(g) + H2O(l) → HNO3(aq) + NO(g)

Done Dan100 (Talk) 21:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It is also necessarily done at three different temperatures for trinitration.174.18.44.161 (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

German translating

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)

IUPAC name

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 [2]). -- MightyWarrior 10:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

move specific combustion energy?

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)

combustion energy

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)

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)

Extremely Similar to NationMaster Encyclopedia

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)

Ought be featured

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

Incorrect Diagram?

It appears that the structural diagram of TNT is missing a methyl group at the top, as pointed out MIT Professor of Solid-State Chemistry Donald Sadoway in a recent lecture (See 49:22) 18.238.6.107 (talk) 06:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. The hydrogen atoms on the terminal CH3 are not expanded. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 07:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not missing - but the shorthand (any non-noted point or terminus is a carbon) as opposed to just omitting the hydrogens, is not the clearest way to diagram it. A lot of chemists don't like that shorthand in diagrams. It's accepted in carbon ring diagrams, on the ring, but elsewhere seems to be discouraged. A methyl group hung off the ring should probably be labeled as such.

More importantly, though it's technically correct (professor exaggerated for effect), it's obscure and harder for normal people to understand. "What's that line for?" and "there's no atom there" are obvious questions a non-expert would ask. If the diagram confuses non-experts it's a very poor choice for Wikipedia.

I put the image back to the PNG we had before, that has the explicit methyl group. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it's a matter of personal preference more than anything else, and to say that "a lot of chemists don't like [it]" is perhaps an exaggeration. I personally find terminal -CH3 or -Me untidy and distracting, especially when you have a lot of them in a molecule. Especially so for t-butyl and isopropyl groups. Every field has its terminology and this is ours... so I really don't see a big deal.

I watched Sadoway clip, and for a third year chemistry student (guessing from the course code) not to understand this ... and for Sadoway to dismiss an *accepted* convention as incorrect is bewildering. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Implied C in a skeletal formula is an IUPAC-blessed standard, not just a shorthand/jargon used by those in the field. When/whether to use it is a matter of preference and different fields may have different conventions, and it might make things more or less confusing depending on what the purpose of drawing the structure is. But if the question is "what is the structure, where are the C?" and a student who has taken more than the first week or two of an orgo course can't answer that correctly, he needs to go back and figure out why he doesn't remember even this most basic level of structure diagramming. Now I could WP:AGF and say "well, he's just guessing" but that's a pretty bad basis for...well, anything in science. If it really matters, it's really important to figure out what it means by the widely used standard in which it's drawn. Now all that said, this particular structure is likely viewed by lots of schoolkids and non-college students (TNT seems like a popular/common lay-reader subject), so making it more explicit is fine by me. OTOH, the immediately adjacent 3D-balls one has all C and H visible for easy comparison to help interpret the skeletal one. DMacks (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You said:

Implied C in a skeletal formula is an IUPAC-blessed standard, not just a shorthand/jargon used by those in the field.

I am not a chemist, though I've had a few years of chemistry at university and I do come from a long line of chemists of some sort or another on my Mother's side. I understand who IUPAC are, I have my college chemistry textbooks and CRC, I do various chemical reaction work for rocket propulsion and explosive chemistry on and off.

I also do a lot of science writing for normal people, of various flavors, on and off.

There is no contradiction between implied C as a blessed standard, and it being jargon. In my opinion, both are true.

The general public who have enough experience with chemistry to know what skeletal formulae look like can be expected to "get" that there's carbon there where the lines join. But a random sampling of 3 educated people last night (one biochemist/neurobiologist, two computer scientists) were confused, though they all guessed correctly what it was.

If we are confusing educated readers, we're doing something wrong...

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of defending Wikipedia's honor (as it were), however, I did just email the professor a note including the following:

"From Leigh, Favre, and Metanomski's 1997 edition of "Principles of Chemical Nomenclature" we find skeletal formulae for benzene and related rings with attached methyl or other carbon chain groups represented as line segments (wihtout explicit "C" or "CHx") on:

pp 15, diagram 25

pp 76, diagrams 5 and 6

pp 87, diagrams 11, 12, and 13

The structural formula definition on pp 11 explicitly allows this:

"In organic chemistry, structural formulae are frequently presented as condensed formulae. This abbreviated presentation is especially useful for large molecules. Another way of presenting structural formulae is by using bonds only, with the understanding that carbon and hydrogen atoms are never explicitly shown."

Pointing out that IUPAC allows this, and yet still using a diagram which more people will immediately understand, are not contradictory.

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Please keep us updated? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Manual of Style (chemistry)/Structure drawing it says

• The use of explicit methyl groups in the following cases is a stylistic choice, and both forms are generally acceptable on Wikipedia:
  • methyl groups attached to a ring or as branches in a longer carbon chain;
  • methyl groups at the end of a carbon chain.

So it seems to be down to the editor's choice. I usually keep them in, unless the molecule is so big/complex that they get in the way.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Google blurb error

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)

Efficient Concussion

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)A REDDSON

Correct Chemical Formula

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)

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)

This was discussed 3 subsections up, in "Incorrect Diagram?" --Mortense (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Dynamite?

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)

Poor Oxygen Balance?

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)

pre-WW 1 shell filling changes

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)

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)

WWII?

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)

The NFPA 704 diagram is wrong

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)

• This sounds like a flip answer, but as a professional chemist, I am being completely serious. NFPA diagrams are created and applied by bureaucrats, not chemists nor explosives professionals. Everyone knows that TNT is dangerous, right? So clearly, it must represent a very large danger. A little less cynical, the NFPA diagrams reflect what might happen, and in a fire, TNT is clearly a major hazard. A documented plant explosion was caused by a worker tossing a cigarette butt that caused a burlap sack containing TNT to smoulder, resulting in a fire and subsequent explosion (See Urbanski, Chemistry and Technology of Explosives). Because TNT melts at below the boiling point of water, it can be present as liquid in a water-doused fire situation; the liquid is flammable in the presence of absorbative material (cf Candle). The "4" ratings are probably excessive, but considering the consequences of a fire and explosion, not entirely unwarranted. Norm Reitzel (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The explosive hazard of TNT is much less than that of PETN (which is sensitive to shock) and still PETN has a rating of 3. Is there some standard/reference where those values can be looked up? The values in Wikipedia seem arbitrary:

TNT: 4 (very insensitive)

RDX: 4 (very insensitive)

HMX: 3 (also insensitive, but a stronger explosive)

PETN: 3 (sensitive to shock)

Nickel hydrazine nitrate: 3 (bordering a primary explosive) 78.10.207.114 (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Force

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)

Photo of TNT Flakes

(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)

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)

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)

Implausible claim

"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)

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)

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)

In the Gunpowder article, TNT is described to have 4,7 MJ/kg, here it is 2,8 AND 4.184 with no _obvious_ explanation. Rereading the paragraph several times, I guess it's due to adding/not adding oxygen by mixing TNT? But then you'd not have TNT, but e.g. amatol? Or to rephrase it: If the radio says "they used 1 kg of TNT", did they release 2.8 or 4.184 MJ? (@NSA: I'm researching for minecraft, and if these numbers are wrong, I'd be wrong.)

(After a few minutes:) I just found that the TNT_equivalent article describes the numbers, and it contradicts this article by saying 2.8 MJ is not the "explosive energy" (this article), but the "pure heat output". I guess the TNT_equivalent article is the most correct one?

Detonation by heat

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)

Dynamite vs TNT

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)

Technically the copyrighted name: "Dynamite" is specifically a simple mixture of GTN and some binder or shock absorber; originally clay but also NaNO3, etc, which help the blast. Most commercial modern powders are a gelatin or no GTN formula, so are technically not dynamite.

Military dynamite, correctly used, Is TNT. But Only Military demolition powder. It is 1/3 more powerful than simple GTN dynamite. (see demolition cards given to Special Forces, etc, that explain how much to use for what, and, what to use.)174.18.44.161 (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Disagreement with another Wikipedia article

Both articles will have this exact message added to their talk section. The explosive yield of both TNT and Dynamite are cited as different values in their respective articles, and as multiple different values within a single article. The Wikipedia article on Dynamite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamite) cites TNT and Dynamite to have explosive yields of 4.0 MJ/kg and 5 MJ/kg, respectively, whereas the Wikipedia article on TNT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitrotoluene) cites TNT and Dynamite to have explosive yields of 2.8 MJ and 7.5 MJ/kg, respectively. In the TNT article, there is a line, "The explosive energy utilized by NIST is 4184 J/g (4.184 MJ/kg).[16]", which probably means to say that TNT has an explosive yield of 4.184 MH/kg, making for a probable third value, but the statement is ambiguous: On first read, I thought that NIST was an explosive that produced 4.184 MJ of explosive energy for every kg utilized. Suggest changing it to something like, "The NIST records the explosive yield of TNT as 4.184 MJ/kg.", if that is what is actually meant.

describe units (4,7 MJ/kg etc) meaningfully

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)

Not as powerful as What? Ex properties not appreciated?

"...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)

Requested move 23 March 2017

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)

---

Trinitrotoluene → TNT – per WP:COMMONNAME. As with DVD and CD, this topic is most well known in its abbreviated form, and TNT has redirected here for 5 years. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

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)

As I mentioned, TNT 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 TNT is not a proper WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, then TNT (disambiguation) should be moved to TNT. Incidentally, I found a relevant guideline section at WP:ACRONYMTITLE. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'll support this per WP:COMMONNAME, but not strongly. Searching "TNT" gives me nothing currently, and very few people would search "Trinitrotoluene". Laurdecl ^talk 04:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, the essence of my argument is that practically no one knows what "Trinitrotoluene" is, but everyone knows what TNT is. For example, we have WP:TNT, but WP:Trinitrotoluene doesn't even exist. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Laurdecl and nom. Reidgreg (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

---

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)

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)

Proposed merge with Pink water

Per discussion at Talk:Pink water#Requested move 1 September 2019. DannyS712 (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03, Zxcvbnm, and Hyperbolick: please discuss --DannyS712 (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support. If just a byproduct of TNT production, really no reason not to merge. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support. "Pink water" is short enough to become a section of "TNT". WCCasey (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support. MDaxo (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

How can we mention minecraft TNT block in a popular culture section?

does this work?

\=\= In popular culture \=\=

The game Minecraft contains an explosive block named after TNT.

MDaxo (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, although a reference (added) would also be helpful. Klbrain (talk) 06:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

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)

History section - UK Explosives Act of 1875

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)Ben

"C6H2(No2)3Ch" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Naval use

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)

Units

Activation energy is listed in kcal/mol (switching this to kJ/mol would help with consistency) while the "Energy content" section inexplicably switches between GJ/t MJ/kg without properly explaining that they are the exact same unit, and prior in the same section the article fails to mention the fact that the energy density NIST equivalent definition of 4.184 GJ/t, when the units of energy and mass are divided by 10⁹ and 10⁶ respectively, is simply 4,184 J/g, or 1 kCal/g, a semi-arbitrary number chosen (presumably) for simplicity because it lies close enough to the mean experimental value/range. AnOldSky (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, the final line of Energy content is unclear by saying "contains" given the section has just listed two different energy/mass contents of tnt (heat of combustion or energy density) (also, an apology to anyone trying to read this and not understanding I would be happy to reclarify anything energy/mass (which in base units ends up being just m²/s²) units are hard) AnOldSky (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)