Talk:C-4 (explosive): Difference between revisions
m Reverted edits by 24.167.28.2 to last revision by 76.125.60.188 (HG) |
|||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
Article needs to have information added about when C-4 invented, where it was invented, and by whom. —[[User:Lowellian|Lowellian]] ([[User talk:Lowellian|reply]]) 14:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC) |
Article needs to have information added about when C-4 invented, where it was invented, and by whom. —[[User:Lowellian|Lowellian]] ([[User talk:Lowellian|reply]]) 14:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC) |
||
::According to an entry in ''Weapons of Mass Destruction: An Encyclopedia of Worldwide Policy, Technology and History'', C4 is a US designation for a British formulation of "''RDX and an oil-based plasticiser''". |
|||
::I would add it, but I really can't be arsed dealing with all the nuts on Wikipedia. Someone else can do it. |
|||
== "Electrical Jolt"? == |
== "Electrical Jolt"? == |
Revision as of 19:39, 14 March 2010
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Explosives Start‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
|
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Military history: Technology / Weaponry Start‑class | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Copyvio
The material here is taken from HowStuffWorks.com, which, according to the notice at the bottom of that site, is copyrighted, which is bad. I don't know what their policy is on using their material, so anyone who does should tell me; otherwise, we have a serious problem. Deltabeignet 02:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed, the copyrighted material should be removed, per Wikipedia's policies on copyright. I have reverted the page to an earlier version without the copyrighted material. —Lowellian (talk) 10:29, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
C4 & PE4
I want to link PE4 into this page because they are fundamentally the same thing. I will add a short note at the top to say CE4 as used in USA, PE4 as used in UK."TheNose | Talk" 16:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Weight/mass
"which makes up around 91% of the C-4 by weight"
weight -> mass?
--MedeaMelana 23:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weight and mass basically mean the same thing in this particular context. —Lowellian (reply) 14:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Invention?
Article needs to have information added about when C-4 invented, where it was invented, and by whom. —Lowellian (reply) 14:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- According to an entry in Weapons of Mass Destruction: An Encyclopedia of Worldwide Policy, Technology and History, C4 is a US designation for a British formulation of "RDX and an oil-based plasticiser".
- I would add it, but I really can't be arsed dealing with all the nuts on Wikipedia. Someone else can do it.
"Electrical Jolt"?
The page claims that C4 can be detonated by an "electrical jolt" - is there any truth to this? It seems to me that, given its consistency, C4 is probably not a good conductor of electricity whatsoever. The HowStuffWorks page indicates that only detonators and blasting caps will set off C4. Now, an electrical _detonator_ would be an ideal way to set off C4, but it's the detonation, not the electricity, that does the job, right? Can anyone confirm or deny? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.102.16 (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Confirm. An electrical charge will set off a block of C4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.93.32 (talk) 01:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Absolutely untrue. Period. It requires a shock wave produced by a cap or similar initiator. Under some few specific circumstances 'Deflagration to Detonation Transfer' is possible, but this is the only exception. 'Electrical jolts' are both untrue and silly. See TM 9-1300-214, Military Explosives for further explanation.76.125.60.188 (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Unsuitable paragraph
"Using explosives provides the easiest and fastest way to break the frozen ground. However, the use of demolitions will be restricted when under enemy observation. ..." - What on earth is this paragraph doing here? Move it to some page about military use of explosives or whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.137.208 (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Dumb, Dangerous and Irresponsible Paragraph
The paragraph concerning the ingestion of C4 to feign illness is outrageously irresponsible. C4 is a poisonous substance; ingesting it is highly dangerous and quite likely fatal. This is akin to telling the readers that 'just a little rat poison' would get them out of shcool. It's hard to imagine any adult would have posted this.
If you find it necessary to repeat the potentially fatal urban legend from Herr's book, the least you could do is balance it with this bold print warning from FM 5-250, Explosive and Demolitions: "WARNING Composition C4 explosive is poisonous and dangerous if chewed or ingested; its detonation or burning produces poisonous fumes."67.181.14.90 (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's pretty unlikely that someone dumb enough to try to eat C4 to get out of school would actually be able to get his or her hands on the stuff. -67.51.67.62 (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- IIRC in the novel Day of the Jackal the assassin ingests cordite to feign illness when passing himself off as a disabled war vet. Obviously small doses of poison that do not kill will make one sickly, but judging the nonlethal dosage is foolish. There are a lot of urban legends like this that need to be documented as folklore but with warnings. Naaman Brown (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
"Composition C-4" or "Composition 4"?
Can we please stick with one or the other—preferably the official, correct one? "Composition C-4" was used originally (I think), then it was changed to "Composition 4", then back, now the introduction says "Composition 4" but "C-4" is used in the rest of the article. I'm pretty sure it's "Composition C-4", but I'm not an expert and don't have any reference material on-hand.68.14.133.151 (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Isn't "Composition C-4" a case of RAS syndrome? --Tyrfing (talk) 13:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
April Fool's Joke
Please leave the joke paragraph in, it is April Fool's day after all, by all means delete it afterwards.
dah 144 144 (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Advantages
By the way, wouldn't the C4 plastic explosives compact size (big explosion from a small package) be considered an advantage, or would this go in the C4 being moldable in shape? -67.173.188.118 (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)