Talk:RDX

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured in the latest Sleeper Cell Episode[edit]

It'll please some people to know, that this article was recently featured in a tv show "sleeper cell". PoorLeno 11:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be from season 2 episode 4 ("Faith") of that TV series:
"The network has ordered me to secure one hundred pounds of RDX. [...] And the techs tell us it will neutralize the RDX, without tipping off the explosive chick." --from a transcript of that episode.
It seems trivial to put that information in the article. It is more important to include the chemical equation that signifies exploding RDX (a chemical reaction): information which I do not see in the article. I see info on that here: http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/webprojects2001/moorcraft/RDX_test.htm. --Spunionztastic (talk) 04:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction: Properties[edit]

The English and the German articles contratict each other.

In the English Article, it says: "At room temperature, it is a very stable product. It burns rather than explodes and only detonates with a detonator, being unaffected even by small arms fire. It is less sensitive than pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN)."

The German article, however, states that "Pure, dry hexogen is highly explosive and should therefore be stored in cool, damp places or even submerged. Very dry hexogen can be ignited by temperatures as low as 30°C or even by touching it softly."

Also, the velocity of detonation is given as 8,750 meters per second in the English article and as 8,500 meters per second in the German one.

Please sign your questions with four ~ characters ~~~~ so that we know who asked. That gives the name/date/time stamp you see all over.
I am not aware of any safety restrictions regarding "very dry" RDX powder, other than making sure you don't get it on surfaces or breathe or touch it. It isn't described as easily ignitable or detonatable by the references and safety materials I have.
I certainly don't know of any legitimate recommendations to keep it submerged. That is way outside standard handling procedure.
It is possible to make it detonate if it's burning; my mother was doing rocket propellant research with it at a test lab before I was born, and it will detonate if there are sufficently large cracks in a solid pressed or cast or PBX block which is burning. However, the mechanical properties are generally good and most of the time it burns safely. It's the main ingredient (and only explosive ingredient) in C-4 and C-4 can be safely burned with very little safety precaution.
The velocity of detonation of all explosives is dependent on the density of the explosive; especially with explosives which are produced as powders and can't be melted or cast to a standard density (RDX is usually used in a plastic bonded explosive, or cast into TNT or such). PBX properties depend a lot on density. Pressed RDX pellet detonation velocity depends a lot on pressing density. All of these numbers should have a density associated; any primary source in explosives literature will give velocity at density, not just a velocity.
Hope these are useful answers. Georgewilliamherbert 17:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


What does brisant mean?

See new article, brisance.

Nitric Acid?[edit]

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)[reply]

Rename to RDX?[edit]

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)[reply]

  • RDX already redirects here, so there's no possibility that people won't be able to find the article if they search for RDX. The fact that there may be more than one trade name (some being regionally or nationally specific) is why a neutral chemical name is used as the article title instead. --Skoosh 06:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but when you get here, the title is Cyclotrimethylene trinitramine, which is confusing on first, second, and third glance even to explosives experts (other than the research chemists). I had to look it up to confirm that it's the right chemical name.
    • It's one thing to claim that given a set of commonly used choices, the neutral and least regionally specific one should be used. It's quite another to claim that it's better to use a name which isn't commonly used anywhere, on the grounds that some slight regional favoritism in a common name would be wrong. This isn't making the Wiki better, it's just going to confuse people, even professionals...
    • That to me is complete justification to rename. Six of the other language links given are to variations on Hexogen, which along with RDX is the other common trade name. Those links are trade-name correct for those languages; RDX is trade-name correct for US, Canada, Australia, and England as far as everyone I have talked to knows and all the literature shows. People can understand the Hexogen/RDX localization; Cyclotrimethylene trinitramine is just wrong. Georgewilliamherbert 12:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Slight correction: it's actually eight language links to variations on the name "Hexogen", including the Cyrillic titles. --Skoosh 14:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Waiting for more comments sounds fine. It's not like there's a fuse burning or anything. I've done a couple of page moves, but I'll recheck the help page. Good catch on the Cyrillic, my browser wasn't rendering the fonts. Georgewilliamherbert 03:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RDX and HMX are almost exclusively called cyclonite and homo-cyclonite in the manufacturing world. Msjayhawk (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OICW 20mm grenade is said to be filled with this.[edit]

What is phlegmatized hexogen?

References[edit]

  • 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)[reply]

There is no reference to RDX being the main explosive component of C4

Indian References[edit]

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)[reply]

I removed it all. I hadn't realized it snuck back in. Thanks for noticing. Georgewilliamherbert 03:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing data: explosive yield[edit]

There is no information about the explosive yield (energy released per kilogram, maybe written as TNT equivalents. TNT has about 4 MJ/kg), although it is among the most important characteristics of an explosive. Can it be calculated from (at least approximately) from the detonation velocity and the density of the explosive?--SiriusB 11:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a standard measured term in explosives engineering. Detonation velocity and pressure (Chapman-Jouget pressure, Pcj) are measured, along with things like Trauzl block and so forth, but energy content usually isn't. Georgewilliamherbert 18:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, you can determine energy from other measured values. And for long-range terms the energy is the only important value, because the detonation velocity is almost completely unimportand if 1 ton explosive is detonated in 100 metres of distance (this is the reason why huge explosions are measured in kilotons of TNT equivalent, no matter if they are nuclear, conventional or from a meteor impact). Even if the energy is not measured directly, it is a very important quantity since there may be explosives with equal detonation velocities and densities but with different explosive yields. So if anybody has got those data, there is no reason not to post them in the article.--SiriusB 08:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's a great reason to not post it, which is that it's not a value that is generally used in explosives engineering, and for which reliable references are hard to find. You seem to be arguing that you want to know it, therefore it should be notable. In fact, it's not used in explosives engineering, and thus isn't. No, you can't just determine it from other measured values which are commonly reported; there's some complex thermochemistry going on, along with shock wave mechanics.
It's not tabulated in any of the explosives handbooks, explosives engineering textbooks up through what you use as a grad student, etc. I think it's in the chemistry of explosives textbooks, along with the synthesis data, but it's not in any of the material I have at home on explosives engineering. Georgewilliamherbert 18:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decomposition[edit]

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)[reply]

H-6 as common name[edit]

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)[reply]

So what?[edit]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Werner Emmanuel Bachmann is the chemist you are searching for! WE Bachmann, JC Sheehan (1949). "A New Method of Preparing the High Explosive RDX1" (PDF). Journal of the American Chemical Society, 1949 (5): 1842-1845. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |voulume= ignored (help)--Stone (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inventor Hans Henning?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Bachman Process at the Holston Ordnance Works[edit]

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)[reply]

Name of the article[edit]

Is now "RDX", i cant believe it, the explosives real name is "HEXOGEN" and its of German origin, you dont name ANYTHING by name of some PIRATED product of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.156.138.236 (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the British used it as an explosive first and the name stands for 'Research Department eXplosive'. Oh, and because you lot lost the war, which is also why you are on here writing in English and I'm not on the German Wikipedia writing in German.
Actually not quite correct. Experimental explosives in the research and development stage were allocated a 'RD' number sequentially. Similarly, experimental explosives were allocated an 'ED' number (the 'D' in this case not standing for anything in particular). When RDX was developed, the depertment that allocated the RD number was unavailable (allegedly having been blown up but this may be apocryphal). The explosive was temporarily allocated the RD number as 'RDX' with the intention of allocating the number later. The name 'RDX' stuck. I have a citation for this but unfortunately it is contained in classified material that I was issued with received when I undertook the Royal Navy explosives course. It would not therefore be a viable citation for Wikipedia as it would be impossible to verify. 86.178.9.171 (talk) 09:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Burning without detonating[edit]

What is happening chemically if it burns but does not detonate? I would expect that in a detonation, each reaction (e. g. C3H6N6O6 -> 3 CO + 3 H2O + 3 N2, but of course it seems likely that that would not happen at a single molecule but oxygen atoms of one molecule would also react with hydrogen or carbon of neighboring molecules) releases enough energy to trigger further reactions in its neighborhood, thus a reaction front is moving through the material. If it burns, it has to be a different reaction, which doesn't produce enough energy to trigger the detonation reaction. What are these reactions exactly? Icek (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, burning in an adequate supply of air would give: C3H6N6O6 + 1.5 O2 -> 3 CO2 + 3 H2O + 3 N2 Pyrotec (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this would release even more energy, so there should be a detonation. Icek (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. In order to detonate an explosive you need to "initiate" the reaction with a detonator. It is possible to burn high explosives without denotation provided that the necessary conditions are employed; and that means prevention of "runaway" reactions. To "split hairs", the reaction that you have writen above is equally applicable to the combustion of RDX under the conditions of oxygen-deficiency, e.g. if it were burnt in a nitrogen atmosphere. Pyrotec (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... what is going on physically if you "initiate" the detonation? If after the initiation it's still just the same reaction, why does the reaction front spread so much faster? Icek (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need to separate in your mind the physics and the chemistry. The physics of a detonation (vastly under-stating the process) is a supersonic shock wave of heat that preceeds the burning front: effectively pre-heating everything before it burns. The burning front is the chemical stage. Preheating everything speeds up the rates of the chemical processes. You are perfectly right in so far as there are various competeting chemical processes; changing the burning rates can lead to preferential favouring of various competing processes, so the final result of a denotation may not be the same as a deflagation. Pyrotec (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the shock wave is solely caused by the initiator then a large chunk of RDX with a small initiator won't detonate completely (after some distance the shock wave has dissipated too much). Otherwise, the burning front must drive the shock wave, and therefore something about the reaction has to be different. If the overall reaction is the same (but the steps may be different) then I guess there are conditions were the heat of the burning (without detonation) cannot dissipate quickly enough and creates the detonation temperatures. Icek (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Detonation velocity for RDX is confirmed at 8,750 m/s. Adiabatic compression obviously comes into play. Some explosives can burn to denotation, which is what you are discussing in part; others need to be denotated. Pyrotec (talk) 10:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To second that - the shock wave is produced by the initiator, and maintained by the bulk explosive reaction at 8,750 m/s (or slower under some circumstances with less dense explosives, etc). Detonation is where the reaction proceeds in the wake of a self-propogating shockwave. If it's burning slower, in a subsonic manner, then it will stabilize at a much slower burn rate. It can transition from subsonic burning (deflagration) into detonation under some circumstances, including cracks or voids in a subsonic burning bulk material, making it problematic to use high explosives as rocket fuel. But burning relatively stabilized C4 putty, for example, is apparently pretty safe.
See Detonation, Chapman–Jouguet condition, any good explosives textbook such as Cooper's Explosives Engineering, etc.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toxicity[edit]

I am removing the assertion that RDX is "highly toxic". The CDC says:

RDX can cause seizures (a problem of the nervous system) in humans and animals when large amounts are inhaled or eaten. The effects of long-term (365 days or longer), low-level exposure on the nervous system are not known. Nausea and vomiting have also been seen. No other significant health effects have been seen in humans.
Source: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts78.html

More detailed CDC source: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp78.html (see esp. Health Effects)

Just to be clear: I agree that RDX is poisonous. But I think "highly toxic" overstates the facts. I do not believe RDX toxicity has been directly implicated in any human deaths. —Ryan (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this why there's no NFPA 704 for RDX? It's mentioned in that specific article. 24.10.220.113 (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is fair enough; Warfarin is non toxic to humans in the quantities prescribed to cardiac patients-but that doesn't stop it from being an effective rat poison, as is RDX. 0poponax (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disaster!: A Compendium of Terrorist, Natural and Man-Made Catastrophes, Michael I. Greenberg, page 39. Seventeen case of Hexogen poisoning reported in an Italian factory from 1939 to 1942. Seizures, loss of consciousness, sleeplessness, confusion, and vertigo.

Testud, F; Glanclaude, J-M; Desclotes, J. Acute hexogen poisoning after occupational exposure, J Toxicol Clin Toxicol 1996: 34(1) 109-112.
Barsotti, M; Crotti, G. Epileptic attacks as manifestations of industrial intoxication caused by trimethylenetrinitroamine (T4), [Italian] Med Lavoro 1949: 40.

Glrx (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toxicity 2[edit]

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)[reply]

von Herz[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Obscure grammar, affecting sense[edit]

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)[reply]

Sensitivity to Shock and Friction[edit]

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)[reply]

UK reason to develop RDX[edit]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on RDX. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 08:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Composition A, Composition B, Composition C-4, PBX, and Semtex citations[edit]

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) The specific ratio of PETN to RDX in Semtex isn't specified in a reliable source, perhaps to restrict its use by terrorists. Anobium625 (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis[edit]

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)[reply]

T₄[edit]

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)[reply]

Formula and LD50[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:RDX&oldid=1218658061"