This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It'll please some people to know, that this article was recently featured in a tv show "sleeper cell". PoorLeno 11:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The English and the German articles contratict each other.
In the English Article, it says: "At room temperature, it is a very stable product. It burns rather than explodes and only detonates with a detonator, being unaffected even by small arms fire. It is less sensitive than pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN)."
The German article, however, states that "Pure, dry hexogen is highly explosive and should therefore be stored in cool, damp places or even submerged. Very dry hexogen can be ignited by temperatures as low as 30°C or even by touching it softly."
Also, the velocity of detonation is given as 8,750 meters per second in the English article and as 8,500 meters per second in the German one.
What does brisant mean?
What exactly does "100% Nitric Acid" mean? Is it supposed to be 1.0 molar or just pure substance?
I suspect it is an error, but by the common language rules 100% without modifiers means pure, or with 0% contnent of other agents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SouzieQ ( talk • contribs).
A: HNO3 forms an azeotrope with water at 68% (16N), but it can be redistilled under different conditions to hit close to 100%. On the Nitric acid page, this is called "White Fuming Nitric Acid." I'll add that info there.
under properties you state: It is a heterocycle and has the molecular shape of a ring. It starts to decompose at about 170°C and melts at 204°C. Its structural formula is: hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine or (CH2-N-NO2)3.
My question is: why does it decompose before it melts? can you supply the reference for this statement? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.164.160.100 ( talk • contribs).
Sources would include the CRC or just about anything else that mentions the chemical properties.
All it means is that it starts to exothermically decompose after being heated to a temperature which is lower than whatever its melting point is. It's unstable above the decomposition temperature. You can't melt it if it decomposes at a lower temperature than whatever its theoretical melting point is. Georgewilliamherbert 20:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe this article should be renamed to RDX; the chemical name is virtually unknown in either common usage or the explosives industry other than researchers or chemists involved in the production of explosives. RDX and Hexogen are by far the dominant terms, and RDX is the common one in the United States. Georgewilliamherbert 23:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
RDX and HMX are almost exclusively called cyclonite and homo-cyclonite in the manufacturing world. Msjayhawk ( talk) 03:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
What is phlegmatized hexogen?
should we ad synthesis references or should we leave them out?-- Stone 13:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
There is no reference to RDX being the main explosive component of C4
The references to use of RDX by Indian terrorists need to be put in a separate section - perhaps Illegal Uses of RDX. As they stand now, they disrupt the context of the entry. teneriff 01:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no information about the explosive yield (energy released per kilogram, maybe written as TNT equivalents. TNT has about 4 MJ/kg), although it is among the most important characteristics of an explosive. Can it be calculated from (at least approximately) from the detonation velocity and the density of the explosive?-- SiriusB 11:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Does anybody know the decomposition reaction of RDX or the products of a Nitroamine decomposition? I see the composition reaction is listed but it would be interesting to see what it forms when it detonates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sedecrem ( talk • contribs) 10:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The first sentence claims that "H-6" is an alternate name for RDX. I think this is incorrect and the result of a Wikipedia editor's mistaken conflation of Composition H6, which contains RDX, with RDX itself. I have thus removed "H-6" as an alternate name for RDX. — Lowellian ( reply) 17:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
"The American Bachmann process for RDX was found to be richer in HMX than the United Kingdom's RDX and there is a suggestion this later led to a HMX plant being set up at ROF Bridgwater in 1955 using the Bachmann process." Can somebody explain how this is important to RDX & include it? And source the "suggestion"? And, BTW, give Bachmann a first name? (I'm guessing it isn't Randy.) Trekphiler ( talk) 18:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |voulume=
ignored (
help)--
Stone (
talk) 20:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)German Wikipedia states Dr. Georg Friedrich Henning as Inventor of Hexogen. As the german article has more details than this one I suppose it´s correct (it has the patent number/date + a short article about the inventor himself). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.166.36.153 ( talk) 17:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The term "continuous process" is misleading. The process was a batch process. However, several production lines were set-up, so that the overall production vs time gave the appearance of being continuous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.0.129 ( talk) 05:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Is now "RDX", i cant believe it, the explosives real name is "HEXOGEN" and its of German origin, you dont name ANYTHING by name of some PIRATED product of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.156.138.236 ( talk) 15:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
What is happening chemically if it burns but does not detonate? I would expect that in a detonation, each reaction (e. g. C3H6N6O6 -> 3 CO + 3 H2O + 3 N2, but of course it seems likely that that would not happen at a single molecule but oxygen atoms of one molecule would also react with hydrogen or carbon of neighboring molecules) releases enough energy to trigger further reactions in its neighborhood, thus a reaction front is moving through the material. If it burns, it has to be a different reaction, which doesn't produce enough energy to trigger the detonation reaction. What are these reactions exactly? Icek ( talk) 18:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I am removing the assertion that RDX is "highly toxic". The CDC says:
More detailed CDC source: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp78.html (see esp. Health Effects)
Just to be clear: I agree that RDX is poisonous. But I think "highly toxic" overstates the facts. I do not believe RDX toxicity has been directly implicated in any human deaths. — Ryan ( talk) 11:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Is this why there's no NFPA 704 for RDX? It's mentioned in that specific article. 24.10.220.113 ( talk) 04:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
This is fair enough; Warfarin is non toxic to humans in the quantities prescribed to cardiac patients-but that doesn't stop it from being an effective rat poison, as is RDX. 0poponax ( talk) 18:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Disaster!: A Compendium of Terrorist, Natural and Man-Made Catastrophes, Michael I. Greenberg, page 39. Seventeen case of Hexogen poisoning reported in an Italian factory from 1939 to 1942. Seizures, loss of consciousness, sleeplessness, confusion, and vertigo.
Glrx ( talk) 21:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I've recently contributed to this article, mainly on topics of toxicity. Most of my sources can be easily obtained; the one a bit more tricky to get is the following. It's an absolutely fascinating read, both informative and entertaining. Hope that helps. -- Document hippo ( talk) 16:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Article cites Urbanski for the name G. C. V. Herz and a 1922 US patent. That patent goes to an Edmund von Herz. Glrx ( talk) 17:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Citation: "However, it is very sensitive when crystallized, below −4 °C."
Does that describe one condition "crystallized and below −4 °C" or to conditions?
There was another one, but I don' t remember. --
Tomdo08 (
talk) 13:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Where does 'LOW' in these categories come from?? Compared to most explosives (except PETN) it is much more sensitive. Msjayhawk ( talk) 04:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Some history is missing here, but I don't know where the reference is. The UK recognized that thicker hulls on U-boats would make the then current torpedoes obsolete. There was a choice: build torpedoes that could carry more TNT (possibly requiring the redesign of some submarines) or pack the current torpedoes with a more powerful explosive. The US military, on the other hand, thought TNT worked for WWI, so it should also work for WWII. Glrx ( talk) 23:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
RDX. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I noted that a citation was needed for C-4. The page C-4 provides one, and after verifying it, I substituted the composition cited there along with the citation. The deleted sentence indicated that dioctyl adipate (DOA) and diethylhexyl were also suitable plasticizers and specified SAE 10 non-detergent motor oil. After finding citations for C-4, I went on to Composition A and Composition B. Since all of these are manufactured products, rather than pure chemicals, their composition varies. The table from which the A-3 data were taken illustrates this. Anobium625 ( talk) 02:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC) The specific ratio of PETN to RDX in Semtex isn't specified in a reliable source, perhaps to restrict its use by terrorists. Anobium625 ( talk) 01:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
In the synthesis section, the method mentioned is simple nitration of hexamine with WFNA, but the reaction shown indicates that ammonium nitrate and acetic anhydride are also present. Is this a different method? If not, why are these extra reagents not mentioned in the Synthesis section text? There are a few places in the body of the article where acetic anhydride is mentioned, but it seems like that is only when formaldehyde or paraformaldehyde is used as the starting point. Sbreheny ( talk) 02:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
T4 should probably be spelled T4, look at Britannica, or look into other literature, that it's italian abbreviation, then full-text search archive.org e.g. "esplosiva T4" and look into some older books. — Mykhal ( talk) 19:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
two unrelated problems I see. First is in the lead the formula is claimed to be (O2N2CH2)3. I'd have to play around with that to see if it provides a unique structure, but I'm guessing it doesn't. My point is that its not clear (me chemist) what it represents, so isn't useful as it is. I'd say its formula is (O2N)3(NCH2)3 although that doesn't clearly indicate the hexahydrotriazine ring, it makes some attempt to impose some structure... perhaps (O2N)3-cyclo-(NCH2)3 would be clearer or even (O2N)3-cyclo-(NC(H2)NC(H2)NC(H2)). IDK. Why not just use its atomic formula (H6C3N3O6)? The second thing is that the info box gives what it claims is an LD50. The species (mouse, rat, giraffe, etc.) as well as the pathway (dermal, oral, etc.) are part of the "number" and should be included with it - always. Otherwise, it will be assumed to be the LD50 of humans, by ingestion, and almost certainly an estimated rather than measured number. 2604:CB00:1D1C:7A00:1547:51F7:BCB:E5BD ( talk) 22:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It'll please some people to know, that this article was recently featured in a tv show "sleeper cell". PoorLeno 11:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The English and the German articles contratict each other.
In the English Article, it says: "At room temperature, it is a very stable product. It burns rather than explodes and only detonates with a detonator, being unaffected even by small arms fire. It is less sensitive than pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN)."
The German article, however, states that "Pure, dry hexogen is highly explosive and should therefore be stored in cool, damp places or even submerged. Very dry hexogen can be ignited by temperatures as low as 30°C or even by touching it softly."
Also, the velocity of detonation is given as 8,750 meters per second in the English article and as 8,500 meters per second in the German one.
What does brisant mean?
What exactly does "100% Nitric Acid" mean? Is it supposed to be 1.0 molar or just pure substance?
I suspect it is an error, but by the common language rules 100% without modifiers means pure, or with 0% contnent of other agents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SouzieQ ( talk • contribs).
A: HNO3 forms an azeotrope with water at 68% (16N), but it can be redistilled under different conditions to hit close to 100%. On the Nitric acid page, this is called "White Fuming Nitric Acid." I'll add that info there.
under properties you state: It is a heterocycle and has the molecular shape of a ring. It starts to decompose at about 170°C and melts at 204°C. Its structural formula is: hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine or (CH2-N-NO2)3.
My question is: why does it decompose before it melts? can you supply the reference for this statement? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.164.160.100 ( talk • contribs).
Sources would include the CRC or just about anything else that mentions the chemical properties.
All it means is that it starts to exothermically decompose after being heated to a temperature which is lower than whatever its melting point is. It's unstable above the decomposition temperature. You can't melt it if it decomposes at a lower temperature than whatever its theoretical melting point is. Georgewilliamherbert 20:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe this article should be renamed to RDX; the chemical name is virtually unknown in either common usage or the explosives industry other than researchers or chemists involved in the production of explosives. RDX and Hexogen are by far the dominant terms, and RDX is the common one in the United States. Georgewilliamherbert 23:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
RDX and HMX are almost exclusively called cyclonite and homo-cyclonite in the manufacturing world. Msjayhawk ( talk) 03:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
What is phlegmatized hexogen?
should we ad synthesis references or should we leave them out?-- Stone 13:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
There is no reference to RDX being the main explosive component of C4
The references to use of RDX by Indian terrorists need to be put in a separate section - perhaps Illegal Uses of RDX. As they stand now, they disrupt the context of the entry. teneriff 01:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no information about the explosive yield (energy released per kilogram, maybe written as TNT equivalents. TNT has about 4 MJ/kg), although it is among the most important characteristics of an explosive. Can it be calculated from (at least approximately) from the detonation velocity and the density of the explosive?-- SiriusB 11:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Does anybody know the decomposition reaction of RDX or the products of a Nitroamine decomposition? I see the composition reaction is listed but it would be interesting to see what it forms when it detonates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sedecrem ( talk • contribs) 10:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The first sentence claims that "H-6" is an alternate name for RDX. I think this is incorrect and the result of a Wikipedia editor's mistaken conflation of Composition H6, which contains RDX, with RDX itself. I have thus removed "H-6" as an alternate name for RDX. — Lowellian ( reply) 17:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
"The American Bachmann process for RDX was found to be richer in HMX than the United Kingdom's RDX and there is a suggestion this later led to a HMX plant being set up at ROF Bridgwater in 1955 using the Bachmann process." Can somebody explain how this is important to RDX & include it? And source the "suggestion"? And, BTW, give Bachmann a first name? (I'm guessing it isn't Randy.) Trekphiler ( talk) 18:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |voulume=
ignored (
help)--
Stone (
talk) 20:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)German Wikipedia states Dr. Georg Friedrich Henning as Inventor of Hexogen. As the german article has more details than this one I suppose it´s correct (it has the patent number/date + a short article about the inventor himself). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.166.36.153 ( talk) 17:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The term "continuous process" is misleading. The process was a batch process. However, several production lines were set-up, so that the overall production vs time gave the appearance of being continuous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.0.129 ( talk) 05:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Is now "RDX", i cant believe it, the explosives real name is "HEXOGEN" and its of German origin, you dont name ANYTHING by name of some PIRATED product of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.156.138.236 ( talk) 15:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
What is happening chemically if it burns but does not detonate? I would expect that in a detonation, each reaction (e. g. C3H6N6O6 -> 3 CO + 3 H2O + 3 N2, but of course it seems likely that that would not happen at a single molecule but oxygen atoms of one molecule would also react with hydrogen or carbon of neighboring molecules) releases enough energy to trigger further reactions in its neighborhood, thus a reaction front is moving through the material. If it burns, it has to be a different reaction, which doesn't produce enough energy to trigger the detonation reaction. What are these reactions exactly? Icek ( talk) 18:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I am removing the assertion that RDX is "highly toxic". The CDC says:
More detailed CDC source: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp78.html (see esp. Health Effects)
Just to be clear: I agree that RDX is poisonous. But I think "highly toxic" overstates the facts. I do not believe RDX toxicity has been directly implicated in any human deaths. — Ryan ( talk) 11:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Is this why there's no NFPA 704 for RDX? It's mentioned in that specific article. 24.10.220.113 ( talk) 04:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
This is fair enough; Warfarin is non toxic to humans in the quantities prescribed to cardiac patients-but that doesn't stop it from being an effective rat poison, as is RDX. 0poponax ( talk) 18:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Disaster!: A Compendium of Terrorist, Natural and Man-Made Catastrophes, Michael I. Greenberg, page 39. Seventeen case of Hexogen poisoning reported in an Italian factory from 1939 to 1942. Seizures, loss of consciousness, sleeplessness, confusion, and vertigo.
Glrx ( talk) 21:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I've recently contributed to this article, mainly on topics of toxicity. Most of my sources can be easily obtained; the one a bit more tricky to get is the following. It's an absolutely fascinating read, both informative and entertaining. Hope that helps. -- Document hippo ( talk) 16:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Article cites Urbanski for the name G. C. V. Herz and a 1922 US patent. That patent goes to an Edmund von Herz. Glrx ( talk) 17:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Citation: "However, it is very sensitive when crystallized, below −4 °C."
Does that describe one condition "crystallized and below −4 °C" or to conditions?
There was another one, but I don' t remember. --
Tomdo08 (
talk) 13:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Where does 'LOW' in these categories come from?? Compared to most explosives (except PETN) it is much more sensitive. Msjayhawk ( talk) 04:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Some history is missing here, but I don't know where the reference is. The UK recognized that thicker hulls on U-boats would make the then current torpedoes obsolete. There was a choice: build torpedoes that could carry more TNT (possibly requiring the redesign of some submarines) or pack the current torpedoes with a more powerful explosive. The US military, on the other hand, thought TNT worked for WWI, so it should also work for WWII. Glrx ( talk) 23:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
RDX. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I noted that a citation was needed for C-4. The page C-4 provides one, and after verifying it, I substituted the composition cited there along with the citation. The deleted sentence indicated that dioctyl adipate (DOA) and diethylhexyl were also suitable plasticizers and specified SAE 10 non-detergent motor oil. After finding citations for C-4, I went on to Composition A and Composition B. Since all of these are manufactured products, rather than pure chemicals, their composition varies. The table from which the A-3 data were taken illustrates this. Anobium625 ( talk) 02:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC) The specific ratio of PETN to RDX in Semtex isn't specified in a reliable source, perhaps to restrict its use by terrorists. Anobium625 ( talk) 01:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
In the synthesis section, the method mentioned is simple nitration of hexamine with WFNA, but the reaction shown indicates that ammonium nitrate and acetic anhydride are also present. Is this a different method? If not, why are these extra reagents not mentioned in the Synthesis section text? There are a few places in the body of the article where acetic anhydride is mentioned, but it seems like that is only when formaldehyde or paraformaldehyde is used as the starting point. Sbreheny ( talk) 02:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
T4 should probably be spelled T4, look at Britannica, or look into other literature, that it's italian abbreviation, then full-text search archive.org e.g. "esplosiva T4" and look into some older books. — Mykhal ( talk) 19:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
two unrelated problems I see. First is in the lead the formula is claimed to be (O2N2CH2)3. I'd have to play around with that to see if it provides a unique structure, but I'm guessing it doesn't. My point is that its not clear (me chemist) what it represents, so isn't useful as it is. I'd say its formula is (O2N)3(NCH2)3 although that doesn't clearly indicate the hexahydrotriazine ring, it makes some attempt to impose some structure... perhaps (O2N)3-cyclo-(NCH2)3 would be clearer or even (O2N)3-cyclo-(NC(H2)NC(H2)NC(H2)). IDK. Why not just use its atomic formula (H6C3N3O6)? The second thing is that the info box gives what it claims is an LD50. The species (mouse, rat, giraffe, etc.) as well as the pathway (dermal, oral, etc.) are part of the "number" and should be included with it - always. Otherwise, it will be assumed to be the LD50 of humans, by ingestion, and almost certainly an estimated rather than measured number. 2604:CB00:1D1C:7A00:1547:51F7:BCB:E5BD ( talk) 22:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)