Talk:Acetone peroxide

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Chemistry Portal Acetone peroxide is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article..

This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2005 press source article for details. The citation is in: "(NRC Handelsblad, Dutch newspaper, requires sign-up and payment) Gebruikte explosieven in een handomdraai te maken/Used explosives can be made easily", NRC Handelsblad, July 15, 2005.

Please post new comments at the bottom of the page to avoid confusion, and make headings using two equal signs (==). Remember to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).  Thank you!

Contents 1 Productions section seems out of place 2 Links on chemical formulae 3 Sensitivity units 4 Unbalanced equation 5 Plagiarised 6 I proposed a policy change to have this article deleted 7 Source for Bombing on July 7, 2005 is who? 8 Wikipedia should not help terrorists to build bombs 9 Responsibility of supplying link 10 Moved from comment on article page 11 Terrorist or Freedom Fighters? 12 Re-add synthesis link? 13 How to make a bomb 14 From the Previous versions of the Page Too 15 Where does Wikipedia stand? 16 Be aware that TATP is mentioned in Time.com Today 8/10/06 17 Snapper/Torpedo 18 Sources 19 Wrong name? 20 Not a clever question 21 American journals

[edit] Productions section seems out of place

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?

I agree that it is not encyclopedic content. Certainly, one would not expect to find such synthesis steps in say, the Encyclopedia Britannica. Similar content has been removed from related chemistry pages, and following this lead, I have removed this content from this page too. See for example the history in TNP. I think the alternative you suggested - adding references to chemistry literature - is a suitable one. Thanks for the suggestion! --HappyCamper 02:31, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ya you would, in the 1911 Britannica. -lysdexia 11:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Who cares what's in Britannica? Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. If we removed everytihng from Wikipedia that's not in Britannica, we'd have to remove most Wikipedia content. It might be argued that it is valid to remove synthesis instructions to prevent people harming themselves or others, but that's an entirely different argument, and not one you're making. (I wonder, does Wikipedia have a policy on such matters?) -- Cabalamat 04:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, give back the instructions :)

[edit] Links on chemical formulae

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?

They seem to be linked like this more commonly in inorganic chemicals than organic ones. If the chemical has a page, the formula should link to that, not the elements. For the formula of the chemical that the page is about, it is ok to link to elements.--24.16.148.75 02:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sensitivity units

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)

There seem to be a number of different tests available, with names like the "United Nations card gap test", the Naval Ordnance Laboratory card-gap test and the "Super Large Scale Gap Test". I have no idea what the units are, or if the measurements made by different tests can be compared. -- The Anome 13:04, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Aha! See Selma S. Goldstein et. al., ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT METHODOLOGIES TO ESTABLISH DETONATION TRANSFER MARGINS, AIAA 98-3467, Proceedings of 34th Joint Propulsion Conference, Cleveland, OH, July 1998. -- The Anome 13:09, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Marvelously, this paper describes a unit called the "decibang", measured in the VariComp test. -- Karada 14:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

newton-molars? -lysdexia 12:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unbalanced equation

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.

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.

[edit] Plagiarised

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)

It isn't plagiarism ... the GFDL licence permits other sites to mirror our content, and that is what that site has done. It is how wikipedia as a *free* encyclopedia "works" ... --Vamp:Willow 23:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I proposed a policy change to have this article deleted

see Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#Wikipedia_should_not_help_terrorists_to_build_bombs. Andries 18:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

And let's burn all chemistry text books as well ... You must be joking. In what world do you live? Markus Kuhn 19:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Terrorists make theyr bombs not from a article on wikipedia, they buy them from George Bush. helohe 13:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Source for Bombing on July 7, 2005 is who?

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)

The independent newspaper NRC Handelsblad that generally has a very good reputation wrote that the London suicide bombers may have gotten their information about making TATP from the internet and mentioned Wikipedia as a prominent example. They also mentioned in the article that knowledge about TATP is widespread. See also Wikipedia:Wikipedia_as_a_press_source_2005#July_11.E2.80.9320. Andries 18:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

What's exciting here? A Dutch journalist reads this morning in the UK media [1][2] about a chemical term that she has never heard about before. She types it into Google and gets to the Wikipedia page on TATP. She concludes after her 30 seconds of "research" that Wikipedia teaches terrorists how to build bombs and writes an article about it. She did not even bother to find out that the Wikipedia article was added in April 2004, more than two years after a TATP-based explosive was found in Richard Reid's shoes. All we learn from this is that even newspapers of "good reputation" are not immune from hiring occassionally a really naive journalist. Markus Kuhn 19:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

See also the section in the article where it says that 800 kilograms were seized in a single raid in 1998 - 6 years before this article was created. How to make TATP is hardly a secret. Rossami (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

All UK broadcast media has been naming the exact name of explosive all day today. --Vamp:Willow 21:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

According to today's CNN, [3] TATP was found in a flat in Leeds, but it's still unclear whether TATP was used in the London attacks. British media seems to agree that it's not a confirmed fact at this time. Someone might want to update the article. 83.250.9.130 20:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

My information is that HMTD, not TATP was used in the London bombings. Neither was TATP going to be used in the latest aircraft bombings. This is a different peroxide-based liquid explosive. The Russians have something similiar in a rocket called an RPOA. It is a single shot rocket, like a LAW rocket, designed to destroy bunkers. These fall into the "thermobaric" class of explosives.Bombdoc 04:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

A BBC article said "sources close to the investigation" had reported the finding of acetone peroxide in the house searches. However they later revised the article and this was removed. 81.86.238.95 20:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

The article was http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4684869.stm. Now it just says "Explosives found in a house are thought to have been made from ingredients available from high-street chemists." 81.86.238.95 20:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

and "It's the same kind of explosive Richard Reid had in his shoes when he tried to blow up a trans-Atlantic flight in 2001," 81.86.238.95 20:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Reid's main charge was PETN, but I think he used TATP as the detonator.

From the New York Times, dated 23 July 2005: "The explosives in the homemade bombs that did not go off on Thursday are believed by investigators to be TATP, a crude substance that was used in the July 7 bombs." [4] --Skoosh 03:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia should not help terrorists to build bombs

This discussion was originally held on Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. I am moving it here to consolidate the discussion.

[edit] Responsibility of supplying link

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)

I certainly think the link should be given (or a recipe at Wikibooks or something) for education purposes. If people are going to make an explosive, they are going to do it regardless of whether Wikipedia supplies a link or not. I do not think we'll persuade any more people to try it. Those who wish to create explosives (after finding no recipe on the all-encompassing Wikipedia) will simply Google it and have a recipe 2 seconds later. --Oldak Quill 13:19, 21 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)

[edit] Moved from comment on article page

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)

A source and a time interval would look good on this currently somewhat doubious sentence. Markus Kuhn 08:36, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorist or Freedom Fighters?

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.

Someone who blows up children at a disco is a terrorist. As for it being POV because it "begs an edit war", this is a meaningless sentence. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

First of all, just because something starts an edit war doesn't mean its POV. There are many reasons for them. In this case, I felt that just saying "Palestinians" by itself implied that, by and large, the Palestinians like playing with acetone peroxide. And because, generally, one doesn't just play with a chemical such as Acetone Peroxide in an area of violence such as Palestine without having intentions to blow things up, it was fair to say that the people that were handling it were terrorists. I think its naive to not say that the 40 Palestinians that were killed handling TATP were terrorists... what else are they going to be? The source that is quoted gives the quote and then states something along the lines of "TATP is almost exclusively used by Palestinian terrorists." I think its ok to say that the people killed were terrorists. I don't think its ok to imply that all Palestinians play with explosives. El Pollo Diablo | Talk 23:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Because Palestinians engaged in armed struggle against a colonial occupational settler state such as the Zionist Entity are not considerede terrorists by many. This is why it is POV.

Pirates and Emperors. St. Augustine wrote about it. (Just because a large number of people kill/steal/enslave doesn't make it more legitimate than when only one person does so.) So "terrorist" or "freedom fighter" is POV.

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 can't understand how your comment relates to my own, but please avoid personal attacks. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

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.

[edit] Re-add synthesis link?

I'd like to re-add the link:

• Synthesis of Acetone Peroxide

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)

As I responded above to Hanzeman's request for a removal of the link to the "evil destructive site": "I certainly think the link should be given (or a recipe at Wikibooks or something) for education purposes. If people are going to make an explosive, they are going to do it regardless of whether Wikipedia supplies a link or not. I do not think we'll persuade any more people to try it. Those who wish to create explosives (after finding no recipe on the all-encompassing Wikipedia) will simply Google it and have a recipe 2 seconds later." --Oldak Quill 13:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Just be bold and add it. Like you say it's not exactly a top secret. Nitrogen triiodide tells people how to make it. David | Talk 13:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

"Those who wish to create explosives ... will simply Google it and have a recipe 2 seconds later" Then let them do so. I very strongly believe it brings Wikipedia into disrepute to assist anyone in finding the manufacturing instructions (indeed it will be against the law to do so in the UK later in the year). I've boldly deleted it. In terms of "providing knowledge" there have to be limits; after all we don't list the home addresses and telephone numbers of each individual we have an entry on either. Why? because it can't be justified. --Vamp:Willow 13:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The link is to a site advertising "bad ideas" - this is listed as one. Many of these are joke ideas and are not proven to work. I recommend not linking to a joke site that could cause someone harm in addition to being inaccurate. - Tεxτurε 17:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How to make a bomb

Further to the discussions above, I've posted this on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard ...

On 30 April 2005 the article on Acetone peroxide was edited by IP 85.206.83.143 (in Lithuania) to add detailed instructions on how to make this substance - the explosive material that was used in the 21 July 2005 London explosions, as was another explosives article. Deleted not long after, it made a re-appearance as a separate article (deleted a few hours later) and a number of times as an external link, which I have deleted. I believe that, whilst Wikipedia is not paper, it is incumbent on us to behave responsibly, and to not bring this site into disrepute. In the UK it is proposed that providing assistance to someone creating bombs (including websites) will be illegal, and I'm sure that homeland security in the USA takes a similar view on the matter, let alone the views of other countries around the world. There is also the danger that we could assist "inquisitive" people to blow themselves up in their garages. I believe that WP must be seen as sensible and trustworthy on this matter and that whilst it is right that we continue to inform about chemicals we should not condone, enable or assist in any way anyone to make bombs or explosives.

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)

• We have articles on lots of illegal activitiets; such an article should not be taken as endorsement or instruction of the article. On the other hand, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, so explicit step-by-step instructions are not really encyclopedic material. Radiant_>|< 07:50, July 22, 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.

[edit] From the Previous versions of the Page Too

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)

Information is information. Leave your POV behind, folks. Anyone who really wants to blow up something probably has the good sense not to consult Wikipedia anyway. I'm in favor of the information being restored to the page. wikipediatrix 06:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Acetone peroxide is NOT as unstable as suggested here

It is! It can explode spontaneously or if you look at it cross-eyed. The compound sublimates so if you store it for a perdiod and upscrew the cap you're in for a surprise. If you value life & limb, steer well clear of this chemical. It got its nickname not without reason. 82.72.43.69 14:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where does Wikipedia stand?

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)

• I agree - the risk is not that terorists will use Wikipaedia; it is that many ordinary children and others with no evil intention will show foolish curiosity when given explicit instructions for an exciting explosion. The method is of no general value, so omit it. Adults don't give razors to babies, either. Jezza 12:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• If somebody really wants to make explosives nobody can stop him, but children should not have direct access to the really simple methodes. A synthesis procedure for TNT or Sarin is harmless for children, because they will never get the necessary chemicals. With terrorists its basically the other way round. So lets give not perfect cooking book recepies, but state the danger.--Stone 12:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

don't be so sure. Without going into details, TNT is made out of toluene, sulfuric acid, and nitric acid. Toluene is a common solvent under a common name everybody knows, and both the acids are readily obtained from car batteries and fertilizer. Albester 14:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think children will be able to get their hands concentrated h2o2? I highly doubt it... -- MyrddinEmrys 08:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

These arguments are besides the point. The synthesis should not be here, see WP:NOT. In a safety section (which also should be kept to a minimum, again for the same point in WP:NOT) a sentence 'hydrogen peroxide is a strong oxidiser that easily oxidises organic compounds, especially in the presence of an acid.(ref) (full stop)' would be a good thing. In acetone peroxide, mode of explosion, OK, but for the synthesis not more than a oneliner with a very rough synthesis: 'acetone peroxide is synthesised from a controlled, acid-catalysed, oxidation of acetone with hydrogen peroxide.(ref) (full stop)' (and I would be gratefull if all other articles in chemistry would obey the same, even if they don't do that at the moment, so please don't use that as an argument). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Good points. (But I must insist it should be (full stop) (ref), per Wikipedia:Footnotes#Where to place ref tags. =P) —Keenan Pepper 22:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel like cutting it down even further .. what about 'catalyzed oxidation of acetone.' or even 'controlled oxidation of acetone.' There is however an other side to it .. care has to be taken not to mix acetone with an oxidator. That is a useful warning. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Be aware that TATP is mentioned in Time.com Today 8/10/06

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)

"and has also been reported as the explosive favored by suspects arrested on August 10, 2006 who intended to blow up airliners flying from the United Kingdom to the United States."

i may be missing something, but.. inclusion of this sentence fragment doesn't make any sense. every news outlet is talking about "peroxide-based" liquid explosives, which are banned from carry-on luggage in the US and the UK. the word "liquid" doesn't even appear once in this article. not even out of context! the most likely liquid peroxide explosive in this plot was MEKP. jon 14:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Snapper/Torpedo

This article claimed that TATP was used in "toy fireworks of the 'snapper' or 'torpedo' type" until a BoingBoing reader exposed that as a hoax today. It was changed to claim that this was a "rumor" which was false, or to be precise, it was a rumor started four days ago by a false addition to a Wikipedia article. Far better to simply remove the false claim, IMHO.

[edit] Sources

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)

[edit] Wrong name?

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)

Gotta be careful to avoid mixing it up with dimethyl dioxirane, of which acetone peroxide is something like a dimer (or trimer). Acetone oxide is an actual compound that is unlike any of these--it's structurally a carbonyl oxide, not a peroxide; see the fragmented intermediate in an ozonolysis reaction for an example. Aren't common names fun? DMacks 17:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not a clever question

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)

Indeed. I changed it to "oxidation". DMacks 08:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American journals

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)