Talk:Relative effectiveness factor

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Explosives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Explosives on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ExplosivesWikipedia:WikiProject ExplosivesTemplate:WikiProject ExplosivesExplosives articles

Military history: Technology / Weaponry

This redirect is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

comment

Eric wrote: This table is GREAT WORK. Thanks for the information. This data is huge!!!

Many people think that the velocity of detonation is only one, the most important parameter for each explosive, and determines its relative power of explosion. IT IS WRONG thinking!!!!

The heat of explosion (energy of explosion) is also not only one, the most important parameter (for example, in this table: for nitroglycerine r.e.=1.54, heat of explosion =6.1MJ/kg and for octogen r.e=1.70, energy=5.6-5.8MJ/kg – it is correct!!!)

This table is a compilation of all parameters, determined for each explosive, like:

Heat of explosion (energy), temperature of explosion, volume of gasses and the quality (the concentration) at standard density
Brisance, the pressure of explosion at standard density
Trauzla test (ability to work) at standard density
Standard density for the explosive, easy to obtain in safe way, the most common used of density (it is not density of crystals!!!)
Velocity of detonation at standard density (this velocity always depend on density of explosives)

This compilation (analysis) of course is determined by practical, experimental tests in laboratory and by practical comparison between explosives (in safe way). Do not forget about that! This is not calculation!

Thanks for this useful assumption, 129.67.54.6 (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment

Surely the nuclear weapon ought to be at the other end of the table? 129.67.54.6 (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must disagree about the position of the nuclear charge RE comment. Since most users (like me) are probably interested in the REs of commonly encountered explosives, this information deserves priority. Are the nuclear REs not for curiosity only? -Wally Tharg (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment

This article is wrong. There's a discrepancy between the statement of the first paragraph and the shown examples of relative effectiveness: weaker explosives here have smaller values, but according to the first paragraph, they should have bigger values. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.113.200 (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is correct. 1 kg of TNT, compared to a fictional explosive of 1.5 RE would require and explosive weight of (1/1.5) kg to have a roughly 'equivalent' effect of the TNT. Msjayhawk (talk) 02:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone made this "R.E. factor" up and then put the wrong figures in. LOL

comment

Hi, I'm not an explosives chemist, but am curious to know how much energy in Joules per kg TNT yields. Is this not the fundamental measure of explosive power? Once one knows it for TNT, the RE becomes even more useful. Someone who is an authority in this area needs to add it ... with a reference, of course.

For what purpose? If you are interested in that, I would suggest looking at the 'specific energies' of the explosives. Msjayhawk (talk) 02:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible obscure jargon or fictional term "Chopin's Composition"

194.29.130.244 has twice added "Chopin's Composition", so maybe it is real. Problems remain:

The term "Chopin's Composition" for explosives exists NOWHERE ELSE on the www, only this page. Therefore Citation needed.

I relinked the term to "Chopin (disambiguation)" instead of "Chopin": An explosive mixture certainly has no ties to musical composer Frédéric Chopin. -A876 (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answer on question concerning “Chopin’s Composition” (02:34, 27 April 2014 UTC):

- The Internet is not only one source of scientific information. Only 10-40% scientific publications, reports, articles, links, remarks, reference etc… you can easy find there.

- The Life is not so easy, not virtual…. You can not find all World on websites or on google, just only stay before your computer at home, grow up man!

According to what you said Chopin's Composition is fictional and has no ties to the composer and is most likely a vandal/troll edit so I deleted it 65.26.23.104 (talk) 22:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC) Also I have proof that 194.29.130.244's edits aren't entirely good https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mesh_networking&diff=prev&oldid=608201263 65.26.23.104 (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Gelatine

I believe Gelatine is Gelignite and should have a link there. The composition sounds about right, nitrocellulose dissolved into nitroglycerin and all other references to Gelatine I found outside of Wikipedia make it sound like an earlier form of Gelignite. 2605:6001:E384:8800:D40:11A6:33F6:C0B9 (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]