From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The "standard" dynamite cartridge is 8" x 1 1/4" (20.3 mm x 32 mm); it weighs approximately (varying by density) 8 ounces (.5 lb; 227 g.) It is based on the gunpowder cartridge for mining invented by Ben Franklin. Although it comes in Many sizes; from 7/8" x 9"" for hand drilled-holes; up to 4" x 36" or so.

How To Section[edit]

This is all well... and good, and has proven to provide the user with interesting information. May I suggest adding a "How-To" section to the article ? (I am not fluent enough with this topic to write it)

I'm considering playing around with different chemical compositions and thought that it might be interesting to see household items which might provide the proper components for something of this nature.

Perhaps outside the realm of a traditional Encyclopedia, but I figure I'd comment and see if anyone has anything to say / add.

Are you seriously suggesting we put in how to make dynamite from household chemicals in wikipedia? TastyCakes 05:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Beefart (who happens to have a Ph.D. in such stuff) says: By good fortune, it is not possible to make dynamite from "household chemicals". *** compound is very, very, very unstable and it will explode ***. Many, many people have died or been injured while making nitroglycerin. One of them was a member* of Nobel's family and it broke his heart. Use your chemistry set to make something harmless and funny instead, such as stink bombs. That way you will grow up with your face intact and all ten fingers.

  • Nobel lost two of his brothers while they were trying to find why nitro shipments were blowing up. The shock gave his father (also an inventor; of Plywood) a stroke; he died babbling a few years later. (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


I changed kieselguhr to diatomaceous earth since that is how it's packaged in the U.S. and the kieselguhr link is redirected to diatomaceous earth. Rsduhamel 18:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dynamite has not been used commercially for decades.[edit]

Dynamite is still kicking and hard, even nitro nobels subsidiary Forcit still makes it. Used it about month ago :)


This is also my understanding. Although "dynamite" originally referred to nitroglycerine in diatomaceous earth, today commercial "dynamite" is made of mixtures containing mostly ammonium nitrate. It's still packed in the familiar red* tubes. -Wfaxon 04:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It is generally in heavy-gauge Manila (yellow) paper or similar to brown, grocery-bag material. A Few manufacturers use red or bright orange casings. It is generally paraffined for waterprioofuing, but that can cause a low oxygen balance-- carbon monoxide and other fumes in an enclosed area. Some grades are then "sprayed" , not "dipped" in paraffin to reduce these fumes. (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Austin Powder Company does promote their non-nitroglycerin products heavily (safer handling, especially after storage, compared to nitroglycerin based dynamite); however, Austin does list their Dynamite Series in Blaster's Guide: Resources. Austin Powder, Dynamite Series, Nitroglycerin Based Products. Downloaded today 9 Apr 2011. Please note that the nitroglycerin-based dynamite is listed as "SHELF LIFE One year from date of manufacture under good storage conditions." In other words, you order it and use it within a year: good for an on-going quarrying operation but useless for any military use (which is why "military dynamite" is RDX+TNT, stable over long-term storage compared to the equivalent 60% Extra Gelatin). Naaman Brown (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Loss of life[edit]

Dudes, we need to find a citation so that we don't have to argue about words such as "considerable". I have tried to find the dates and the casualty figures for the two explosions (I lived there and I heard them) but I have had no success. Can anyone help?

All ways stay in peace <3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Due to, owing to[edit]

These are NOT interchangeable. If you don't know the difference, play it safe and use owing to. The expression "with limited loss of life due to the modular design of the factory" means, literally, that "the modular design killed the people".


Nitroglycerin is not stored best frozen down because it becomes MUCH more shock sensitive so I deleted that sentence.

11/20/06 - This may be the wrong place to post such a comment/question, but I was watching a movie last night that the actors found a couple of sticks of Dynamite in a freezer and one of the actors stated that once the dynamite dropped 3 degrees it would explode. I noticed this post stated that the Nitro within Dynamite is volatile when frozen so it seems there is partial truth to this but is it true about the degree drop causing it to explode. They were stating only a fool would store dynamite in a freezer which it appears to be true. And no I do not have dynamite much less in my freezer, I just from time to time like to see if what someone says is true is so based on some type of data. Thanks and please feel free to send me an email at if you have data or post it here.


Just corrected your spelling. Nitroglycerine is safe to handle when Absolutely frozen, below about 56 Fahrenheit, but, on thawing, large ice crystals with sharp edges break loose, causing extreme shock sensitivity until fully thawed. There should be a section on this unfortunate property, and how antifreezes, like Ethylene Glycol Trinitrate, prevent this and also add to the blast. Also, Nitro's reputation for the Worst Headaches. Miners would chew a piece of dynamite or stick it in their sweatband to get used to it. If you stop being exposed, the headache tendency also returns, (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Oil Well Fires[edit]

Shouldn't we discuss explicitly that dynamite is used to put out oil well fires? At the moment, it is only brought up in the pop culture section. 01:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Generally, shaped charges of RDX are used. "Red" Adair started the use of HE oil--well extinguishing.. The "Devil's Cigarette Lighter"; a fire visible by John Glenn in space, was snuffed by Adair. (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect content?[edit]

Why does it say " It was invented by Swedish chemist and engineer Alfred Romero in 1866 in Krümmel (Madrid, Spain) and patented in 1867." in the article section and the Alfred Nobel in the History section? - I don't know that much about Alfred Nobel, but I somehow doubt that he was named Romero at any point in his life. He was the inventor, wasn't he? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

I was wondering that, too. I remember reading about how Alfred Nobel invented dynamite, became super rich, and then made the Nobel Prize thing. Someone should fix it. 05:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Same here - in a recent television documentary it was stated that nitroglycerin actualy was invented by a co-student to the young Nobel when they where studying chemistry in Paris - probably the above mentioned, Alfred Romero. I was also stated that Nobel later acknowledged this by supplying the inventor with a life long pension. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


Is it not true that sawdust can be used as a replacement for the diatomacious earth? I.E, mixing sawdust and nitroglycerin can also create dynamite, correct?

  • Nitroglycerine based dynamite has been made mixing dynamite with sawdust, with sawdust and nitrates to burn the sawdust, with ammonium nitrate which is another explosive itself. Diatomacious earth is inert and served to cushion the nitroglycerin which is sensitive to shock. The other substances used to make other variaties of dynamite are either explosives themselves or fuels that add to the explosive effect while also serving to cushion the nitroglycerin against shock. Common commercial dynamite was usually made to be used in an on-going mining or quarry operation and was not intended to be stored for long because time or extremes of weather can seperate the volatile nitro from the cushioning material (see the plot of the movie "Sorcerer (film)"). Naaman Brown (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Dynamite in war - incorrect?[edit]

Nobel later on deeply regretted his inventing of the explosive due to its use on the battlefield as a means of killing. This led him to use the great fortune dynamite brought him to fund the Nobel Prize.[citation needed]

At least the German Wikipedia states that, despite frequent claims to the contrary, the classical (Gur-)dynamite was never used in battle because it was too sensitive at this point. (Entgegen vielfacher Behauptung wurde das klassische (Gur-)Dynamit Alfred Nobels nie im Krieg verwendet, da es zu diesem Zweck noch viel zu empfindlich war.) So what is true? Was some variety of dynamite used? Which variety? Did this really motivate Nobel to fund the Nobel Prize? (Why then are there prizes for physics or chemistry?)

If nobody can provide any source, I'll delete the dubious passage quoted above. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You are correct dynamite was never intended for the battle field, but his invention of Ballistite and Smokeless powder were. The quotation, if correct, does not apply to dynamite. His wills are discussed in detail in (the English translation of the original German): Schück, H. and Sohlman, R. (1929). The Life of Alfred Nobel. London: William Heinemann Ltd. The book is marked as Authorised by The Nobel Institute. His will, hand written in Swedish, is published in full - but I can't read it.Pyrotec (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I had read years ago about Spanish-American War era use of dynamite in warfare. Wikipedia has articles on USS Vesuvius (1888) and the dynamite gun. It does not sound like a major contribution to late 19th century warfare at all. Since dynamite was mostly used for mining and construction, I would like to see a good contemporary source testifying that Nobel so rued his invention of dynamite he created the Nobel Peace Prize. It sounds like a meme that has been repeated simply because it sounds right. Naaman Brown (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

added-- The limited shelf life of nitro-based dynamite (one year according to Austin powder Co.) made it obsolete for military use once stable explosives like TNT became common. Naaman Brown (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This is correct. A few dynamite guns were tried, The shells were propelled by steam, or compressed air, rather than gunpowder.

I cannot quote a reference, but I read Nobel, like Oliver Winchester was "haunted" by the dead caused by mis-use (and, in Winchester's case, the Proper Use-!) of their inventions. All the ghosts of those killed in accidents handling nitroglycerin bothered Nobel so, that he had consulted a medium. She said he must donate his fortune to the good of mankind to find peace in the afterlife. A similar story is told about Winchester's widow, Sarah Winchester. She was haunted by ghosts of Oliver's inventions, consulted a medium, and was told noise would keep the spirits quiet. So, she had her house in San Jose. CA, constantly added-on too, in hope the pounding would temporarily silence the vengeful spirits. This "Winchester Mystery House" is open to the public. Rooms and doors go nowhere, etc. One wonders if Krupps, Maxim, Gatling, Browning,DuPont, etc, had similar stories? (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC) (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Dates Incorrect[edit]

In the article, it says Nobel invented dynamite in 1866. In the photo caption, it says the patent application is from 1864. As I don't have an encyclopedia handy to look this up, does anyone know which is correct? Comment added 00:41 27 June 2008 by

Now corrected. The photo caption for the patent was mis-titled, the Patent refers to Nitrogylcerin not Dynamite.Pyrotec (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Questioning Military Dynamite Data[edit]

Military dynamite has approximately 60% of the strength of nitroglycerin-based, commercial dynamite

This statement is unclear.

Grades of commercial dynamite were rated by the percent of nitroglycerin, commonly 30%, 40% or 60% nitroglycerin depending on use (in quarrying, lower percentile to move rock, higher percentile to shatter rock). 60% of the strength of nitroglycerin-based, commercial dynamite is meaningless. 60% of what? 30, 40 or 60% NG?

My notes show military dynamite is a 100% equivalent of commercial dynamite rated as 60% nitroglycerin.

From my notes from an explosive ordnance disposal manual and a police bomb squad manual, military dynamite is formulated to be the equivalent of commercial dynamite rated as 60% nitroglycerin. The formula given for the "military dynamite" mixture was:

  75% RDX
  15% TNT
   5% SAE 10 engine oil + polyisobutylene
   5% cornstarch

Yes, FM 5-250 states:

(2) Military Dynamite. Military dynamite is a composite explosive that contains 75 percent RDX, 15 percent TNT, and 10 percent desensitizers and plasticizers. Military dynamite is not as powercful as commercial dynamite. Military dynamite’s equivalent strength is 60 percent of commercial dynamiters. Because military dynamite contains no nitroglycerin, it is more stable and safer to store and handle than commercial dynamite.

But no, military dynamite is as powerful as commercial dynamite with the equivalent strength of 60 percent nitroglycerin.

Another source states:

Dynamite - Military dynamite is not a true dynamite instead it is manufactured with 75- percent RDX, 15-percent TNT, 5-percent SAE 10 motor oil, and 5-percent cornstarch. It is packaged in standard dynamite cartridges of colored wax paper that is marked either M1, M2, or M3 on the cartridge. This marking identifies a cartridge size difference only, since all military dynamite detonates at about 20,000 feet per second, which is equivalent in strength to 60-percent straight dynamite. Since it contains no nitroglycerin, military dynamite is safer to store and transport than true dynamite and is relatively insensitive to heat, shock, friction, or bullet impact. When removed from its wrapper, military dynamite is a granular substance that is yellow-white to tan in color that crumbles easily and is slightly oily and does not have the characteristic sweet odor of true nitroglycerin based dynamite.

"60-percent straight dynamite" means dynamite that is 60% NG, not "60 percent of commercial dynamite." Also, the term "straight dynamite" means the filler or "dope" is non-explosive such as kielsguhr (in some commercial dynamites the filler is sawdust plus sodium nitrate, or ammonium nitrate, which actually add to the effect of the percentile of NG). So "60 percent straight dynamite" means the explosive equivalent of 60% nitroglycerin. See also .

Military dynamite is a one-for-one equivalent of commercial 60% straight dynamite, and using it as a 60% replacement for commercial dynamite could lead to overcharges: Military dynamite is a 60% replacement for nitroglycerin.

Correct me if I am wrong, bitte.

Other notes:

Common commercial grade of dynamite is 40% nitroglycerin in half-pound sticks 8 x 1.25 inches.

Dynamite in normal working condition will burn in a fire and will detonate only if subjected to shock (blasting cap). However, dynamite that is old or stored under extreme conditions and has "sweated" nitroglycerine is unstable.

Commercial dynamite with nitroglycerin and sawdust often contained sodium nitrate to oxidize the sawdust in the explosion; sodium salts left as residue from these forms of dynamite will cause rust on iron or steel surfaces, as a clue to the type of explosive used.

Nitroglycerin based dynamite will make white smoke, leave a sweet or lingering odor, and handling the dynamite will often give a "nitroglycerin headache" or NG headache.

TNT based "dynamite" will make a grey or black smoke, leave a weak or acrid odor and is sometimes called "the good stuff" because it does not cause NG headache in handling and stores safely under conditions that render nitroglycerin based dynamite hazardous.

When I retrieve the manuals to be able to make verifiable source cites, I may edit the article. Naaman Brown (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I retrieved and read Army Tech Manual 9-1300-214 on military dynamite:

(h) Military dynamite M1, M2, and M3 is a

medium velocity (6,096 meters per second) blasting explosive in three cartridge sizes. Military dynamite M1, M2, and M3 has been standardized for use in military construction, quarrying, and service demolition work. The explosive composition is packaged in standard dynamite cartridge waxed-paper wrappers. The models differ only in the cartridge size. Cartridges are 1 1/4 inches in diameter by 8 inches long for the M1, 1 1/2 inches in diameter by 8 inches long for the M2, and 1 1/2 inches in diameter by 12 inches long for the M3. The composition used is: Percent RDX 75 +1.0 TNT 15+0.5 Grade SAE No. 10 engine oil plus 5 +0.5 polyisobutylene Cornstarch 5 +0.5 Desensitized RDX, which is coated with engine oil before mixing with the other ingredients, and grained TNT are used in the manufacture of the dynamite. Military dynamite M1, M2, and M3 is equivalent in strength to 60 percent commercial dynamite. The military dynamite is safer to transport, store, and handle than 60 percent straight nitroglycerine commercial dynamite and is relatively insensitive to friction, drop impact, and rifle bullet impact. The composition remains plastic at 57°C after 24 hours. Military dynamites are odorless, free from nitroglycerin toxicity, nonhygroscopic, and chemically stable when exposed to 80 percent relative humidity at 71°C for one month. No freezing occurs in cold storage or exudation in hot storage. Turning of shipping containers during storage

is not necessary.

Therefore I am clarifying the article. If someone followed the meme that "military dynamite was equal to 60% of commercial dynamite" instead of "Military dynamite ... is equivalent in strength to ... 60 percent straight nitroglycerine commercial dynamite" too much military dynamite could be used as a replacement for commercial dynamite. Naaman Brown (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. FM 5-250 misinterpreted the correct data, which is contained in TM 9-1300-214. As you know (from Table 8-77 of that TM), 60% commercial dynamite is pretty much the most powerful version of dynamite; only gelatin dynamites are more powerful (termed 100%, but containing 'just' 91% nitroglycerin). Good catch!
I would, however, dispute the ordata statement that "Military dynamite is not a true dynamite . . . " As the TM notes, "Commercial blasting explosives, with the exception of black powder, are referred to as dynamites although in some cases they contain no nitroglycerin." (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

A Demolitions book rated Military Dynamite (TNT) as 1/3 more powerful than commercial dynamite. In other words; if it took so many pounds of Military TNT to cut so much steel in a bridge; you needed to add 33% if using commercial grade. (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


Origin and meaning of the name "dynamite"? Drutt (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Military Dynamite Sentence?[edit]

In the first paragraph of the article it has the sentence "Military dynamite achieves greater stability by avoiding nitroglycerin." It seems to me as very out of place. It definitely does not fit with the content of the first paragraph, and seems as if it was just tacked on. (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Dynamite has Greek and not Latin Roots[edit]

It derives from the word "Δύναμις"(=power) and not "Potentia" (The Latin equivalent). It can be easily found in every English-Greek dictionary, it's a very common word that still exists in modern Greek as far as I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

History; United States[edit]

It should be noted Nobel called his powder "Dynamite" from the outset. Some countries, like England, nicknamed it "Nobel's Safety Powder". A record of the accidents from straight nitroglycerin should precede Nobel's discovery, giving it more merit.

The first dynamite company was in San Francisco, CA, about 1867. In order to circumvent Nobel's patent, it was soaked in wood pulp, etc, not kieselguhr, as the patent stated. This was Giant Powder Company; the name "Giant Powder" became an American generic for Dynamite (a copyrighted term). Hercules, in the East Bay, followed. After several explosions , Giant and Hercules were absorbed by DuPont. Giant moved back east to Wilmington, Delaware. Hercules manufactured dynamite, then nitrate fertilizer. then imported it, before going out of business. Du Pont bought out many firms. In 1911, after the Sherman Anti Trust act, DuPont had to release its near stranglehold on dynamite manufacture in the U.S.

Du Pont, oddly, had initially resisted the manufacture of dynamite, spreading propaganda it was "unsafe". Peddlers would show sticks to miners, then set them on fire, hit them with hammers,etc, to prove it was ok. They even gave away free samples to anyone who'd try it. None was made on the east coast until DuPont's Repauno plant opened in 1886. Then, the buy-outs began.

The only dynamite mfgr. in the U.S. to date is Austin Powder in Cleveland, OH. Du Pont now only manufactures paints and chemicals. Apache Powder, near Tucson, AZ, only mfgs. Ammonium Nitrate, and wholesales explosives. This is mostly due to nitrate pollution into the artesian aquifers of the surrounding cities of Benson, Curtis, St. Davids, and Tombstone. There are several Canadian, Indian, European, and South African concerns still going. Dynamit Nobel is the best known.

Dynamite made silver, nickel, and other metals we take for granted now commercially available. The depth and hard rock of the Comstock Lode made its mining nearly impossible until its invention. Black powder was cheaper, but it took seven to nine times as much. Large holes had to be made to place the kegs. Due to its low briscane (shattering power), black blasting powder would only break rocks to boulder-sized pieces, making for more work. Dynamite, though more expensive, was much cheaper to use as it used less, and shattered rocks to bits. Silver prices soared until its general use. (The "Cartwrights" on the TV show, Bonanza, owe their fortune to the Comstock Lode and Dynamite. The initial airings are dated around 1867.)It also made mining of the Anaconda range in Montana possible and profitable. Many alloys that build our jet aircraft, etc, are made so because of hi explosives like dynamite used in mining. (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Move for Semi-Protection[edit]

There seems to be a lot of vandalism from unregistered users. I think there's more than the expected 5% of total edits (although I haven't taken the time to find the exact percentage). See Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection for criterion necessary to make a page semi-protected. I think Dynamite should be considered for semi-protection, personally, I'm tired of fixing vandalism and would prefer to semi-protect the page and be done with it. Few unregistered user edits are actually helpful. Explodo-nerd (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Nobody said anything so I requested for it to be semi-protected. It will be semi-protected for 3 weeks, although I'm skeptical that this will resolve the issue. I think it will need to be permanently semi-protected. We'll see if the vandalism continues when the semi-protection expires. Explodo-nerd (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

First man to use Dynamite in rock blasting?[edit]

I have just read the obituary for Thomas E. Crimmins of New York City, (volunteer fireman, contractor, mechanical engineer) which cites him as "the first man to use dynamite in rock blasting."

I have no idea how to confirm this, but for those in the know I thought it might be prudent to add here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrong calculation the energy of dynamite explosion ????[edit]

This text is incorrect:

"A stick of dynamite contains roughly 2.1 MJ of energy.[10] The energy density (joules/kilogram or J/kg) of dynamite is approximately 7.5 MJ/kg, compared to 4.7 MJ/kg of TNT."


The 1kg of nitrogliceryn contains 6.0-6.2MJ of energy. Original, first Nobels dynamite contains 75% nitrogliceryn and approximately 23-25% diatomaceous earth. The diatomaceus earth (diatomite) is no energetic material (it is no explosives material. it is unreactive absorber).

Maybe somebody tell me why 1kg of dynamite (contains 75% Nitrogliceryn) contains more energy than pure 1kg of nitrogliceryn in this article???

Nitrogliceryn is more energetic explosives then dynamite (!!!!). R.E. factor for nitrogliceryn is 1.54 and for the dynamite is only r.e.= 1.25.

The value of energy (heat of explosion) = 7.5MJ/kg for dynamite is incorect, becouse only the most powerfull explosives (and pure) like hexanitrobenzene, DDF, MEDINA, Octanitrocubane can contain density of energy over 7MJ/kg (!!!!).

Nobel's Dynamite contain approximately 5MJ/kg of energy depends (of course) on the concentration nitrogliceryn and other explosives in the mixture of dynamite. The additional reductors also have effect on heat of explosion but We can afford on neglect this small influence here.

1kg TNT contain approximately 4.0-4.4MJ of energy depends on the literatures sources. TNT r.e. factor=1.00;

The Trinitrobenzene (TNB) contain approximately 4.7-4.8MJ/kg of energy - r.e. factor = 1.20;

1kg of RDX contain approximately 5.5-5.6MJ energy, r.e. factor = 1.60;

Now You can own calculate correctlly the energy of Nobels dynamite and the energy of Military dynamite!!!!


I was going to make an article about this explosive substance but after reading this article I'm not too sure about it now. According to the dynamite article, dynamite was invented in 1867 and is based on nitroglycerin and sawdust or wood pulp can be used. But according to this 1870 book, dualin was invented in 1869 and took the place of nitro-glycerine and dynamite. The dictionary definition of dualin is "an explosive substance consisting essentially of sawdust or wood pulp, saturated with nitroglycerin and other similar nitro compounds. It is interior to dynamite, and is more liable to explosion." I don't know much about explosives but to me it sounds like the WP dynamite article has a confusion with dualin: using nitroglycerin, sawdust or wood pulp to make dynamite. It would be nice if this could be cleared up. Volcanoguy 15:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't seem to have read your source correctly. Its a book dated 1870 refering to Mining and Mines in the USA. Dynamite, at that time, was a registered trade name and refers to particularly product manufactured by a particular company which was sold in certain countries: mostly in the UK, South Africa and Australia, but also the USA. Its not in the dynamite article but there was a recognised explosives cartel where Alfred Nobel, in Britain, and the German explosives manufactures carved up the world trade in explosives between themselves. Dualin is another (possibly) similar product with a registered trade name that appears to be common in the USA and Germany. So what what gives you the expertise to claim that the wikipedia article on dynamite is confused: it is not? Dualin, appears to be an inferior and less safe product, which your source clearly states. It was possibly used in the USA because it was cheaper than Dynamite, which would have to have been imported in the USA via one of Alfred Nobel's official agents, and it was possibly a way of getting around Nobel's US trade marks / patents. Pyrotec (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Nevermind. I was just confused because the two explosives are similar. Volcanoguy 17:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Dualin was also used in Canada because I have read about its use at an early 1900s mine in my area. Volcanoguy 17:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I did some more (quick) research on this topic from a UK perspective and there are a few points that I could add. I also picked up a copy of "The Du Pont Canada History", written in 1982, when I was in Ottawa four years ago, so I know that Canada was making black powder (Gunpowder) from 1860 onwards, but I don't think it was making any high explosives in the 19th century. I don't really know about Canadian explosives legislation, but from a UK perspective, explosive regulations in effect banned the manufacture, importation and use of all explosives except those on a list of authorised explosives. Canada might have had similar laws. These lists included many (comparable) trade name explosives. Nobel's UK patent on Dynamite No. 1 expired in 1881, so after that anyone could make it, and that could/would have lead to a fall in price. To get round that a Nobel-Dynamite Trust was in operation between 1880 and 1887, between British and German manufactures, to control prices (and trading areas) across most of Europe and Australia and South Africa. In 1897 there was a similar-type agreement set up between the Nobel-Dynamite Trust and du Pont, in America, and that lasted until 1907. Canada had very high import duties on American explosives (to price out US manufacturers) and that seems to have lasted until 1906, when Canada became a free trade area (for explosives). If as you say Dualin was in use in Canada about 1900, then it might well have been imported from Germany. Canadian Explosives Ltd was set up in 1911 (see Nobel, Ontario), so from about World War One, onwards, Canada had a domestic supply of high explosives. Albeit, the company had US and British owners (du Pont and ICI)Pyrotec (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
The year was 1908 when the mine was using it. The document I read was about two miners who got killed by a charge of dualin. Apparently the charge only partly exploded so the miners were trying to clean the blast hole out and reload it. But the rest of the charge exploded while cleaning it out, killing the two men and injuring three others. Anyway I just think there should be an article for dualin. There seems to be no articles mentioning dualin but it can be added in {{Mining equipment}} under blasting since it was used for blasting rock. Volcanoguy 21:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC) (talk) 07:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Disagreement with another Wikipedia article[edit]

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 ( cites TNT and Dynamite to have explosive yields of 4.0 MJ/kg and 5 MJ/kg, respectively, whereas the Wikipedia article on TNT ( 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Direct quote[edit]

Under the Form section of the article, there is a direct quote that is paraphrased from it's source: "A stick of dynamite thus produced contains roughly 1 MJ of energy [6]." This needs to be paraphrased or quoted instead of plagiarizing the source. Autonomou5 (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)