![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This article seems to match word for word an astronomy article on making rocket fuel that I read earlier. It might have been better to just create a link to http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/a/ac/acetone_peroxide.htm
On the other hand, perhaps that was plagiarised from this?
===> please note the disclaimer on absoluteastronomy.com that reads The source of this article is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The text of this article is licensed under the GFDL. V8rik 15:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
An estimated 40 Palestinian terrorists have been killed manufacturing or handling acetone peroxide. - this should be clarified a bit its not clear if this included just death by accident or if it includes people deliberately blowing themselves up with the stuff Plugwash 21:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
This discussion was originally held on Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. I am moving it here to consolidate the discussion.
I propose a change of policy that says that technical information about building bombings or linking to it are appropriate reasons for deletion. I want to delete the article about the explosive TATP. Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad wrote today (July 15, 2005) that the information on TATP available on the internet (especially mentioning Wikipedia) may have helped the 7 July 2005 London bombings. Andries 17:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I love the idea that police forces and terrorists depend upon Wikipedia for information on bomb-making... Should this be the core of a new question on the Wikipedia addiction test? Perhaps we should remove all information on racism, chemical warfare, and Pokemon — three evils swept from the world in the blink of an eye. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 22:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Actually I was being serious about Pokemon. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 14:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Further to the discussions above, I've posted this on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard ...
I would also add that, in my view, were we to list such details of how to create explosives then should someone decide to do so and later point to WP as the source of that information then we could be open to legal action. (I'm more thinking of some kid in a garage blowing up a house here rather than terrorists). -- Vamp: Willow 17:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
People can easily find how to make Acetone Peroxide and other explosives. Some of this knowledge is even taught at school at the chemistry classes. Preventing accidents by hiding the information is impossible because you can't remove it from everywhere. Because of that people should provide better, clean and correct articles. We shouldn't encourage bomb making. It's personnal decision with personnal responsibility. But providing the correct information can also save a life, as bombs are not always made with bad intentions. Evil-destructive sites should be distinguished from Informational sites. Moral and education are not the same thing, despite closely tied. If they were the same thing then the inventors should take the responsibility for the damage brought by their inventions, not the ones that used them or intended their use (think of the nuclear bomb). I think the place for the instructions is at Wikibooks and some professional chemist like mr/mrs Hanzeman should pay attention to it.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.112.108.182 ( talk) 12:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to re-add the link:
to the external links section. It's a well-written and accessible description of the synthesis, it contains appropriate warning about the hazards of making the chemical, and it's more informative than the other links we have in the article, IMHO. This is a synthesis that a sophomore organic chemistry student should be able to figure out, so it's not like we're reveling obscure esoteric knowledge (I remember doing several synthesis mechanism for explosives in my college organic clases, in fact). I can understand why some people might be concerned, but are we in the business of providing knowlege or of protecting people from knowledge? -- Seth Ilys 13:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
On the subject of palestinians killed while making the explosive, calling them either "terrorists" or "freedom fighters" is POV.
Hence just saying "Palestianians" which is the only factual description of the case is the only thing that would satisfy POV.
It is POV because it begs an edit war.
For example, many consider the actions of the Zionist Entity government to be terrorist, this is also POV.
As to Jayjg's boneheaded comment, that is only true if your POV is that all military actions are terorrism, and even then, it is POV!!! The point is not to discuss if Palestinians who engage in armed actions are terrorists or freedom fighters, but if describing them as either is POV. Which it is. And hence, if you want a POV neutral article, such qualifiers should be left out.
I fail to see why this article needs to talk about terrorism at all. A brief note on why this substance is occasionally used in improvised explosive devices but not in military bombs would seem to be fully sufficient and to the point. Any further POV discussion can then be redirected to the IED and terrorism pages, and will keep this one just a description of a chemical compound. Markus Kuhn 18:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Markus Kuhn, and are editing to reflect this.
I was somewhat embarrished after reading the article on TATP in the NRC last afternoon and I indeed saw a link to a evil-destructive looking site.
Since a couple of months I enjoyed this free encyclopedia as a true form of ENLIGHTMENT in the sense of Voltaire and Benjamin Franklin.
As an older chemical engineer of 60 years I appreciated the articles on sciences and on music very much. I enjoyed broadening my mind on Gamma functions as extension of the integer number faculty, listening to the Etudes Symfoniques of Robert Schumann , your clear transparant explanations on hydrodynamics, magnetism etc etc.
In fat I was a somewhat irritated with my quality newspaper nrc as they called this enlighted encyclopedia an anarchistic one, serving terrorists/ murderers of 55 innocent citizans on their way to work in London. Regretably I noticed that one link indeed looked destructive to menkind. The redaction of Wikipedia should be very carefully in selecting their links.
Links to evil-destructive sites (with respect to bomb-recipes) make this enlightening encyclopedia vulnerable for the counteractions of the establishment, petit bourgeoisy and commercial market players on scienific publications.
It evokes measures which might smother this encyclopedia as scource of enlightment. Then your reader is thrown back in the 'restauration', as the market economy prefers Al Bundy typs above Benjamin Franklin types !
Ergo: Please be carefull in selecting links w.r.t. tools / aids for terrorists.
--Hanzeman
83.116.53.99
16:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
May be you are wright, mr. Quill. The same journalist who earlier named wikipedia an 'anarchistic' encyclopia wrote a detailed article in the NRC describing timers for 'kitchen made'bombs, inclusive a detailed sketch. I better start calling the NRC an anarchistic newspaper.
This encyclopdia deserves a better name: enlightment university for positive foulks !
--Hanzeman
83.116.53.99
17:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
see Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#Wikipedia_should_not_help_terrorists_to_build_bombs. Andries 18:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I do not believe that the individual elements in chemical formulae should have links to their base articles. Both the steady state formula and the oxidation process would read more easily without the links and the use of links becomes repetitious and distracting. I have looked at other articles (eg hydrocarbons) and they do not use such links (I admit that others such as Oxidation do but they are difficult to read). I suggest removing them. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beechside ( talk • contribs) 09:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
In connection with the recently thwarted terror plot in England, one explosive to be used is identified as TATP. This article should be monitored carefully for the next few days.
69.251.242.167 05:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Who's the source, and is it biased media? Is it governement-sponsered POV? The addition is about a news still in progress-- The Brain 18:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Blogs are not reliable sources, and the sentence referring to conspiracy theorists is unhelpful, and POV. There are arguments against TATP as a credible explosive from sensible sources, and considering the reputation of newspapers on science coverage we should be quoting scientific journals, not broadsheet papers. We're an encyclopedia not a press compendium. Secretlondon 21:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The entry says, "Acetone peroxides are common and unwanted by-products of oxidate reactions." Should that be oxidative reactions? I don't know enough chemistry to be able to amend with complete confidence. Many thanks, Notreallydavid 08:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
These ground breaking results were usually not mentioned in American journals. . The finding were published in Chemische Berichte, a well-reputed peer-reviewed journal read everywhere in the word, including the Americas. Moreover, every method of synthesis of a chemical compound is automatically referenced in Chemical Abstracts. Science is international. I am going to remove this useless sentence. Andreas (T) 21:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Here is an orphan public domain image: Image:Acetone peroxide molecule.jpg -- Strangerer ( Talk) 23:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The instructions given in this article for acetone peroxide production are not very good and seem out of place. I looked at other Wikipedia articles on chemical substances, and none gave instructions as detailed as those given here for amateur production. Neither is it customary for print encyclopedias to give this sort of detailed how-to for preparing chemical substances. I would suggest replacing the instructions for production with references to chemistry literature containing such instructions, like the older edition of Chemical Demonstrations by Shakhashiri. But I am a newly registered user here so I would like to get some input rather than immediately making the modification. Should the instructions for home production be removed from this article, or should I begin adding how-to instructions to the other articles on explosives as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polverone ( talk • contribs) 07:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
You sick a scared mother fuckers. You would forbid and hide knowledge for sake of "safety" while weapon and bomb industry is booming. this compound can be used in pursue of energy alternatives. sick dumb freaked out idiots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.235.113 ( talk) 06:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The simple synthesis which VampWillow protested above can readily be found from the information in her complaint by one familiar with the User Contributions tab, and is apparently not illegal since it can still be accessed. I was surprised to hear all three chemicals from it named in Revolution (Law & Order: Criminal Intent). Not even broadcast TV is censoring this synthesis! Wnt ( talk) 03:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
A knowledgeable person could comment on dangers and safety, give some sort of warning label. Geo8rge ( talk) 03:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
If the sentence "It is highly susceptible to heat, friction, and shock." means it might be dangerous, I think the sentence should read "It is highly susceptible to exploding when exposed to to heat, friction, and shock." A Warning section might be in order. Geo8rge ( talk) 20:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, no, we don't know that yet. At this point, all that's known is that traces of chemicals related to TATP were detected on the handle of a plastic bag, when using "bomb sniffing" equiment at a security checkpoint. The bag is currently undergoing a more detailed analysis, something that might take a few more days.
For more on this, ee e.g. http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=147&a=771906 (in swedish)
(the contractors did work with insulation material, btw) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.236.219 ( talk) 21:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Analysis of the substances found showed that it was shaving cream. Can we remove this reference now? 217.31.178.94 ( talk) 03:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Confronted with an easy to make explosive compound, the choise presented to Wikipedia is simple. Do we engage in censorship, or do we stand by our principles of unrestricted access to information?
Let me say that when I was a young and reckless I made this stuff in fairly large quantities. I got the information from professional chemistry literature, not one of your run of the mill do it yourself guides. I was lucky to have stopped my activities before I hurt myself, but I've had close calls. Once 50grams of the compound was drying and denoted without reason (I had just walked away) blowing out all the front windows of our house.
So kids who want to make this are inherently curious by nature and its very sad if you kill that wonderful trait by denying it and throwing up obstacles. What you must do instead is provide accurate and professional information with [i]lot's[/i] of warnings. We musn't allow 'the terrorists' to play a role in this. If someone wants to wreak havoc they'll find a way. They too have chemists.
But above all, I propose to keep the information contained in this article professional, by removing the references to where to get the various compounds in household articles. This makes the article resemble too much as a cookbook and is the purpose to guide youngsters to how to make this step by step? If they really want to, let them find out on their own where to get acetone or hydrogen peroxide. 82.72.43.69 14:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes. It is perfectly legal in hair supply stores, or online--17 to 35%. Look around before you post. Besides, 3-6% works--it is just slower, takes much more of it and the acid. This may discourage trying it if it is so slow. And, the ingredients to TNT are available--beg them from your high school teacher, etc. TNT is just hard to make--three steps, lots of time. Besides, that is beside the point, as said. 68.231.189.108 ( talk) 18:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
You mean :"Oxidant". 68.231.189.108 ( talk) 02:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The first part of the article mentions because it "dissolves quickly". (??) It is insoluble in water. Please change to the solvent referred to--acetone, etc. Also, the trimer, at least, will Not go off under water; except maybe with a blasting cap. The sensitivity of A/P is grossly exaggerated here. The trimer takes a hammer blow to go off, and must be very dry. Making the trimer, properly, does not also produce the more sensitive Dimer and monomer. It can be done very safely. Why are there such inaccuracies in this heading? Are you covering your butts or something? Still, a chemical thesis should reflect the truth or it is inaccurate; and that is unprofessional and can be Dangerous. 68.231.189.108 ( talk) 15:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/05/washington.state.explosives/index.html
John D. Raymond, 53, apparently created about a half pound of TATP. He was apparently upset with how his divorce case was being handled. Police apparently removed the explosive from his apartment safely using a robot. No mention as to how police became aware of the situation. drh ( talk) 12:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
What do "Shock sensitivity 0.3NM" and "Friction sensitivity unknown, possibly as low as .1NM" mean? Firstly, the notation is not like that of any commonly known standard unit ( ISO 31, SI, etc.). Was that meant to be "Nm" (newton meters), for example? Even if, such a unit can be related to a "sensitivity" only via some conventional test, so a link to the standard specifying the test setup is clearly needed here. At present, these figures are utterly meaningless and should be removed unless someone can link to accurate information regarding the unit and test method. Markus Kuhn 11:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
The sensitivity of all of wikis explosives should be clarified and placed in units (such as how many pascals it takes to detonate) rather than just general values —Preceding unsigned comment added by Incredibleman007 ( talk • contribs) 16:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
23:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)PROFMAD23:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)~ AP is a fascinating compound. When I have a few milligrammes of a sample for research, watching it defalcate, particularly in slo-mo, gives you more than a 'gut feeling' that AP is easily combustible, sensitive, and highly dangerous. I don't like handling, but it does provide for fascinating photography, giving insight into its own, and other forms of deflagration. AP does deflagrate in a most fascinating way. One experiment used 5 g spread evenly over 0.5 metre, taking approximately 1/15 sec. to fully deflagrate, i.e 7.5ms-1 (A figure I have found in general). Its heat is very diffused, with what appear to be its gaseous products, deflagrating approximately 1/30th second later. This occurs around 60-75 cm above the point of evaporation. These 'gases' which also appear to occupy up to 1m-3 from 0.25g of material (as flame), their 'coolness' is due only that they are allowed free expansion (primarily, to prevent detonation).(If overpressure occurred from using larger samples, or confinement, the film results would never have been captured or this written). Also, the point where the material ignited is not the point of deflagration, and no scorching of wood takes place. The combustion lasts for about 1/10th. sec.(please forgive the 'about, appear, etc, as I am writing broadly, on different quantities). They are however, in the main, consistent. My photographic work is now completed (and though fascinating, relieved its over) . In summary, it is incredible watching how the material appears to spontaneously evaporate ahead of any flame, which comes 1/30th sec later. It is as if it vapourises, then its energy ignites its gaseous mass, into a roaring white flame, gone before the eye can really see. This is why I filmed at 1000fps. I'm an old hippy at heart, and cannot grasp why people want to use materials like AP to harm & mame people. I wish people just saw only the pure beauty of pyrotechnics (& explosives). The story of the Nobel Prize is a good start in understanding how scientists worked for peace, but their work exploited for destruction. The Alamogordo experiments conversely a race to secure the weapon of peace. I am no politician (fortunately), 23:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)PROFMAD23:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profmad ( talk • contribs)
Why does the first part of the article contradict itself?: "It is very sensitive to heat, shock, etc"; then it states:"affected by impurities"; then:"relatively stable when pure." Why is it so suddenly going from instable to stable? What do impurities have to do with it? Nitroglycerin is pretty stable if pure, also. So, What? The article should only mention its qualities in pure form, first; then, maybe, explain bad "reputations" are caused by impurities. You must be precise and scientific under a Chemical heading. 68.231.189.108 ( talk) 15:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC).
What is this c**p and how is it significant to an accurate chemical treatise? 68.231.189.108 ( talk) 17:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
More irrelevant B.S. I am Not correcting Anything, needing bold face; I am simply asking it be changed. Please only contribute something relevant to the discussion. 68.231.189.108 ( talk) 14:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Note that when discussing explosives, "sensitivity" and "stability" refer to different properties. "Sensitivity" refers to ease of initiation. "Stability" refers to how well the substance resists degradation over time due to heat, light, etc. 141.217.223.53 ( talk) 12:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
23:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)PROFMAD23:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)~ AP is a fascinating compound. Local nail polish remover has water & glycerin as components, too.Also, I use Conc..HCl if I make a small sample.It is only a 'gut feeling but this seems to produce as stable an AP, as one could wish for. I am not keen handling it, but it provides fascinating photographs, giving insight into its own, and other forms of deflafration. When I'm feeling 'in tune' I will use up to 5 grms spread evenly over 1 metre. It takes approximately 1/15 sec.to fully deflagrate, i.e 15ms-1. The Israeli's may want people to believe it to be an endothermic reaction, and whilst granted it is relatively cold compare ed to even BAP, an energy comes out from this level of material, which is adrenalising. I try never to detonate it, (a small portion of~25mg did after dec on a cooker top, with a deafening bang. Once you have ignited a small portion, you know instinctively this stuff is sensitive & dangerous. My photographic work is almost complete, which I will publish soon. It is fascinating how the material appears to evaporate ahead of any flame which comes much later. It is as if it vapourises, then its energy ignites its gaseous products, into a roaring white flame, and gone before the eye can really see. I'm an old hippy at heart and cannot grasp why people want to use materials like AP to destroy of mame lives. I wish more people just saw only the pure beauty of these compounds. 23:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)PROFMAD23:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profmad ( talk • contribs)
I see nothing notable in them. If not fixed soon I will remove. WP:RECENT, seems to be that.-- Cerejota ( talk) 23:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Done Had to wait a month, but thats that. :P--
Cerejota (
talk)
13:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Unless someone provides some WP:RS for dimethyldioxirane being the "monomer" of the title compound, I'm going to remove the content about it. The article here is about the chemical(s) called "Acetone peroxide", not all chemicals related to or derived from acetone that have a peroxide in them. The two refs about this chemical in the article do not support that it is on-topic here: doi:10.1021/ja01533a033, the 1959 ref in which the various components of the original preps are analyzed, only discusses an open-chain form, not the three-membered ring, and doi:10.1021/ac020392n, which is used to support that the monomer is especially unstable, doesn't appear mention the monomer at all. The title compound is described as a shock-sensitive solid, whereas DMDO is volatile (distilled during its synthesis) and its prep does not include any warnings about shock-sensitivity. DMacks ( talk) 19:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
The link to the how to make a bomb page that was linked from this article is still available in the previous versions of this page. I think that it would be good idea, in that it might save people from being killed and maimed, if the links were removed completely from this site. The information is otherwise fairly useless.-- 218.223.192.34 07:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion it is Wikipedia's duty to record knowledge and knowing how to make TATP isn't the cause of terrorism. I do think that the Wikipedia article should include a history of TATP's use in bomb making though. In my opinion highlighting the human tragedy caused by bombs will be a more effective deterrent to bomb making than the minor inconvenience of having to go to another website for TATP info. Would you rather a potential bomber get their TATP info from a website that appeals to them to use that knowledge humanely, or one that screams at them to kill as many people as possible? Here is a reference to some of TATP's bomb making history. 202.154.105.254 04:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Acetone peroxide is NOT as unstable as suggested here
To User 83.72.. : No it isn't. Try some before you simply re-quote something you found on Google. It Is true,yes; sublimates may get on bottle threads--anyone will keep this cool, anyway, and use it within two weeks. The Trimer takes a hammer blow--it is not like Nitrogen Iodide. You have the two mixed-up. 68.231.189.108 ( talk) 16:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
This article presents quantitative data on the rate of sublimation of TCAP but gives no experimental parameters such as the surface area, particle size, amount exposed, size of container, etc. that would be necessary for someone to gain any useful knowledge about the exact rate of sublimation. What does "in open air" mean? How large was the pile? What shape was the pile in? What was the density and average particle size of the pile? None of this information appears to be in the original reference which appears sketchy at best. It's as if some guy that's not very familiar with chemical lab work decided to somehow "publish" his own findings. Of course, though, that's just speculation.
All of this data adds no information that can't be summed up by simply stating "acetone peroxide sublimes relatively quickly at room temperature". I think all of the data should be deleted and the text replaced with a sentence similar to the one I suggested unless a sufficiently reliable source describing the other parameters of the experiment can be found. JohnnyTopQuark ( talk) 22:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I find the reference questionable: 1.) it is not the decomposition path seen in polymerization initiation reactions (well studied in the plastics industry), 2.) Ozone as a product seems forced as Ozone itself detonates with less energy input that TATP. "Angular strain"? Six member ring is 120 degrees. Picture isn't clear either. repulsion of lone pairs in Hydrogen Peroxide and Hydrazine forces molecules to be non-planar. Shjacks45 ( talk) 13:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Isn't acetone peroxide the wrong name, as acetone already is the oxide? It should be 2,2-acetonediyl peroxide, 2-oxyacetone, acetanedione, or acetone oxide. (I'v another rant when it comes to aromatics.) -lysdexia 16:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Acetone is not an oxide but rather a ketone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.18 ( talk) 23:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I really hope the accompanying picture is of some other substance that looks somewhat like TATP. That is a big pile of it to have around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.185.18.207 ( talk) 22:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Acetone peroxide. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I am a chemist an dusing peer-reviewed scientific journals especially in chemistry is both a primary and secondary source. The authors of the papers are the primary sources, and reviewers/editors are secondary sources. Requiring redundant citations is not only unwarranted, but it would require almost every single chemistry article on wikipedia to be introduced with disclaimers. If a general reader has an issue with a primary source and by issue I mean a specific counter claim to evidence presented, then I can understand requiring secondary sources. If JACS is considered unreliable to the point of requiring more sources to support a claim, then it is not a matter of being careful, but hubris. Everysingle entry on physical data, ie M.P. B.P. molecular weight etc, is going to require multiple sources.
I suggest that for chemistry, all disclaimers asking for more sources, or unreliable sources, be removed unless the primary source has been consulted, and a specific claim being made is disputed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eframgoldberg ( talk • contribs) 01:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The text says that there is significant angle strain of the chemical bonds in the dimer of acetone peroxide, which makes it even more unstable than the trimer. Yet, at first sight, this dimer has a six-membered ring, and all of the six atoms of the ring should be sp3 hybrids. So, just as regards these geometric aspects, this ring should not exhibit high angle strain, and the causes of the instability of the dimer should be other. But it is quite likely that there are some aspect of this topic I am not able to grasp. Ekisbares ( talk) 18:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
The article talks about one set of forms, based on the citations it presents, the Chembox seemingly presents an overlapping but distinct set. For instance, the Chembox IUPAC name for the monomer is for DMDO, which is not discussed in the article. However, Milas and the text discuss the acyclic dihydro form of the monomer. (The Milas citation shows the cyclic trimer, and acyclic monomer and dimer.) Whether these 1959 structure assignments have stood the test of time is unclear, because only the primary sources are cited. Bottom line, there is a clear discrepancy and confusion between forms presented in Chembox versus the text (and current sources).
Moreover, with 6 or more potential compounds covered by the article (1-2 monomers, 2 dimers, a trimer and a tetramer, at least), the appearance of single values for some fields in the Chembox makes no sense at all. Perhaps the Chembox should be for the cyclic trimer, and all other information removed. In any case, you cannot have one value in a field, without indicating which form it applies to, and you cannot use "dimer" without cyclic or acyclic modifiers, as both forms are known, etc. Up to you Chembox-interested guys to sort this. I am uninvolved in this kind of editing. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 16:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Someone requested that this article incorporate more tertiary sources on peroxides of acetone.
There is a problem: All of the tertiary sources that I've consulted say the same thing: peroxides in general (including peroxides of acetone) are so unstable that they're avoided in both military and civilian use. They are, therefore, basically just academic curiosities, and of little academic interest at that. Textbooks and reviews usually mention them only briefly for the sake of completeness, but so far, I've found no detailed treatments. (Even a monograph on organic peroxides mentioned explosive peroxides only briefly, as did Urbanski's multi-volume work on explosives.) Perhaps that will change after the recent use of peroxides of acetone by terrorists in their attacks — I have noticed a sudden increase in academic articles on how to detect explosive peroxides — but scholarly monographs, reviews, etc., may still not be published for a while. Meanwhile, Wikipedia administrators may have to be satisfied with what's already in this article. Nevertheless, I will continue to search for more tertiary sources. VexorAbVikipædia ( talk) 17:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
@
MSGJ: {{
Multiple issues 2}} was replaced with {{
Multiple issues}}
diff with the comment this template is buggy
. What exactly is buggy about {{
Multiple issues 2}}? Are you referring to
in the {{
Multiple issues/sandbox}}? As far as I can tell, both the before and after version produce a functioning talk page section link.
Boghog (
talk)
18:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
What's completely backwards is how multiple editors agree that {{Multiple issues}}
should be used in place of {{Multiple issues 2}}
(or any other experimental variant of agreed templating) on this article, and yet with every discussion and every edit to resolve the situation, just one "stubborn" (their word) editor repeatedly reverts to only their preferred condition. This ridiculous state of affairs continues even after
Slakr (admin) called the behaviour "edit warring"
at the as yet unresolved case before Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.
fredgandt
19:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
The following comment by Leprof 7272 that was included in an attention banner that because of its length, is better placed here:
This topic is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. The section or sections that need attention may be noted in a message below. |
References
I think the main issues people are having is that the page title is acetone peroxide which is technically a monomer. When most people refer to acetone peroxide, they refer to triacetoneperoxide, TATP. I think therefore the title of the page should be changed to reflect TATP and perhaps a landing page be made for acetone peroxides if someone wants to make a separate page for the monomer, dimer, trimer, cyclic, acyclic etc. Personally, I do not think that is necessary, I think just changing the page title to Triacetonetriperoxide and the chemdraw to the cyclic trimer is enough. The details given about the other forms can stay.
For example, the sodium salt of glycinate, the hydrochloride salt of glycine, glycine, the potassium salt of glycinate, all have their own CAS numbers, and different properties. Making a wikipedia page for each one is redundant and not necessary. The same should apply here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eframgoldberg ( talk • contribs) 01:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The statement "the products formed by disintegration and recombination of its molecular components (in case of TATP, three molecules of acetone and two molecules of ozone)" can't be correct because there are only 3 oxygen atoms left over, so they'll form just 1 molecule of ozone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.217.180 ( talk) 11:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
More likely it should be 3 H202 + 3 C3H60 -> C9H18O6 + 3 H20
if I remember my organic chemistry, the acid acts as a "catalyst" by absorbing the water and thus you should concentrated sulfuric acid.
Anyone trying this reaction is crazy. It is totally unstable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.54.157 ( talk) 19:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
On 23 March 2016 at 14:35 someone using the user name "Leprof 7272" posted the following comment in the "History" section: "What is "Acetone peroxide" in paragraph 1? Paragraph 2 describes dimer; is paragraph 1 about first synthesis of the trimer, other? This is the problem with WP:OR by editors. If this is discussed in modern review (Secondary source), the actual form of the 19th century preparation is likely presented, or at least posited. THat must appear here, with the citation."
As requested, I posted "the 19th century preparation[s]" as well as secondary sources that state that Wolffenstein prepared the trimer form of acetone peroxide and that Baeyer and Villiger prepared both the dimer and trimer forms of acetone peroxide. However, I don't think that Wikipedia should post recipes for explosives, particularly for explosives that terrorists have used repeatedly, as this article itself states repeatedly. Furthermore, there is also a danger of the general public using these recipes to make and use acetone peroxide. (On YouTube, people have posted videos of themselves doing precisely that.) Therefore I will rewrite the recipes to make them more vague and therefore less useful. VexorAbVikipædia ( talk) 18:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This article seems to match word for word an astronomy article on making rocket fuel that I read earlier. It might have been better to just create a link to http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/a/ac/acetone_peroxide.htm
On the other hand, perhaps that was plagiarised from this?
===> please note the disclaimer on absoluteastronomy.com that reads The source of this article is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The text of this article is licensed under the GFDL. V8rik 15:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
An estimated 40 Palestinian terrorists have been killed manufacturing or handling acetone peroxide. - this should be clarified a bit its not clear if this included just death by accident or if it includes people deliberately blowing themselves up with the stuff Plugwash 21:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
This discussion was originally held on Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. I am moving it here to consolidate the discussion.
I propose a change of policy that says that technical information about building bombings or linking to it are appropriate reasons for deletion. I want to delete the article about the explosive TATP. Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad wrote today (July 15, 2005) that the information on TATP available on the internet (especially mentioning Wikipedia) may have helped the 7 July 2005 London bombings. Andries 17:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I love the idea that police forces and terrorists depend upon Wikipedia for information on bomb-making... Should this be the core of a new question on the Wikipedia addiction test? Perhaps we should remove all information on racism, chemical warfare, and Pokemon — three evils swept from the world in the blink of an eye. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 22:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Actually I was being serious about Pokemon. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 14:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Further to the discussions above, I've posted this on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard ...
I would also add that, in my view, were we to list such details of how to create explosives then should someone decide to do so and later point to WP as the source of that information then we could be open to legal action. (I'm more thinking of some kid in a garage blowing up a house here rather than terrorists). -- Vamp: Willow 17:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
People can easily find how to make Acetone Peroxide and other explosives. Some of this knowledge is even taught at school at the chemistry classes. Preventing accidents by hiding the information is impossible because you can't remove it from everywhere. Because of that people should provide better, clean and correct articles. We shouldn't encourage bomb making. It's personnal decision with personnal responsibility. But providing the correct information can also save a life, as bombs are not always made with bad intentions. Evil-destructive sites should be distinguished from Informational sites. Moral and education are not the same thing, despite closely tied. If they were the same thing then the inventors should take the responsibility for the damage brought by their inventions, not the ones that used them or intended their use (think of the nuclear bomb). I think the place for the instructions is at Wikibooks and some professional chemist like mr/mrs Hanzeman should pay attention to it.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.112.108.182 ( talk) 12:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to re-add the link:
to the external links section. It's a well-written and accessible description of the synthesis, it contains appropriate warning about the hazards of making the chemical, and it's more informative than the other links we have in the article, IMHO. This is a synthesis that a sophomore organic chemistry student should be able to figure out, so it's not like we're reveling obscure esoteric knowledge (I remember doing several synthesis mechanism for explosives in my college organic clases, in fact). I can understand why some people might be concerned, but are we in the business of providing knowlege or of protecting people from knowledge? -- Seth Ilys 13:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
On the subject of palestinians killed while making the explosive, calling them either "terrorists" or "freedom fighters" is POV.
Hence just saying "Palestianians" which is the only factual description of the case is the only thing that would satisfy POV.
It is POV because it begs an edit war.
For example, many consider the actions of the Zionist Entity government to be terrorist, this is also POV.
As to Jayjg's boneheaded comment, that is only true if your POV is that all military actions are terorrism, and even then, it is POV!!! The point is not to discuss if Palestinians who engage in armed actions are terrorists or freedom fighters, but if describing them as either is POV. Which it is. And hence, if you want a POV neutral article, such qualifiers should be left out.
I fail to see why this article needs to talk about terrorism at all. A brief note on why this substance is occasionally used in improvised explosive devices but not in military bombs would seem to be fully sufficient and to the point. Any further POV discussion can then be redirected to the IED and terrorism pages, and will keep this one just a description of a chemical compound. Markus Kuhn 18:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Markus Kuhn, and are editing to reflect this.
I was somewhat embarrished after reading the article on TATP in the NRC last afternoon and I indeed saw a link to a evil-destructive looking site.
Since a couple of months I enjoyed this free encyclopedia as a true form of ENLIGHTMENT in the sense of Voltaire and Benjamin Franklin.
As an older chemical engineer of 60 years I appreciated the articles on sciences and on music very much. I enjoyed broadening my mind on Gamma functions as extension of the integer number faculty, listening to the Etudes Symfoniques of Robert Schumann , your clear transparant explanations on hydrodynamics, magnetism etc etc.
In fat I was a somewhat irritated with my quality newspaper nrc as they called this enlighted encyclopedia an anarchistic one, serving terrorists/ murderers of 55 innocent citizans on their way to work in London. Regretably I noticed that one link indeed looked destructive to menkind. The redaction of Wikipedia should be very carefully in selecting their links.
Links to evil-destructive sites (with respect to bomb-recipes) make this enlightening encyclopedia vulnerable for the counteractions of the establishment, petit bourgeoisy and commercial market players on scienific publications.
It evokes measures which might smother this encyclopedia as scource of enlightment. Then your reader is thrown back in the 'restauration', as the market economy prefers Al Bundy typs above Benjamin Franklin types !
Ergo: Please be carefull in selecting links w.r.t. tools / aids for terrorists.
--Hanzeman
83.116.53.99
16:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
May be you are wright, mr. Quill. The same journalist who earlier named wikipedia an 'anarchistic' encyclopia wrote a detailed article in the NRC describing timers for 'kitchen made'bombs, inclusive a detailed sketch. I better start calling the NRC an anarchistic newspaper.
This encyclopdia deserves a better name: enlightment university for positive foulks !
--Hanzeman
83.116.53.99
17:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
see Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#Wikipedia_should_not_help_terrorists_to_build_bombs. Andries 18:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I do not believe that the individual elements in chemical formulae should have links to their base articles. Both the steady state formula and the oxidation process would read more easily without the links and the use of links becomes repetitious and distracting. I have looked at other articles (eg hydrocarbons) and they do not use such links (I admit that others such as Oxidation do but they are difficult to read). I suggest removing them. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beechside ( talk • contribs) 09:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
In connection with the recently thwarted terror plot in England, one explosive to be used is identified as TATP. This article should be monitored carefully for the next few days.
69.251.242.167 05:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Who's the source, and is it biased media? Is it governement-sponsered POV? The addition is about a news still in progress-- The Brain 18:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Blogs are not reliable sources, and the sentence referring to conspiracy theorists is unhelpful, and POV. There are arguments against TATP as a credible explosive from sensible sources, and considering the reputation of newspapers on science coverage we should be quoting scientific journals, not broadsheet papers. We're an encyclopedia not a press compendium. Secretlondon 21:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The entry says, "Acetone peroxides are common and unwanted by-products of oxidate reactions." Should that be oxidative reactions? I don't know enough chemistry to be able to amend with complete confidence. Many thanks, Notreallydavid 08:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
These ground breaking results were usually not mentioned in American journals. . The finding were published in Chemische Berichte, a well-reputed peer-reviewed journal read everywhere in the word, including the Americas. Moreover, every method of synthesis of a chemical compound is automatically referenced in Chemical Abstracts. Science is international. I am going to remove this useless sentence. Andreas (T) 21:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Here is an orphan public domain image: Image:Acetone peroxide molecule.jpg -- Strangerer ( Talk) 23:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The instructions given in this article for acetone peroxide production are not very good and seem out of place. I looked at other Wikipedia articles on chemical substances, and none gave instructions as detailed as those given here for amateur production. Neither is it customary for print encyclopedias to give this sort of detailed how-to for preparing chemical substances. I would suggest replacing the instructions for production with references to chemistry literature containing such instructions, like the older edition of Chemical Demonstrations by Shakhashiri. But I am a newly registered user here so I would like to get some input rather than immediately making the modification. Should the instructions for home production be removed from this article, or should I begin adding how-to instructions to the other articles on explosives as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polverone ( talk • contribs) 07:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
You sick a scared mother fuckers. You would forbid and hide knowledge for sake of "safety" while weapon and bomb industry is booming. this compound can be used in pursue of energy alternatives. sick dumb freaked out idiots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.235.113 ( talk) 06:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The simple synthesis which VampWillow protested above can readily be found from the information in her complaint by one familiar with the User Contributions tab, and is apparently not illegal since it can still be accessed. I was surprised to hear all three chemicals from it named in Revolution (Law & Order: Criminal Intent). Not even broadcast TV is censoring this synthesis! Wnt ( talk) 03:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
A knowledgeable person could comment on dangers and safety, give some sort of warning label. Geo8rge ( talk) 03:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
If the sentence "It is highly susceptible to heat, friction, and shock." means it might be dangerous, I think the sentence should read "It is highly susceptible to exploding when exposed to to heat, friction, and shock." A Warning section might be in order. Geo8rge ( talk) 20:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, no, we don't know that yet. At this point, all that's known is that traces of chemicals related to TATP were detected on the handle of a plastic bag, when using "bomb sniffing" equiment at a security checkpoint. The bag is currently undergoing a more detailed analysis, something that might take a few more days.
For more on this, ee e.g. http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=147&a=771906 (in swedish)
(the contractors did work with insulation material, btw) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.236.219 ( talk) 21:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Analysis of the substances found showed that it was shaving cream. Can we remove this reference now? 217.31.178.94 ( talk) 03:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Confronted with an easy to make explosive compound, the choise presented to Wikipedia is simple. Do we engage in censorship, or do we stand by our principles of unrestricted access to information?
Let me say that when I was a young and reckless I made this stuff in fairly large quantities. I got the information from professional chemistry literature, not one of your run of the mill do it yourself guides. I was lucky to have stopped my activities before I hurt myself, but I've had close calls. Once 50grams of the compound was drying and denoted without reason (I had just walked away) blowing out all the front windows of our house.
So kids who want to make this are inherently curious by nature and its very sad if you kill that wonderful trait by denying it and throwing up obstacles. What you must do instead is provide accurate and professional information with [i]lot's[/i] of warnings. We musn't allow 'the terrorists' to play a role in this. If someone wants to wreak havoc they'll find a way. They too have chemists.
But above all, I propose to keep the information contained in this article professional, by removing the references to where to get the various compounds in household articles. This makes the article resemble too much as a cookbook and is the purpose to guide youngsters to how to make this step by step? If they really want to, let them find out on their own where to get acetone or hydrogen peroxide. 82.72.43.69 14:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes. It is perfectly legal in hair supply stores, or online--17 to 35%. Look around before you post. Besides, 3-6% works--it is just slower, takes much more of it and the acid. This may discourage trying it if it is so slow. And, the ingredients to TNT are available--beg them from your high school teacher, etc. TNT is just hard to make--three steps, lots of time. Besides, that is beside the point, as said. 68.231.189.108 ( talk) 18:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
You mean :"Oxidant". 68.231.189.108 ( talk) 02:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The first part of the article mentions because it "dissolves quickly". (??) It is insoluble in water. Please change to the solvent referred to--acetone, etc. Also, the trimer, at least, will Not go off under water; except maybe with a blasting cap. The sensitivity of A/P is grossly exaggerated here. The trimer takes a hammer blow to go off, and must be very dry. Making the trimer, properly, does not also produce the more sensitive Dimer and monomer. It can be done very safely. Why are there such inaccuracies in this heading? Are you covering your butts or something? Still, a chemical thesis should reflect the truth or it is inaccurate; and that is unprofessional and can be Dangerous. 68.231.189.108 ( talk) 15:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/05/washington.state.explosives/index.html
John D. Raymond, 53, apparently created about a half pound of TATP. He was apparently upset with how his divorce case was being handled. Police apparently removed the explosive from his apartment safely using a robot. No mention as to how police became aware of the situation. drh ( talk) 12:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
What do "Shock sensitivity 0.3NM" and "Friction sensitivity unknown, possibly as low as .1NM" mean? Firstly, the notation is not like that of any commonly known standard unit ( ISO 31, SI, etc.). Was that meant to be "Nm" (newton meters), for example? Even if, such a unit can be related to a "sensitivity" only via some conventional test, so a link to the standard specifying the test setup is clearly needed here. At present, these figures are utterly meaningless and should be removed unless someone can link to accurate information regarding the unit and test method. Markus Kuhn 11:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
The sensitivity of all of wikis explosives should be clarified and placed in units (such as how many pascals it takes to detonate) rather than just general values —Preceding unsigned comment added by Incredibleman007 ( talk • contribs) 16:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
23:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)PROFMAD23:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)~ AP is a fascinating compound. When I have a few milligrammes of a sample for research, watching it defalcate, particularly in slo-mo, gives you more than a 'gut feeling' that AP is easily combustible, sensitive, and highly dangerous. I don't like handling, but it does provide for fascinating photography, giving insight into its own, and other forms of deflagration. AP does deflagrate in a most fascinating way. One experiment used 5 g spread evenly over 0.5 metre, taking approximately 1/15 sec. to fully deflagrate, i.e 7.5ms-1 (A figure I have found in general). Its heat is very diffused, with what appear to be its gaseous products, deflagrating approximately 1/30th second later. This occurs around 60-75 cm above the point of evaporation. These 'gases' which also appear to occupy up to 1m-3 from 0.25g of material (as flame), their 'coolness' is due only that they are allowed free expansion (primarily, to prevent detonation).(If overpressure occurred from using larger samples, or confinement, the film results would never have been captured or this written). Also, the point where the material ignited is not the point of deflagration, and no scorching of wood takes place. The combustion lasts for about 1/10th. sec.(please forgive the 'about, appear, etc, as I am writing broadly, on different quantities). They are however, in the main, consistent. My photographic work is now completed (and though fascinating, relieved its over) . In summary, it is incredible watching how the material appears to spontaneously evaporate ahead of any flame, which comes 1/30th sec later. It is as if it vapourises, then its energy ignites its gaseous mass, into a roaring white flame, gone before the eye can really see. This is why I filmed at 1000fps. I'm an old hippy at heart, and cannot grasp why people want to use materials like AP to harm & mame people. I wish people just saw only the pure beauty of pyrotechnics (& explosives). The story of the Nobel Prize is a good start in understanding how scientists worked for peace, but their work exploited for destruction. The Alamogordo experiments conversely a race to secure the weapon of peace. I am no politician (fortunately), 23:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)PROFMAD23:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profmad ( talk • contribs)
Why does the first part of the article contradict itself?: "It is very sensitive to heat, shock, etc"; then it states:"affected by impurities"; then:"relatively stable when pure." Why is it so suddenly going from instable to stable? What do impurities have to do with it? Nitroglycerin is pretty stable if pure, also. So, What? The article should only mention its qualities in pure form, first; then, maybe, explain bad "reputations" are caused by impurities. You must be precise and scientific under a Chemical heading. 68.231.189.108 ( talk) 15:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC).
What is this c**p and how is it significant to an accurate chemical treatise? 68.231.189.108 ( talk) 17:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
More irrelevant B.S. I am Not correcting Anything, needing bold face; I am simply asking it be changed. Please only contribute something relevant to the discussion. 68.231.189.108 ( talk) 14:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Note that when discussing explosives, "sensitivity" and "stability" refer to different properties. "Sensitivity" refers to ease of initiation. "Stability" refers to how well the substance resists degradation over time due to heat, light, etc. 141.217.223.53 ( talk) 12:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
23:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)PROFMAD23:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)~ AP is a fascinating compound. Local nail polish remover has water & glycerin as components, too.Also, I use Conc..HCl if I make a small sample.It is only a 'gut feeling but this seems to produce as stable an AP, as one could wish for. I am not keen handling it, but it provides fascinating photographs, giving insight into its own, and other forms of deflafration. When I'm feeling 'in tune' I will use up to 5 grms spread evenly over 1 metre. It takes approximately 1/15 sec.to fully deflagrate, i.e 15ms-1. The Israeli's may want people to believe it to be an endothermic reaction, and whilst granted it is relatively cold compare ed to even BAP, an energy comes out from this level of material, which is adrenalising. I try never to detonate it, (a small portion of~25mg did after dec on a cooker top, with a deafening bang. Once you have ignited a small portion, you know instinctively this stuff is sensitive & dangerous. My photographic work is almost complete, which I will publish soon. It is fascinating how the material appears to evaporate ahead of any flame which comes much later. It is as if it vapourises, then its energy ignites its gaseous products, into a roaring white flame, and gone before the eye can really see. I'm an old hippy at heart and cannot grasp why people want to use materials like AP to destroy of mame lives. I wish more people just saw only the pure beauty of these compounds. 23:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)PROFMAD23:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profmad ( talk • contribs)
I see nothing notable in them. If not fixed soon I will remove. WP:RECENT, seems to be that.-- Cerejota ( talk) 23:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Done Had to wait a month, but thats that. :P--
Cerejota (
talk)
13:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Unless someone provides some WP:RS for dimethyldioxirane being the "monomer" of the title compound, I'm going to remove the content about it. The article here is about the chemical(s) called "Acetone peroxide", not all chemicals related to or derived from acetone that have a peroxide in them. The two refs about this chemical in the article do not support that it is on-topic here: doi:10.1021/ja01533a033, the 1959 ref in which the various components of the original preps are analyzed, only discusses an open-chain form, not the three-membered ring, and doi:10.1021/ac020392n, which is used to support that the monomer is especially unstable, doesn't appear mention the monomer at all. The title compound is described as a shock-sensitive solid, whereas DMDO is volatile (distilled during its synthesis) and its prep does not include any warnings about shock-sensitivity. DMacks ( talk) 19:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
The link to the how to make a bomb page that was linked from this article is still available in the previous versions of this page. I think that it would be good idea, in that it might save people from being killed and maimed, if the links were removed completely from this site. The information is otherwise fairly useless.-- 218.223.192.34 07:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion it is Wikipedia's duty to record knowledge and knowing how to make TATP isn't the cause of terrorism. I do think that the Wikipedia article should include a history of TATP's use in bomb making though. In my opinion highlighting the human tragedy caused by bombs will be a more effective deterrent to bomb making than the minor inconvenience of having to go to another website for TATP info. Would you rather a potential bomber get their TATP info from a website that appeals to them to use that knowledge humanely, or one that screams at them to kill as many people as possible? Here is a reference to some of TATP's bomb making history. 202.154.105.254 04:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Acetone peroxide is NOT as unstable as suggested here
To User 83.72.. : No it isn't. Try some before you simply re-quote something you found on Google. It Is true,yes; sublimates may get on bottle threads--anyone will keep this cool, anyway, and use it within two weeks. The Trimer takes a hammer blow--it is not like Nitrogen Iodide. You have the two mixed-up. 68.231.189.108 ( talk) 16:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
This article presents quantitative data on the rate of sublimation of TCAP but gives no experimental parameters such as the surface area, particle size, amount exposed, size of container, etc. that would be necessary for someone to gain any useful knowledge about the exact rate of sublimation. What does "in open air" mean? How large was the pile? What shape was the pile in? What was the density and average particle size of the pile? None of this information appears to be in the original reference which appears sketchy at best. It's as if some guy that's not very familiar with chemical lab work decided to somehow "publish" his own findings. Of course, though, that's just speculation.
All of this data adds no information that can't be summed up by simply stating "acetone peroxide sublimes relatively quickly at room temperature". I think all of the data should be deleted and the text replaced with a sentence similar to the one I suggested unless a sufficiently reliable source describing the other parameters of the experiment can be found. JohnnyTopQuark ( talk) 22:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I find the reference questionable: 1.) it is not the decomposition path seen in polymerization initiation reactions (well studied in the plastics industry), 2.) Ozone as a product seems forced as Ozone itself detonates with less energy input that TATP. "Angular strain"? Six member ring is 120 degrees. Picture isn't clear either. repulsion of lone pairs in Hydrogen Peroxide and Hydrazine forces molecules to be non-planar. Shjacks45 ( talk) 13:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Isn't acetone peroxide the wrong name, as acetone already is the oxide? It should be 2,2-acetonediyl peroxide, 2-oxyacetone, acetanedione, or acetone oxide. (I'v another rant when it comes to aromatics.) -lysdexia 16:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Acetone is not an oxide but rather a ketone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.18 ( talk) 23:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I really hope the accompanying picture is of some other substance that looks somewhat like TATP. That is a big pile of it to have around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.185.18.207 ( talk) 22:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Acetone peroxide. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I am a chemist an dusing peer-reviewed scientific journals especially in chemistry is both a primary and secondary source. The authors of the papers are the primary sources, and reviewers/editors are secondary sources. Requiring redundant citations is not only unwarranted, but it would require almost every single chemistry article on wikipedia to be introduced with disclaimers. If a general reader has an issue with a primary source and by issue I mean a specific counter claim to evidence presented, then I can understand requiring secondary sources. If JACS is considered unreliable to the point of requiring more sources to support a claim, then it is not a matter of being careful, but hubris. Everysingle entry on physical data, ie M.P. B.P. molecular weight etc, is going to require multiple sources.
I suggest that for chemistry, all disclaimers asking for more sources, or unreliable sources, be removed unless the primary source has been consulted, and a specific claim being made is disputed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eframgoldberg ( talk • contribs) 01:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The text says that there is significant angle strain of the chemical bonds in the dimer of acetone peroxide, which makes it even more unstable than the trimer. Yet, at first sight, this dimer has a six-membered ring, and all of the six atoms of the ring should be sp3 hybrids. So, just as regards these geometric aspects, this ring should not exhibit high angle strain, and the causes of the instability of the dimer should be other. But it is quite likely that there are some aspect of this topic I am not able to grasp. Ekisbares ( talk) 18:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
The article talks about one set of forms, based on the citations it presents, the Chembox seemingly presents an overlapping but distinct set. For instance, the Chembox IUPAC name for the monomer is for DMDO, which is not discussed in the article. However, Milas and the text discuss the acyclic dihydro form of the monomer. (The Milas citation shows the cyclic trimer, and acyclic monomer and dimer.) Whether these 1959 structure assignments have stood the test of time is unclear, because only the primary sources are cited. Bottom line, there is a clear discrepancy and confusion between forms presented in Chembox versus the text (and current sources).
Moreover, with 6 or more potential compounds covered by the article (1-2 monomers, 2 dimers, a trimer and a tetramer, at least), the appearance of single values for some fields in the Chembox makes no sense at all. Perhaps the Chembox should be for the cyclic trimer, and all other information removed. In any case, you cannot have one value in a field, without indicating which form it applies to, and you cannot use "dimer" without cyclic or acyclic modifiers, as both forms are known, etc. Up to you Chembox-interested guys to sort this. I am uninvolved in this kind of editing. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 16:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Someone requested that this article incorporate more tertiary sources on peroxides of acetone.
There is a problem: All of the tertiary sources that I've consulted say the same thing: peroxides in general (including peroxides of acetone) are so unstable that they're avoided in both military and civilian use. They are, therefore, basically just academic curiosities, and of little academic interest at that. Textbooks and reviews usually mention them only briefly for the sake of completeness, but so far, I've found no detailed treatments. (Even a monograph on organic peroxides mentioned explosive peroxides only briefly, as did Urbanski's multi-volume work on explosives.) Perhaps that will change after the recent use of peroxides of acetone by terrorists in their attacks — I have noticed a sudden increase in academic articles on how to detect explosive peroxides — but scholarly monographs, reviews, etc., may still not be published for a while. Meanwhile, Wikipedia administrators may have to be satisfied with what's already in this article. Nevertheless, I will continue to search for more tertiary sources. VexorAbVikipædia ( talk) 17:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
@
MSGJ: {{
Multiple issues 2}} was replaced with {{
Multiple issues}}
diff with the comment this template is buggy
. What exactly is buggy about {{
Multiple issues 2}}? Are you referring to
in the {{
Multiple issues/sandbox}}? As far as I can tell, both the before and after version produce a functioning talk page section link.
Boghog (
talk)
18:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
What's completely backwards is how multiple editors agree that {{Multiple issues}}
should be used in place of {{Multiple issues 2}}
(or any other experimental variant of agreed templating) on this article, and yet with every discussion and every edit to resolve the situation, just one "stubborn" (their word) editor repeatedly reverts to only their preferred condition. This ridiculous state of affairs continues even after
Slakr (admin) called the behaviour "edit warring"
at the as yet unresolved case before Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.
fredgandt
19:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
The following comment by Leprof 7272 that was included in an attention banner that because of its length, is better placed here:
This topic is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. The section or sections that need attention may be noted in a message below. |
References
I think the main issues people are having is that the page title is acetone peroxide which is technically a monomer. When most people refer to acetone peroxide, they refer to triacetoneperoxide, TATP. I think therefore the title of the page should be changed to reflect TATP and perhaps a landing page be made for acetone peroxides if someone wants to make a separate page for the monomer, dimer, trimer, cyclic, acyclic etc. Personally, I do not think that is necessary, I think just changing the page title to Triacetonetriperoxide and the chemdraw to the cyclic trimer is enough. The details given about the other forms can stay.
For example, the sodium salt of glycinate, the hydrochloride salt of glycine, glycine, the potassium salt of glycinate, all have their own CAS numbers, and different properties. Making a wikipedia page for each one is redundant and not necessary. The same should apply here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eframgoldberg ( talk • contribs) 01:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The statement "the products formed by disintegration and recombination of its molecular components (in case of TATP, three molecules of acetone and two molecules of ozone)" can't be correct because there are only 3 oxygen atoms left over, so they'll form just 1 molecule of ozone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.217.180 ( talk) 11:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
More likely it should be 3 H202 + 3 C3H60 -> C9H18O6 + 3 H20
if I remember my organic chemistry, the acid acts as a "catalyst" by absorbing the water and thus you should concentrated sulfuric acid.
Anyone trying this reaction is crazy. It is totally unstable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.54.157 ( talk) 19:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
On 23 March 2016 at 14:35 someone using the user name "Leprof 7272" posted the following comment in the "History" section: "What is "Acetone peroxide" in paragraph 1? Paragraph 2 describes dimer; is paragraph 1 about first synthesis of the trimer, other? This is the problem with WP:OR by editors. If this is discussed in modern review (Secondary source), the actual form of the 19th century preparation is likely presented, or at least posited. THat must appear here, with the citation."
As requested, I posted "the 19th century preparation[s]" as well as secondary sources that state that Wolffenstein prepared the trimer form of acetone peroxide and that Baeyer and Villiger prepared both the dimer and trimer forms of acetone peroxide. However, I don't think that Wikipedia should post recipes for explosives, particularly for explosives that terrorists have used repeatedly, as this article itself states repeatedly. Furthermore, there is also a danger of the general public using these recipes to make and use acetone peroxide. (On YouTube, people have posted videos of themselves doing precisely that.) Therefore I will rewrite the recipes to make them more vague and therefore less useful. VexorAbVikipædia ( talk) 18:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)