Talk:Pentaerythritol tetranitrate

Untitled

In accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Drugs naming policy, I propose we move this page to the INN pentaerithrityl tetranitrate. If you have any concern with this proposal, please discuss it on this page. Matt 17:39, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

While this apparantly hasn't been done, I'd say that we ought to do something similar to what has been done at Nitroglycerin, and create two separate pages — one at PETN describing the explosive properties of the compound and one at pentaerithrityl tetranitrate discussing the medical applications. GeeJo _{(t) (c)} • 19:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is quite short. There should be enough with redirect. -Yyy 16:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Diagram of molecule lacks 'C' for Carbon

I know chemists may like this diagram but the casual observer wont see all the elements. Why is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.23.3 (talk) 06:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It's called a skeletal formula and is a shorthand that all chemists use. I agree this article covers a topic that will be of significant interest to non-chemists, so I will raise the issue at WP:CHEMS. Thanks for pointing this out. :Ben (talk) 10:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

A “casual user” won't understand the structural formula anyway, no matter if the carbons incl. attached hydrogens are shown explicitly. --Leyo 10:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Leyo, this is a standard skeletal structure. Anybody who does not know how to interpret the structure would not magically understand anything by seeing explicit carbons and hydrogens. saumaun (talk) 07:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Production

I noticed that 63.162.143.5 deleted the section on production...I think it should stay deleted, instructions on making explosives do not belong in an encyclopedia. SCHZMO ✍ 21:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

We don't need instructions but a basic description of its production would be good. If no one objects, I will add it. --71.227.190.111 04:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC

I object. 1. Instructions and information on production is readily available via other sources - which would seem to counter my argument. 2. However, any person partially educated with regards to these procedures can then check here to see where he's going wrong. 3. Most wiki editors are reasonable people who don't want to see terrorists succeed or have an easier time making explosives that, when put together in small enough quantity devices to swallow or insert in a rectum or sown under the skin or inside a companion animal - is still plenty enough to bring down an aircraft on approach to a major city, i.e. with hundreds if not thousands of civilian casualties. 4. Security overall is not a factor of impenetrable defenses - it's rather a case of defense IN DEPTH, with a multitude of lines functioning in various manners, with the idea being that one of the lines will hopefully catch the idiot before the idiot gets lucky and catches his ride to "heaven". 5. Remember, we have to get lucky all the time - they only have to get lucky ONCE. 6. In these various lines of defense, EVERY. LITTLE. BIT. HELPS. 7. One of those lines of defense is not making it easier for people to find out how to make bombs. 8. Ergo, this type of information does not belong in public, I suppose unless you're a diehard anti-American, anti-Freedom, pro-Terrorism, pro-Anarchy type of person. 9. Or just clueless enough to think that making bomb-making information more widely available isn't gonna help a very diffuse, wide-spread and compartmentalized movement such as the IRA, various homegrown Euroterror idiots, the "jihad" boys, the cartels and every last Tom, Dick and Harry warlord. Parl2001 (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You really don't know anything about chemistry, do you? The type of information you're referring to as so dangerous is equivalent to giving instructions on how to perform brain surgery, and expecting an idiot to be able to perform it successfully. 208.180.46.180 (talk) 07:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not, the current suppression of knowledge is appalling. BP OMowe (talk) 09:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I'l drink to that.--Blockhaj (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Main article

"Charges manufactured in the future may include other explosives." Is this line helpful?

According to the Financial Times, December 28, 2009, Page 5. PETN "was also used by a would-be assassin of Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, Saudi Arabia's anti-terrorism chief, who was slightly wounded in August (2009) when the assailant exploded a device hidden in his underwear." If someone wants to add this to the main article, then it's fine with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eroche (talk • contribs) 17:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Missing data: explosive energy

What is the specific energy of PETN in MJ / kg or TNT equivalents? Shouldn't this be part of every explosives infobox?--SiriusB 11:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned on Talk:RDX, the energy value isn't normally measured or recorded. Detonation velocity and pressure are. Georgewilliamherbert 18:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have retrieved values for the explosion heat (I guess that is equivalent to the explosive energy) [2], including reference. Unfortunately, only values for a small number of explosives are listed. There is another table in [3], but without references. It shows a somewhat higher value (1.7 TNT equivalents), but since also TNT has got 1.1 it might be due to another base used as TNT equivalent (don't ask me why). Maybe, someone knows a more complete source for many other explosives, then we might add it to the explosive infobox (I have no experience in editing these new kind of infoboxes, so I only added the data to the text).--SiriusB 09:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

TNT equivalent is not a pure energy scale-up. It's a military rough equivalence for use in demolitions, which is a mixture of brissance and heave values. Those tend to increase with detonation velocity and energy but it's nowhere near that simple. The TNT equivalent is not 'calculated', it's not a formula, it's an observed utility correlation in required masses to accomplish demolitions type explosives use tasks. Georgewilliamherbert 19:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I was talking about the energetic TNT equivalent that scales distances at which an explosion of e.g. 1 tonne of an explosive does some effect (e.g. make a brick wall collapse). The demolishing effects you mention depend on the detonation velocity only within very short ranges (comparable to the radius of the explosive charge itself). For long distances it does not really matter if a shock wave has been generated by TNT, fuel-air mixture of a nuclear warhead, each with an explosive force of 1000 tonnes TNT equivalent. Therefore, it is indeed reasonable to take the released amount of energy as the main measure of the explosive effect. For nuclear weapons the blast yield (in an assumed free-air explosion without any Mach effect or refraction) is given by the total yield (the energy released by the nuclear fission of/and fusion) times the energy fraction of blast (among other effects like heat and nuclear radiation). Furthermore, energy is among the most important quantities in physics, therefore I cannot understand why it is often neglected for (non-nuclear) explosives. Comparing the energy yields helps to understand why a recently tested Russion fuel-air bomb of seven (?) tonnes of weight did tha same damage as an air burst of 40 tonnes TNT would have done (but only on "weak targets").--SiriusB 18:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Environmental Impact

From the article:

PETN does not occur naturally, so the production and use of this kind of compound can lead to contamination of the environment. PETN is subject to biodegradation in untreated or unpreserved urine and feces.

On the surface, to a layperson, this appears contradictory. The mere fact that it does not occur naturally does not make it an environmental contaminant. Elemental calcium for instance does not occur naturally but is not an environmental problem. If the substance biodegrades readily, one would not ordinarily expect it to be problematic as a contaminant. Some kind of explanation is needed. Does it degrade into harmful contaminants? If so, what? If not, then what is the problem? This needs to be stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.116.12 (talk) 14:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean, in line 5: not "necessarily" an environmental contaminant. But, you are right.68.231.189.108 (talk) 12:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that is a non sequitur. I'm removing it. If someone wants to put it back rewrite it so that the point is clear and source it properly. Enemyunknown (talk) 05:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

MSDS materials are generally extremely weak on disposal/destruction of wastes associated with chemicals. It would be good to have accurate and quantifiable information regarding the degradation of this compound in the environment. This may need to also include hazardous byproducts created as a result of action with soils, air, water, ans sunlight. Military files created from demolition and disposal of weapons arsenals may be a good source to locate some of this information. Envengchem (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Pentrite

Where in the world is it called pentrite?? Msjayhawk (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I see one use in german where it can be called pentrit... Msjayhawk (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What is this "Penthrite" mentioned? Is this a misspelling?68.231.189.108 (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Detection Efforts

I removed the following text from the lede, as it is inconsequential and too specific:

Dr. Greg Dicinoski of the University of Tasmania is working on creating a small portable unit that will detect the plastic explosive.

If there's something special about how PETN can be detected or its (non)detectability, this might merit mention under such a heading. 173.70.24.75 (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine removing from the lead, but appropriate for the article (elsewhere).--Epeefleche (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

References

I don't think it's appropriate anywhere in the article. This kind of trivia promoting random university researchers who just happen to be working on something related is a pervasive problem with Wikipedia technical articles. Are you going to name the other 500 groups working on this too? In the USA, the DoD is funding anybody with a pulse to do this stuff. If you want to add useful content, discuss the main avenues of research rather than just naming one guy out of hundreds, perhaps thousands. Tarchon (talk) 07:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure (not having checked) if this is due to your revisions, but while ref'd language was deleted (which may be OK in the broad scheme), it was replaced with unreferenced statements that may or may not be true, but certainly require references to remain. For example, "Many technologies can be used to detect PETN" and "it belongs to a family of common nitrate-based explosive chemicals which can often be detected by the same tests" and "This is, however, not an exhaustive list." All of those statements need refs, or should be deleted -- its not appropriate (you've made few edits to Wikipedia, I recognize, so may not be aware of this) for editors to just write what they themselves "know" to be true, without reference to a reliable source.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Not relevant

It strikes me that this section contains far to much information about the 2010 cargo plane bomb plot. I motion to delete all the material from "Both packages contained sophisticate" to "identified the bomb either.". NickCT (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree and have trimmed the paragraph significantly. Details belong at 2010 cargo plane bomb plot, not here. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree in part. Deleted some of the still-existing info, and restored other material directly relevant to PETN characteristics and detection.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Detection - reword needed

"PETN is difficult to detect in terrorist incidents because..." kind of implies that it is somehow not so difficult if there are no terrorists involved. I'm not sure that terrorism needs to be highlighted here, but definitely think this sentence needs to be worded better if it is to remain. Can't think of the best way to do that at the moment, so looking for suggestions. _wjemather^bigissue 00:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't read it that way. But if you do, how would you re-word it? Clearly, whether it is easy or difficult to detect is important in terrorist incidents. In non-terrorist incidents, detection can be made by reading the labeling of the compound, presumably. I would imagine, however, that in terrorist incidents security officials probably do not have the benefit of the PETN being labeled.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You are making the assumption that only terrorists would have cause to try and evade detection, whereas I do not see it that way. _wjemather^bigissue 01:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are getting at. But in any event, I've put the text in the context in which the source mentioned it.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Much better, and clearer. _wjemather^bigissue 22:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Great -- I'm happy that you are happy.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Safer than what?

Under Explosive use, the third paragraph begins

During the Second World War, PETN was most importantly used in exploding bridgewire detonator for the atomic bombs. PETN was chosen as safer: while it was sensitive, it would not detonate below a threshold amount of energy.

This looks as if it was carelessly edited down from some more detailed text. As it stands, the second sentence is almost meaningless. I see two problems:

1. Safer than what?
2. "A threshold amount of energy" is vacuous: Any explosion requires some minimum amount of energy to initiate the reaction. What threshold? A particular value? a high value? We have a blank that needs to be filled in here in "a ____ threshold".

-- Thnidu (talk) 02:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Good points. Agree.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography no 15

Bibliography no 15 don't work. Google Cache and at url http://easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded/565/5890511956.png is copy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.160.246.71 (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Terroristic use & Detection

Non-relevant. Firstly, its already described in corresponding articles. Second, if it has some origin nature, can be motive for creating new article, not overhelming existing.Sanaris (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Terrorist use needs to be input into incidents. There are trolls currently changing it back to make a distinction between use of the substance by the Mossad vs other incidents. Either it should be inputted into the history section or remain as it is with incidents. 173.68.168.197 (talk) 03:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Discrepancy between amount needed to damage fuselage

Hans Michels, professor of safety engineering at University College London, told a newspaper that 6 grams (0.21 oz) of PETN—"around 50 times less than was used—would be enough to blast a hole in a metal plate twice the thickness of an aircraft's skin".[37] In contrast, according to an experiment conducted by a BBC documentary team designed to simulate Abdulmutallab's Christmas Day bombing, using a Boeing 747 airplane, even 80 grams of PETN was not sufficient to materially damage the airplane's fuselage.

This suggests that either professor Michels or Dr. John Wyatt (who performed the simulation) is mistaken, but they are probably both right. 6 grams seems a reasonable amount when placed against the metal, much more would be needed in the simulation conditions, since the explosive was in the bombers underpants.

I'm not sure how to fix this without WP:OR, other than by removing the first sentence. Ssscienccce (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

There's also a difference between "just blew a hole in" and "materially damaged". A small hole is not necessarily going to cause the aircraft to crash or even be in urgent distress. Also, the detail design and placement of the charge matter significantly. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Correction: First synthesis

The article states that pentaerythritol tetranitrate was first prepared by Bernard Tollens and P. Wigand in 1891. I have read the reference that was cited — B. Tollens and P.Wigand (1891) "Ueber den Penta-Erythrit, einen aus Formaldehyd und Acetaldehyd synthetisch hergestellten vierwerthigen Alkohol" (On pentaerythritol, a quaternary alcohol synthetically produced from formaldehyde and acetaldehyde), Annalen der Chemie, 265 : 316-340. — and I found no mention of the reaction of pentaerythritol with nitric acid (although there was a mention of the reaction of pentaerythritol with acetic acid).

According to these sources:

• Peter O. K. Krehl, History of Shock Waves, Explosions and Impact … (2009), p. 405.
• Tadeusz Urbanski, Chemistry and Technology of Explosives, vol. 2 (1965), p. 175.

PETN was first prepared by the German explosives manufacturer Rheinisch-Westfalische Sprengstoff A.G. and patented in 1894 (Deutsches Reichspatent 81,664). I am therefore correcting the article accordingly. VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pentaerythritol tetranitrate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110710160725/http://www.dynonobel.com/files/2010/04/Primacord.pdf to http://www.dynonobel.com/files/2010/04/Primacord.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Swastika formula

Discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Swastika_formula. Now ongoing Reverts .... --Itu (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

You are reading way too much into the presentation of the formula, as people at that thread (Myself included) are telling you. There is no legitimate reason to remove it. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 04:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest to keep the image temporarily, but ask User:Nuklear to modify it a bit. Of course there's no actual political implication, and the Swastika has other substance in other regions of the world. But European readers often react strongly to graphics which vaguely resemble nazi symbolism. You'll have to keep in mind that these symbols have been prohibited in Germany for 70 years now, and our right-wings are constantly trying to circumvent the law by "imaginative" modifications. Regards, --MBq (talk) 07:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

(gallery removed)

Added: Itu inserted File:Nitropenta synthesis.svg, this seems to be a good replacement without loosing informational content, good solution. --MBq (talk) 07:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

But it shouldn't need to be replaced, If this was the German Wiki I'd understand entirely but we're obviously the English Wiki and to be fair I wouldn't be surprised if less than 10 have viewwed the article so atleast to me I don't see an issue with it being there, –Davey2010^Talk 09:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah I wasn't aware AN disagreed so have readded the replacement, Obviously don't agree but what can yado . –Davey2010^Talk 09:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Israel-Hezbollah politics

This is an article on the chemical. It is a common explosive and commonly used by state militaries. A current event is not ripe for inclusion. Indeed almost all uses are insignificant. Terrorism is a bit of an outlier as it is generally not accessible to non-state entities. ConstantPlancks (talk) 05:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

There is no difference between the use of the substance from previous incident as listed before yesterday and the way the Israeli operatives utilized this substance indiscriminately in multiple massive attacks. I had renamed the "terrorist" section to "Incidents" which makes more sense, otherwise it should all be inputted into history including recent events, or all of it or a more concise version of all events should be inputted into the history.

141.155.131.133 (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

It's since been renamed to "Terrorism". I don't think there's great evidence that Israel's operation was terrorism. It's encyclopedic and merits inclusion, but the article could use restructuring. Dmarquard (talk) 06:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

It's already included in the encyclopedia. It has it's own article as a historical event. However, it is not a significant state use of the explosive in warfare. Countless military and civilian injuries and deaths can be attributed to it. Calling out recent use by Israel is WP:RECENTISM and should be removed from this article until it can be properly assessed. It's enough to link to this article from the pager attack article. We don't need links and blurbs from this article that one. This isn't a political and we should avoid making it one. ConstantPlancks (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Please remove current events - controversial and unnecessary

The current even of the pager incident in Lebanon is not ripe for this article on a chemical. The terrorism section on specific incidents of terrorism is longstanding and not controversial. The recent event in Lebanon has oscillated as either an attempt to label Israel's use as terrorism or to equate it with terrorism. In truth, state actors have used this chemical explosive countless times. It's a common explosive. Attempts to include state actors' use of this explosive would swamp the article. Please remove mention of Israel's use until such time as consensus can be obtained. It's not necessary for the article to mention any use but the use by terrorists has longstanding consensus. Delete the section "Warfare" - it's a current event, contentious and has no consensus. ConstantPlancks (talk) 08:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Bunnypranav (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The above reply was wrong, my apologies.

However the appropriate changes have been made according to this Bunnypranav (talk) 11:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

?? Implemented this. --DHeyward (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 October 2024

I believe the production steps are too ambiguous and can be improved. From the patent stated in the "Production" section (US 2370437):

We have found that the foregoing objects are
accomplished and the disadvantages overcome
by reacting pentaerythritol With nitric acid at
a temperature above 100 F. We prefer to em
ploy nitric acid of at least 90% strength and
of such amount that the ratio of the acid to
pentaerythritol is at least 4 and preferably be
tween about 4 and 5. Whereas we prefer to en
ploy nitrating temperature between 100 and 140°
F. We may Operate as high as the boiling point
of nitric acid. Preferably the charge is agitated
throughout the nitration.

With that in mind these are the changes that I propose:

Production is done by the reaction of pentaerythritol with four times the amount of concentrated nitric acid (>90%) constantly mixed at 37c-60c to form a precipitate, the mixture can then be either be drowned in water or filtered. The resulting crystals can also be recrystallized from acetone to give processable crystals. rafa_br34 (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 05:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The proposed changes are meant to be applied in the "Production" section, currently written as

Production is by the reaction of pentaerythritol with concentrated nitric acid to form a precipitate which can be recrystallized from acetone to give processable crystals.

To

Production is done by the reaction of pentaerythritol with four times the amount of concentrated nitric acid (>90%) constantly mixed at 37c-60c to form a precipitate, the mixture can then be either be drowned in water or filtered. The resulting crystals can also be recrystallized from acetone to give processable crystals.

Source (as specified before) is patent US 2370437 a PDF copy can be found here. rafa_br34 (talk) 06:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)