Talk:Explosives/Draft

The {{subpages}} template is designed to be used within article clusters and their related pages.
However, it cannot function on sub-subpage talk pages..Please continue discussion at [[../../]], or return to the Draft subsubpage.

Fixed typo

Changed firing pink to firing pin.Mary Ash 02:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

-) You must admit that sounds like something that Combat Barbie would use. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

ROFL the vision of combat Barbie...where's G.I. Joe when you need him :-)Mary Ash 02:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

It would help to have some of the acronyms spelled out such as PBXN7. What's that?? Thanks!Mary Ash 02:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, that's a designation, not an acronym. My guess is that it derives from PBX (explosive), with various additives. [1] describes it simply as an explosive composition from China Lake.

Just as an example, PBX-9404 is not an acronym, but a designation for a mixture of 94% HMX (explosive), 3% NC, 3% Tris(2-chloroethyl)phosphate (CEF); I don't know what NC is. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

As a guess, PBX-9404 could be the 4th Plastic Bonded Explosive formula of 1994, or of project 94, or something else. Most of the PBX designations I know start with 94, but you'll find equivalent functionality in things like LX-17. I'd only guess that comes from eXplosive developed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Part of my review that you asked for

Howard, when I started my review, the first thing that caught my eye were the three images. One of them had a very dark background that made the text hard to read ... so I revised the background to white, and I also cleaned up the somewhat blurry text in that image. The I added credit line to all three images. Hope those changes are okay by you.

I will try to review the content tomorrow ... but keep in mind that I know very little about this subject. Milton Beychok 02:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The hyperlink in Reference 4, New Energetic Materials, just takes me to an page asking for email address and name and profession. I recommend that you change that to New Energetic Materials which takes the reader directly to page 8 of the referenced book. If you wish, I could make that change for you ... but it might disqualify me to nominate the article for approval. Up until now, all I have done is correct a number of typos, plus cleaning up one image. Milton Beychok 18:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Same problem with Reference 10, and here I suggest changing the current link to New Energetic Materials which takes the reader directly to page 16 of the referenced book. Milton Beychok 19:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the "Fluid dynamics" section ia denoted as a block quote ... but when I read the reference 6, I found only the first sentence of your block quote and not the rest of it, at least not as a contiguous quote. I would suggest you remove the block quote tags and simply end that paragraph with a period (rather than the current comma) and the reference 6. No change in content, just don't denote it as a block quote. Milton Beychok 19:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that you implement the above three suggestions, I would be ready to nominate the article for Approval or to support someone else's nomination. Milton Beychok 19:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

(undent) 4 and 10 are done, and I'll fix 6. Is there a third Engineering editor? No one is active in Military, or, as far as I know, Chemistry besides yourself. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No, none other active at this time. You might try contacting David Volk (Chemistry editor) who still drops in every once in a while. Milton Beychok 20:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzled, though, at your question about Reference 6, which I just downloaded again.

The science of high explosives is basically a coupling of chemistry and fluid mechanics. While each of these fields is in itself quite well developed and sophisticated, high explosives science is surprisingly primitive. The fluid-mechanical phenomenon of detonation is reasonably well understood, but the detailed chemical reactions and thermomechanics that cause a detonation are still largely a mystery,

is the lede of the article. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Upon re-reading that pdf, I stand corrected except for one minor thing. That quote does indeed end with a comma, but it is in fact the end of a sentence and should be a period. It's a typo in the pdf, but I think we should end the quote in this article in a period. Milton Beychok 00:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Howard C. Berkowitz 06:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Nominated for Approval

I just nominated this article for Approval. Since my revisions were all minor copy edits (Wiki links, typos, mis-spellings, adding credit lines to images and cleaning up one image), I believe that I still qualify for a one-editor Approval. Of course, that does not exclude other Engineering, Chemistry or Military editors from joining me in the Approval. Milton Beychok 06:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, I lower-case approve of an article that I mostly wrote, but I remain mystified if I am allowed to Approve if a different author first nominated it, but there isn't necessarily a third Editor. Howard C. Berkowitz 07:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not ask Matt and/or Chris about that? I don't know the answer. Milton Beychok 07:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice article. During a quick glance starting from the bottom, I saw a number of sentences that need rewriting, and I can write up a list of suggested changes for you tomorrow, but not today. David E. Volk 12:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

In the thermobaric section it reads The fluid dynamics of these explosions was much less understood... - should that be the fluid DYNAMIC...was much less understood (ie singular dynamic) or the fluid dynamics...WERE much less understood (pluralising)? I don't know which of the three is correct, just that it sounds funny when I read the current text. David Finn 13:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Just had a look at the images and think Image:Thermobaric vs HE.png does not meet image quality criteria. Details on its talk page. --Daniel Mietchen 13:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Good to see you, David (Volk). I've been forgetting to ask you again for a name (or link) to the molecular drawing freeware you use. If you like, this article could become a three-editor nomination, with you from Chemistry and me from Military/Engineering. I look forward to your suggestions.

David Finn -- let me think of this. You refer to quoted material; I would have written it as "the fluid dynamics are", but that would have changed the quote

Daniel -- I'm open for suggestions on how best to improve that graphic. Originally, it was a capture from a PDF. Milt found a better way to capture, and to deal with the contrast. Unfortunately, I don't know a good way to clean up a curved line such as that in the graph, if I'm not generating the line and doing mathematical curve-fitting. While I'd have to reload the driver, I do have a graphics tablet that I think works, so I could hand-trace it, but I don't know of any graphics software I have to refine the curve--yes, there were some old Mac things that did, but that was twenty years ago -- how quickly we lose technology! Could you suggest an application? Howard C. Berkowitz 16:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I was able to clean up the resolution of what is now the black lines and black text in the image. However, trying to re-do the curved lines is beyond my capability. If someone could re-do those curved lines in black as well as the remaining non-black text, then the image would be much better. Milton Beychok 16:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this the graphic you want worked on? [2] We have PhotoShop, Pixelmator and GIMP. If you want, I'll have the kids take a look at it to see if anything can be done. They may have to re-do the graphic from scratch, if that's OK. Mary Ash 17:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Howard, as long as there is one uninvolved Editor, you may freely add your nomination even if there is not a third Editor. --Chris Key 18:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Improving Image:Thermobaric vs HE.png

Howard, if you will remember, Johan A. Förberg volunteered some time ago in the forums to help produce images where needed. I suggest you contact him and ask him to re-do the curved lines in this image ... and make everything black. Color really isn't needed since the thermobaric curve and the HE curve are clearly identified by text labels. Milton Beychok 17:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll do that -- I'd just like to find a tool that lets me do it myself. Unfortunately, while I'm not terrible in freehand drawing, I haven't found a digital tool as good as charcoal, pastel... Howard C. Berkowitz 17:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)