Talk:Explosive

What explosives come in stick form besides from Dynamite and TNT

Are there any other explosives that come in stick form besides from dynamite and TNT. 2.26.1.236 (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

This page is for discussing improvements to the article. You can get an answer to your question at the WP:Reference Desk/Science. EEng 20:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Video at top

This demo of 3 explosives is interesting. It would be much more meaningful if they were identified. There are a lot if words at https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Explosive&title=Special:MediaSearch&fulltext=search&type=video Could they be added as a note to the caption? Humphrey Tribble (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Definition

"a reactive substance that contains a great amount of potential energy" Relative to common chemical fuels (eg diesel) explosives do not contain a "great" amount of energy at all, they actually contain less. Their defining characteristic is that they release what energy they contain in an extremely short period of time. In physical terms, this is power, not energy. This definition would be "greatly" improved if the term "great amount of" were simply deleted. 37.152.237.108 (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Merge explosive device

We should redirect Explosive device to § Applications. That page is completely unsourced, contains not much salvageable information, and has been a stub for a long time. 174.138.212.166 (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

That's quite a bad reason to merge two articles that belong to quite distinct domains—one in chemistry, another across materials science, engineering etc. That's the reason that article is in that shape—it's a rather broad scope to connect, not at all apt to do the opposite and collapse into a subsection of another article. In general, articles never need to be merged or deleted because they're presently in a poor state, but based on what they would be in an ideal or serviceable state. Remsense 🌈 论 23:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I was told to Please re-read the opening sentences of each article more carefully. This article opens with An explosive (or explosive material) is a reactive substance that contains a great amount of potential energy that can produce an explosion if released suddenly, usually accompanied by the production of light, heat, sound, and pressure., perhaps this is what was meant by "chemistry". This article is broad: While § Chemical is chemistry, § Applications contains In materials science and engineering. The other opens with An explosive device is a device that relies on the exothermic reaction of an explosive material to provide a violent release of energy., which is also materials science and engineering. The separation here appears artificial, as Water § Human uses is in the same article as Water § Properties.

The domain of this article appears to cover that of Explosive device, which currently looks like a bad dabpage or category masquerading as an article. The extraordinary claim that they are used for riot control requires a source. If it's unacceptable to collapse into a subsection, then I have another idea: How about we move § Applications and replace Explosive device with it? That would at least solve the verifiability problems. 174.138.212.166 (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

It does presently, but I'm not sure it should. If Explosive device were a better developed article, it may include some of the material presently in this article. I'm not sure exactly what to do, but things can only get better. Remsense 🌈 论 00:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I completely agree with Remsense. Explosive device and explosives are not the same, yes, sometimes they are, but there are also many cases where this is not true. WP should be written in a way to distinct these two terms, not conflate them. A09|(talk) 18:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Reverse merge proposal

I propose merging § Applications into Explosive device, then {{excerpt}}ing or transcluding it into § Applications. This would resolve my sourcing concerns above and Remsense's scope concerns. 174.138.212.166 (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Merged 174.138.212.166 (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

superposiion de capteurs a reflexion de jets d explosions homeomorphes aux principes automorphes sur elles memes

Les jets automorphes sur elles memes ne possèdent pas d'instants de conformisme avec des quantités algénriques qui ne contiennent pas de données intrinsèquement démontré par leurs présences sur un socle de réaction non uniforme…. La puissance alors espéré pour une donnée d'apparaître hors de la sphère du détectable par des capteurs en dualités coordonnées à des pulsions homémorphes à des phases non détectable mmis visible au sens quantique et non de l'algèbre quuantique nous ammène à penser que les forces s'éxerçant sur ce socle de réaction ne sont pas réelles pour des capteurs tri duals. L'électricité à générer pour ces cas de calculs n'éxcèdent donc pas 100 eV conformément à des phases amplifié par au moins certaines forces dont le nombre dépend des nombres oscillatoires. Donc, dans la chambre d'explosion, les nombres oscillatoires en aimants ne peuvent être conçus par des forces non dépendantes de forces oscillatoires de gravité supérieur un nombre représantant une dimesion mathématique qui perd ses propriétés quand on entre dans sa dimension par une dimension qui, donc, en prenant ces deux diemnsions, le voyage fait perdre les propriétés algébriques. Le raisonnement n'est pas fini... ~2026-25446-18 (talk) 08:36, 28 April 2026 (UTC)