Talk:PETN

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

Contents 1 Production 2 Main article 3 Missing data: explosive energy 4 Environmental Impact

[edit] 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

[edit] Main article

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

[edit] 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) [1], including reference. Unfortunately, only values for a small number of explosives are listed. There is another table in [2], 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)

[edit] 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)