Contents

Talk:ANFO: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:39, 10 January 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ANFO article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Explosives Start‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Explosives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Explosives on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ExplosivesWikipedia:WikiProject ExplosivesTemplate:WikiProject ExplosivesExplosives articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

I am very interested in the details of the Oklahoma city Bomb, it seems it was extremly powerful for it's size. A yield of 4000 lb. TNT, from 5000 lb of Fertilezer and Nitro. The following from the ANFO page is not mentioned anywhere else:

So called "fertilizer bombs" were made famous in America by their use in the Oklahoma City bombing which maimed and killed hundreds of victims. However, that bomb was only remotely based on the traditional ANFO formula. It used a sophisticated triggering sequence and compressed oxygen to achieve a larger detonation than is possible using mundane means.

I would like a source for this as, I always check sources, before i quote them.

z1robbbie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.157.135.226 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 27 March 2004 (UTC)[reply]

As for its use in Oklahoma, I've read articles suggest other explosives were used inside the building and that ANFO contributed very little damage to the structure and devastation over all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BloodMagus (talk • contribs) 07:24, 12 November 2004 (UTC)[reply]

non-sense is going on here - ANFO cannot be a low-explosive and a high-explosive as stated in the last line. as i understand, ANFO is a high-explosive since it exploding as a result of a detonation, which means the molecules is torn apart, releasing huge amounts of energy. low-explosives are based on combustion, e.g. gun-powder.

maasha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.226.107.2 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 11 August 2004 (UTC)[reply]

maasha I think you are right ANFO can is a high explosive and is not and never could be a low explosive although I think that an explosive is considered a high explosive if when the explosive detonates in quantites of about 1g and without being in a contanied the sound wave will move faster than the speed of sound although I think also that the molecules are torn apart as well. Bur372 16:15, 30 October 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Molecules are torn apart in both detonation and deflagration. christidy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.229.42 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 10 March 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The statements that suggests ANFO can be both low yield and high yield are in fact accurate. When ignited, ANFO has a low yield and as such will burn, albeit rapidly, but not explode under normal conditions.

Its considered to be a serious fire risk due to the difficulties in putting it out, as such ANFO is generally prepared only on need of use. I don't know of any 'low yield' uses of ANFO in industry.

When detonated by the molecular breakdown due to a shockwave, such as setting off a significant amount of TNT, it acts as a very high yield explosive. This is the primary use of ANFO in industry. ANFO is usually prepared as a mixture with a rating based on how many grams of TNT is needed per kg of ANFO for a complete detonation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BloodMagus (talk • contribs) 07:24, 12 November 2004 (UTC)[reply]

First benefit of using water oil Ammonianitrate mixtures in underground mining is that the water cools down the explosion gas which than nowlonger able to ignite methane in the pit.

Second you can not ignite the slurry explosives so even with a small explosion in the pit you have no problem with it.

Third easy to handle it can be pumped into the holes in exact the ammount you need.

Fourth the oxygen balance is better than of most other explosives and you can change it easyly by changing the mixture. Nearly no NO CO is produced by this explosives which is a big benefit for the air quality in the pit.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stone (talk • contribs) 14:48, 10 November 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. What exactly is inaccurate about this article? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:52, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Conflicting facts with no sources quoted to clear up the conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.30.74.227 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 21 January 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be cleaned up. By the way, how do you get to Pages on Vote for Deletion?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Endi (talk • contribs) 16:49, 31 March 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I recently (apr 14/2005) made a major edit... almost a total rewrite of the article. I removed the "disputed" banner; hopefully it doesn't apply anymore.

I haven't cited any sources because most of my information comes from a course I have recently taken on blasting for mining applications. I am a student of mine engineering at a Canadian university, and while I don't consider myself an expert on explosives, I felt I could contribute an article of a higher standard than the previous one.

I have focused on the technical details of the explosive, and less on the terrorist uses of ANFO. I don't think that sort of thing deserves more than a cursory mention in this article. I've also put the use of ANFO into proper context - it is the most prevalent explosive in the world, rather than a terrorist weapon first, a stump blasting tool second, and a mining explosive third.

I welcome any comments. --D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.87.19 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 15 April 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"96.3% AN and 5.7% FO" = 102% — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.171.240 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 16 April 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed this. The original source of my info just said 5.7% fuel, and I subtracted that from 100 mentally. Apparently I should brush up on my first grade arithmetic. --D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.68.50.33 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to sound like a dummy, but I read that article once, and I'm not sure if i missed it, but I dont think it says if ANFO is a solid, or liquid, or plastic or whatever. It would be good if someone could make it clearer. Thankyou for reading this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.168.3.21 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why is there not a section on how it is made, ie mixing levels and such? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.67.24 (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That information can be found under Chemistry. If you want to know how to make Ammonium Nitrate, check its article page (I believe urinating in a chlorine solution creates Ammonia) User:Gazok (talk)

This article needs citations on most of the TNT equivalents. I am having a very hard time understanding how ANFO based explosives can have an REF (TNT equivalence) of .8 to 1.6. My reference (field manual 5-250 explosives and demolition) has an REF of .42 for commercially manufactured ANFO. 0.8 Is high, and 1.6 is in the realm of Semtex and PETN based plastic explosives. Unless there are citations I am going to have to assume that significant sections of this article are factually inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.79.191.174 (talk) 04:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have added tags to these problems to the article; assuming that the current listed TNT equivalences are improperly quoted, why not add your referenced info and correct the article? Yaf (talk) 05:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE factors can vary according to how much the explosive compound is compacted. This is measure in chemical density g/cm3. I.e. the higher the density of the compound when compacted, the higher the RE factor will become. This is why AN can vary in it's RE factor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.67.214 (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added an article on ANNM. I hope it helps. Incredibleman007 (talk) 09:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is this "two quarts per 50 pounds" nonsense? I realize it apparently comes from some external source, but it still doesn't make any sense. Sounds like it is written by some of the many people who aren't really sure how many quarts there are in a gallon; sensible people would say something like 1 gallon per 100 pounds, especially since NOBODY anywhere in the world ever buys fuel oil by the "quart", and using a more round number than 50 pounds. Gene Nygaard (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]