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. |
Article policies |
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Explosives Start‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||
|
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]
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]
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.
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)
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]
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]
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]
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]