Talk:Acetone peroxide/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

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.

I propose a change of policy that says that technical information about building bombings or linking to it are appropriate reasons for deletion. I want to delete the article about the explosive TATP. Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad wrote today (July 15, 2005) that the information on TATP available on the internet (especially mentioning Wikipedia) may have helped the 7 July 2005 London bombings. Andries 17:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Request foldspindlemutilated and denied. We're an encyclopedia. We are here to provide people with information. Don't forget that information on TATP is also important to people who want to clean it up, for police officers considering how to find out if someone is making it etc etc, as well as provide information to the general public. And THAT is utterly disregarding even the fact that this kind of information is essential for actual chemists who might want to understand things. Further it might important to chemical engineers who might want to avoid manufacturing pathways that lead near to this conformation. The list is endless. Kim Bruning 19:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The request to delete Acetone peroxide and other Wikipedia articles about potentially hazardous chemical compounds is naive, ridiculous and strongly denied. This article is not a DIY-bomb-builder's guide. The Acetone peroxide is merely a summary description of a standard chemical compound that is widely described in the chemical reference literature. As such, it is entirely appropriate for an encyclopedia that aims to cover chemistry well. The quoted newspaper article is equally naive and ridiculous (see Talk:Acetone peroxide for more detailed discussion). Markus Kuhn 19:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, no one person can deny a request to change a wiki-policy (except maybe Jimbo). We can, however, strongly oppose it. I'm afraid I have to cast my vote with those opposing. Our article was started in 2004. TATP was used by Richard Reid in 2001, 3 years before. According to our own article, 800 kilos were seized in a single raid in 1998, 6 years prior. How to make TATP is hardly a secret. Supressing our little article is going to do nothing to stop the use of TATP. On the other hand, our article has clear warnings about it's instability and might stop some fool teenager from blowing his hands off (which happened to two geniuses I knew growing up). Rossami (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I just came here from a mention on the article's talkpage (having just searched to see if we had an article given all the media coverage today and being *pleasantly* surprised to see so much detail there). We provide information. We don't list the mechanics of making this stuff (or any other explosives afaict) but we definitely should list chemical and allied information. Absolutely against a delete policy (which wouldn't be practicaly anyway) --Vamp:Willow 21:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I love the idea that police forces and terrorists depend upon Wikipedia for information on bomb-making... Should this be the core of a new question on the Wikipedia addiction test? Perhaps we should remove all information on racism, chemical warfare, and Pokemon — three evils swept from the world in the blink of an eye. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

okay, I have been naive again and I hereby retract my chanceless proposal for the policy change. (Please leave any suggestions for curing me for once and for all from my naivety on my talk page. thanks) Andries 11:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually I was being serious about Pokemon. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Pikachu is the tool of the Devil. --Vyran 14:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey, good idea. If spreading that bit of propaganda could help get the pokemon fancruft down to even a manageable level, I'm all for it :) - Taxman ^Talk 15:08, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

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.

'relatively easy to make' is an understatement, child with could do it. All that is needed is acetone, hcl and peroxide (easily obtainable in paint supplies and barber shop).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.112.108.182 (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2014‎ (UTC)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beechside (talk • contribs) 09:05, 15 July 2005‎ (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Unused public domain image

Here is an orphan public domain image: Image:Acetone peroxide molecule.jpg --Strangerer (Talk) 23:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason to include it in the article - there are already skeletal formulae for the dimeric and trimeric forms of acetone peroxide.

Ben 23:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polverone (talk • contribs) 07:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

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 :)

18 USC 2339a -

(a) Offense. - Whoever provides material support or resources or conceals or disguises the nature, location, source, or ownership of material support or resources, knowing or intending that they are to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out, a violation of section 32, 37, 81, 175, 229, 351, 831, 842(m) or (n), 844(f) or (i), 930(c), 956, 1114, 1116, 1203, 1361, 1362, 1363, 1366, 1751, 1992, 1993, 2155, 2156, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2332f, or 2340A of this title, section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284), section 46502 or 60123(b) of title 49, or any offense listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B) (except for sections 2339A and 2339B) or in preparation for, or in carrying out, the concealment of an escape from the commission of any such violation, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in any Federal judicial district in which the underlying offense was committed, or in any other Federal judicial district as provided by law.

(b) Definitions. - As used in this section -

(1) the term "material support or resources" means any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials;

(2) the term "training" means instruction or teaching designed to impart a specific skill, as opposed to general knowledge; and

(3) the term "expert advice or assistance" means advice or assistance derived from scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge.

It's your call. Including the synthesis information in a Wikipedia article on TATP can be traced back to an individual thanks to the editing history. If someone can be shown to have used that information to prepare TATP in support of terrorism, the individual who posted the information can be prosecuted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mwfanning (talk • contribs) 23:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

You sick a scared mother fuckers. You would forbid and hide knowledge for sake of "safety" while weapon and bomb industry is booming. this compound can be used in pursue of energy alternatives. sick dumb freaked out idiots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.235.113 (talk) 06:42, 24 January 2012‎ (UTC)

Method featured on TV series

The simple synthesis which VampWillow protested above can readily be found from the information in her complaint by one familiar with the User Contributions tab, and is apparently not illegal since it can still be accessed. I was surprised to hear all three chemicals from it named in Revolution (Law & Order: Criminal Intent). Not even broadcast TV is censoring this synthesis! Wnt (talk) 03:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Safety

A knowledgeable person could comment on dangers and safety, give some sort of warning label. Geo8rge (talk) 03:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

If the sentence "It is highly susceptible to heat, friction, and shock." means it might be dangerous, I think the sentence should read "It is highly susceptible to exploding when exposed to to heat, friction, and shock." A Warning section might be in order. Geo8rge (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

"TATP was also found on two contractors in a Swedish nuclear power plant"

Well, no, we don't know that yet. At this point, all that's known is that traces of chemicals related to TATP were detected on the handle of a plastic bag, when using "bomb sniffing" equiment at a security checkpoint. The bag is currently undergoing a more detailed analysis, something that might take a few more days.

For more on this, ee e.g. http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=147&a=771906 (in swedish)

(the contractors did work with insulation material, btw) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.236.219 (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Analysis of the substances found showed that it was shaving cream. Can we remove this reference now? 217.31.178.94 (talk) 03:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like an obvious case of a detector false positive to me. Furthermore, the substance the detector indicated appears to be TNT, not TATP (as the initial news reporting said): http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jyTAs1PpooM4Nz9FvDN0N-DzL-9Q . I'm going to remove the reference to the Swedish nuclear plant incident in the article. Ketone16 (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Yes. It is perfectly legal in hair supply stores, or online--17 to 35%. Look around before you post. Besides, 3-6% works--it is just slower, takes much more of it and the acid. This may discourage trying it if it is so slow. And, the ingredients to TNT are available--beg them from your high school teacher, etc. TNT is just hard to make--three steps, lots of time. Besides, that is beside the point, as said.68.231.189.108 (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2009 (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)

You mean :"Oxidant".68.231.189.108 (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Solubility,etc.?

The first part of the article mentions because it "dissolves quickly". (??) It is insoluble in water. Please change to the solvent referred to--acetone, etc. Also, the trimer, at least, will Not go off under water; except maybe with a blasting cap. The sensitivity of A/P is grossly exaggerated here. The trimer takes a hammer blow to go off, and must be very dry. Making the trimer, properly, does not also produce the more sensitive Dimer and monomer. It can be done very safely. Why are there such inaccuracies in this heading? Are you covering your butts or something? Still, a chemical thesis should reflect the truth or it is inaccurate; and that is unprofessional and can be Dangerous.68.231.189.108 (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Washington incident

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/05/washington.state.explosives/index.html

John D. Raymond, 53, apparently created about a half pound of TATP. He was apparently upset with how his divorce case was being handled. Police apparently removed the explosive from his apartment safely using a robot. No mention as to how police became aware of the situation.drh (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

The sensitivity of all of wikis explosives should be clarified and placed in units (such as how many pascals it takes to detonate) rather than just general values —Preceding unsigned comment added by Incredibleman007 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

23:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)PROFMAD23:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)~ AP is a fascinating compound. When I have a few milligrammes of a sample for research, watching it defalcate, particularly in slo-mo, gives you more than a 'gut feeling' that AP is easily combustible, sensitive, and highly dangerous. I don't like handling, but it does provide for fascinating photography, giving insight into its own, and other forms of deflagration. AP does deflagrate in a most fascinating way. One experiment used 5 g spread evenly over 0.5 metre, taking approximately 1/15 sec. to fully deflagrate, i.e 7.5ms-1 (A figure I have found in general). Its heat is very diffused, with what appear to be its gaseous products, deflagrating approximately 1/30th second later. This occurs around 60-75 cm above the point of evaporation. These 'gases' which also appear to occupy up to 1m-3 from 0.25g of material (as flame), their 'coolness' is due only that they are allowed free expansion (primarily, to prevent detonation).(If overpressure occurred from using larger samples, or confinement, the film results would never have been captured or this written). Also, the point where the material ignited is not the point of deflagration, and no scorching of wood takes place. The combustion lasts for about 1/10th. sec.(please forgive the 'about, appear, etc, as I am writing broadly, on different quantities). They are however, in the main, consistent. My photographic work is now completed (and though fascinating, relieved its over) . In summary, it is incredible watching how the material appears to spontaneously evaporate ahead of any flame, which comes 1/30th sec later. It is as if it vapourises, then its energy ignites its gaseous mass, into a roaring white flame, gone before the eye can really see. This is why I filmed at 1000fps. I'm an old hippy at heart, and cannot grasp why people want to use materials like AP to harm & mame people. I wish people just saw only the pure beauty of pyrotechnics (& explosives). The story of the Nobel Prize is a good start in understanding how scientists worked for peace, but their work exploited for destruction. The Alamogordo experiments conversely a race to secure the weapon of peace. I am no politician (fortunately), 23:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)PROFMAD23:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profmad (talk • contribs)

Sensitivity?

Why does the first part of the article contradict itself?: "It is very sensitive to heat, shock, etc"; then it states:"affected by impurities"; then:"relatively stable when pure." Why is it so suddenly going from instable to stable? What do impurities have to do with it? Nitroglycerin is pretty stable if pure, also. So, What? The article should only mention its qualities in pure form, first; then, maybe, explain bad "reputations" are caused by impurities. You must be precise and scientific under a Chemical heading.68.231.189.108 (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC).

WP:BOLD.—Tetracube (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

What is this c**p and how is it significant to an accurate chemical treatise?68.231.189.108 (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Tetracube here means: be WP:BOLD, or, in other words WP:SOFIXIT. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

More irrelevant B.S. I am Not correcting Anything, needing bold face; I am simply asking it be changed. Please only contribute something relevant to the discussion.68.231.189.108 (talk) 14:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

They are all saying "if you think there is something needing changing, change it." Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, rather than having a designated set of authors that are responsible for the articles. DMacks (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that when discussing explosives, "sensitivity" and "stability" refer to different properties. "Sensitivity" refers to ease of initiation. "Stability" refers to how well the substance resists degradation over time due to heat, light, etc. 141.217.223.53 (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

23:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)PROFMAD23:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)~ AP is a fascinating compound. Local nail polish remover has water & glycerin as components, too.Also, I use Conc..HCl if I make a small sample.It is only a 'gut feeling but this seems to produce as stable an AP, as one could wish for. I am not keen handling it, but it provides fascinating photographs, giving insight into its own, and other forms of deflafration. When I'm feeling 'in tune' I will use up to 5 grms spread evenly over 1 metre. It takes approximately 1/15 sec.to fully deflagrate, i.e 15ms-1. The Israeli's may want people to believe it to be an endothermic reaction, and whilst granted it is relatively cold compare ed to even BAP, an energy comes out from this level of material, which is adrenalising. I try never to detonate it, (a small portion of~25mg did after dec on a cooker top, with a deafening bang. Once you have ignited a small portion, you know instinctively this stuff is sensitive & dangerous. My photographic work is almost complete, which I will publish soon. It is fascinating how the material appears to evaporate ahead of any flame which comes much later. It is as if it vapourises, then its energy ignites its gaseous products, into a roaring white flame, and gone before the eye can really see. I'm an old hippy at heart and cannot grasp why people want to use materials like AP to destroy of mame lives. I wish more people just saw only the pure beauty of these compounds. 23:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)PROFMAD23:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profmad (talk • contribs)

Notable accidents

I see nothing notable in them. If not fixed soon I will remove. WP:RECENT, seems to be that.--Cerejota (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me, particularly considering the appallingly-mangled machine-translated French. "“Their vital prognosis is not engaged”", lol! 82.6.108.62 (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done Had to wait a month, but thats that. :P--Cerejota (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Monomeric form

Unless someone provides some WP:RS for dimethyldioxirane being the "monomer" of the title compound, I'm going to remove the content about it. The article here is about the chemical(s) called "Acetone peroxide", not all chemicals related to or derived from acetone that have a peroxide in them. The two refs about this chemical in the article do not support that it is on-topic here: doi:10.1021/ja01533a033, the 1959 ref in which the various components of the original preps are analyzed, only discusses an open-chain form, not the three-membered ring, and doi:10.1021/ac020392n, which is used to support that the monomer is especially unstable, doesn't appear mention the monomer at all. The title compound is described as a shock-sensitive solid, whereas DMDO is volatile (distilled during its synthesis) and its prep does not include any warnings about shock-sensitivity. DMacks (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

We already have an article on dimethyldioxirane. --Ben (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed--it being added as a link here is what triggered me to read about (and now question) its synonymous nature here. DMacks (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

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)

To User 83.72.. : No it isn't. Try some before you simply re-quote something you found on Google. It Is true,yes; sublimates may get on bottle threads--anyone will keep this cool, anyway, and use it within two weeks. The Trimer takes a hammer blow--it is not like Nitrogen Iodide. You have the two mixed-up.68.231.189.108 (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

To User 68.231.189.108: You are correct. There have been a large number of reports of the dried trimer not detonating 100% of the time when struck by a hammer. Often, the hammer must be brought down with significant force AND a direct hit made. Don't just take my word for it, look around on some explosives and chemistry forums. JohnnyTopQuark (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Rate of Sublimation (Dubious?)

This article presents quantitative data on the rate of sublimation of TCAP but gives no experimental parameters such as the surface area, particle size, amount exposed, size of container, etc. that would be necessary for someone to gain any useful knowledge about the exact rate of sublimation. What does "in open air" mean? How large was the pile? What shape was the pile in? What was the density and average particle size of the pile? None of this information appears to be in the original reference which appears sketchy at best. It's as if some guy that's not very familiar with chemical lab work decided to somehow "publish" his own findings. Of course, though, that's just speculation.

All of this data adds no information that can't be summed up by simply stating "acetone peroxide sublimes relatively quickly at room temperature". I think all of the data should be deleted and the text replaced with a sentence similar to the one I suggested unless a sufficiently reliable source describing the other parameters of the experiment can be found. JohnnyTopQuark (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Detonation results questionable

I find the reference questionable: 1.) it is not the decomposition path seen in polymerization initiation reactions (well studied in the plastics industry), 2.) Ozone as a product seems forced as Ozone itself detonates with less energy input that TATP. "Angular strain"? Six member ring is 120 degrees. Picture isn't clear either. repulsion of lone pairs in Hydrogen Peroxide and Hydrazine forces molecules to be non-planar. Shjacks45 (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

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)

Acetone is not an oxide but rather a ketone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.18 (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Is that seriously a picture of a big pile of TATP in the photo?

I really hope the accompanying picture is of some other substance that looks somewhat like TATP. That is a big pile of it to have around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.185.18.207 (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Acetone peroxide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100905174323/http://www.codexalimentarius.net:80/web/more_info.jsp?id_sta=7 to http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/more_info.jsp?id_sta=7
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1695442,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources

I am a chemist an dusing peer-reviewed scientific journals especially in chemistry is both a primary and secondary source. The authors of the papers are the primary sources, and reviewers/editors are secondary sources. Requiring redundant citations is not only unwarranted, but it would require almost every single chemistry article on wikipedia to be introduced with disclaimers. If a general reader has an issue with a primary source and by issue I mean a specific counter claim to evidence presented, then I can understand requiring secondary sources. If JACS is considered unreliable to the point of requiring more sources to support a claim, then it is not a matter of being careful, but hubris. Everysingle entry on physical data, ie M.P. B.P. molecular weight etc, is going to require multiple sources.

I suggest that for chemistry, all disclaimers asking for more sources, or unreliable sources, be removed unless the primary source has been consulted, and a specific claim being made is disputed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eframgoldberg (talk • contribs) 01:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Angle strain in acetone peroxide dimer

The text says that there is significant angle strain of the chemical bonds in the dimer of acetone peroxide, which makes it even more unstable than the trimer. Yet, at first sight, this dimer has a six-membered ring, and all of the six atoms of the ring should be sp3 hybrids. So, just as regards these geometric aspects, this ring should not exhibit high angle strain, and the causes of the instability of the dimer should be other. But it is quite likely that there are some aspect of this topic I am not able to grasp.Ekisbares (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The statement in the article was cited to doi:10.1021/ac020392n, which does not address anything close to that idea, so I removed the cite. DMacks (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement still appears, and it also refers to strain in the monomer, which appears to be referring to DMDO, and not the acyclic dehydro form. Bottom line, problematic still. See also below. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

This is very confusing, Leprof. The only mention of "DMDO" or "dehydro" I see currently or saw in the version of the page from before you edited was in your own comments. What specific chemicals are you talking about? DMacks (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Oxygen atoms and specifically peroxide linkages are not considered the classic sp3 hydridized geometries one would think about with tetrahedral carbons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eframgoldberg (talk • contribs) 01:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Issue of ambiguity of forms between Chembox and article

The article talks about one set of forms, based on the citations it presents, the Chembox seemingly presents an overlapping but distinct set. For instance, the Chembox IUPAC name for the monomer is for DMDO, which is not discussed in the article. However, Milas and the text discuss the acyclic dihydro form of the monomer. (The Milas citation shows the cyclic trimer, and acyclic monomer and dimer.) Whether these 1959 structure assignments have stood the test of time is unclear, because only the primary sources are cited. Bottom line, there is a clear discrepancy and confusion between forms presented in Chembox versus the text (and current sources).

Moreover, with 6 or more potential compounds covered by the article (1-2 monomers, 2 dimers, a trimer and a tetramer, at least), the appearance of single values for some fields in the Chembox makes no sense at all. Perhaps the Chembox should be for the cyclic trimer, and all other information removed. In any case, you cannot have one value in a field, without indicating which form it applies to, and you cannot use "dimer" without cyclic or acyclic modifiers, as both forms are known, etc. Up to you Chembox-interested guys to sort this. I am uninvolved in this kind of editing. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that making a separate page for each of the forms is tedious and unnecessary. I am under the impression that most times people, when talking about TATP refer to triacetonetriperoxide. The title of this article should represent that and the chembox should only have that form. Other forms/properties should be mentioned in the article, and the names/CAS numbers in the chembox is as well. Eframgoldberg (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Tertiary sources ?

Someone requested that this article incorporate more tertiary sources on peroxides of acetone.

There is a problem: All of the tertiary sources that I've consulted say the same thing: peroxides in general (including peroxides of acetone) are so unstable that they're avoided in both military and civilian use. They are, therefore, basically just academic curiosities, and of little academic interest at that. Textbooks and reviews usually mention them only briefly for the sake of completeness, but so far, I've found no detailed treatments. (Even a monograph on organic peroxides mentioned explosive peroxides only briefly, as did Urbanski's multi-volume work on explosives.) Perhaps that will change after the recent use of peroxides of acetone by terrorists in their attacks — I have noticed a sudden increase in academic articles on how to detect explosive peroxides — but scholarly monographs, reviews, etc., may still not be published for a while. Meanwhile, Wikipedia administrators may have to be satisfied with what's already in this article. Nevertheless, I will continue to search for more tertiary sources. VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the request was for secondary and not necessarily tertiary sources. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources, but primary sources are not forbidden, especially for topical subjects for which not enough time has elapsed for secondary sources to have been published. Boghog (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Buggy template?

@MSGJ: {{Multiple issues 2}} was replaced with {{Multiple issues}} diff with the comment this template is buggy. What exactly is buggy about {{Multiple issues 2}}? Are you referring to edit in the {{Multiple issues/sandbox}}? As far as I can tell, both the before and after version produce a functioning talk page section link. Boghog (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

There was a stray noinclude being produced somewhere. Replacing it has fixed this — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the pointer. {{Multiple issues 2}} fixed in this edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boghog (talk • contribs)

Okay but I really think you should wait for consensus. Forking the template in this manner could be seen as disruptive — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You have also replaced this template 5 times now. That is edit warring — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I only intend to use the forked template in this one article to provide a link to the relevant section of this talk page and to provide a working example for the proposal discussion. As soon as we come to a consensus on talk page links in the main template, the forked template can be deleted. Also one of the five edits that you mentioned was a modification to my own edit. Boghog (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I still count 5, but the exact number does not matter. Your actions here have not been optimal. The best place to test and develop templates is the WP:TESTCASES page, not on a live article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Single purpose templates get created all the time to solve specific problems like this one. As soon as they outlive their usefulness, they get deleted. All this fuss about modifying one link in one template used in a single article so that it can be directed to a more appropriate location? It seems like templates have become more important than articles which is completely backwards. Boghog (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

What's completely backwards is how multiple editors agree that {{Multiple issues}} should be used in place of {{Multiple issues 2}} (or any other experimental variant of agreed templating) on this article, and yet with every discussion and every edit to resolve the situation, just one "stubborn" (their word) editor repeatedly reverts to only their preferred condition. This ridiculous state of affairs continues even after Slakr (admin) called the behaviour "edit warring" at the as yet unresolved case before Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. fredgandt 19:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Fred Gandt, MSGJ, and Slakr: This has become completely absurd. I would request that everyone take a deep breadth and read what I have written directly above. This whole issue is getting blown out of proportion. I would also like to contrast this edit with my response. Boghog (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree, this issue is absurd and apparently you Boghog have decided to make it personal by linking to my comments in template discussions in an attempt to what - discredit me? And show your response where you assume to judge how I estimate other editors in what - an attempt to show yourself as the reasonable victim? I will not be told when to breathe by you or anyone else and I outright resent your tone. Do not speak to me or any other editor in that manner. You're clearly incapable or unwilling to find amicable resolutions, and wish only to push your own agenda, and I consider you thus to be a detriment to this and its related discussions. fredgandt 20:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Calm down. Boghog (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Expert attention needed

The following comment by Leprof 7272 that was included in an attention banner that because of its length, is better placed here:

Repeated use of primary sources, including patents, to source discoveries and facts when secondary sources are available/required per WP:VERIFY, and (2) content discrepancies between the main text and the Chembox—IUPAC forms listed in Chembox versus described in text and cited sources (e.g., Chembox with DMDO monomer, text and with acyclic dihydro monomer; similarly with dimers), and rest of box with seeming inconsistent coverage of all forms in text; and (3) lack of or ambiguous Chembox field labels, and so ambiguity of molecule to which data applies, e.g., monomers and dimers unspecified as to cyclic versus acyclic, Properties and Explosive Data unclear as to form, etc. May be best to focus this box on TATP, and create separate boxes for other forms.

References

This unsigned edit was performed by Boghog, see View History for 14:24, 25 March 2016. He believes he has ultimate authority over the content that others place in such tags. Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: I have undone your edits because of the excessive length of your comments in the attention banner which have been reproduced in full above and because you have seriously degraded the readability of the lead. KISS (keep it simple, stupid) applies here. Boghog (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Possible Solution to Page Problems

I think the main issues people are having is that the page title is acetone peroxide which is technically a monomer. When most people refer to acetone peroxide, they refer to triacetoneperoxide, TATP. I think therefore the title of the page should be changed to reflect TATP and perhaps a landing page be made for acetone peroxides if someone wants to make a separate page for the monomer, dimer, trimer, cyclic, acyclic etc. Personally, I do not think that is necessary, I think just changing the page title to Triacetonetriperoxide and the chemdraw to the cyclic trimer is enough. The details given about the other forms can stay.

For example, the sodium salt of glycinate, the hydrochloride salt of glycine, glycine, the potassium salt of glycinate, all have their own CAS numbers, and different properties. Making a wikipedia page for each one is redundant and not necessary. The same should apply here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eframgoldberg (talk • contribs) 01:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with this evaluation. I've seen / heard it called acetone peroxide a lot, even by chemists, but that's usually because this is easy than rattling off the chemical name or an abbreviation. They Terk Err Jerbs (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.217.180 (talk) 11:54, 15 July 2005‎ (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.54.157 (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2005‎ (UTC)

You do not remember your OChem's definition of catalyst, or understand the whys and wherefores of catalyst function and use, including the multiple hats worn by the oxidizing acid conc. sulfuric in your earlier experience. And you are somewhat wrong about the "anyone trying" because such reactions are done routinely by advanced students through professionals, but are correct that it is foolish to do so outside of supervised, expert settings. There is nothing productive that can be said about the phrase "totally unstable," when applied, as it is here, to chemistry. Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I often prepared demo quantities for my high school in mid-late 1990s. One of the demo books was on the preparation of TATP and mentioned nothing about the instability, so I decided to use it as a demonstration of energetically burning compounds. The book made absolutely no note of the fact that it was a primary HE or the instability, but it also called for only a 1g preparation, of which 6 were done (one for each class). Honestly it is an extremely calm reaction, and does not require cooling or added precautions aside from the usual lab goggles at that scale. Filtering, scraping off the filter paper after dried, and moving to clean paper on a demo scale aren't going to blow your hand off, and 1g is not enough to detonate from ignition... or rather the flame front probably moves faster than the speed of sound but the quantity is only great enough to produce a small "pop" sound. The demo was that the tiny quantity would produce a relatively huge (nearly 1m diameter) fireball which dissipated with no smoke, and leave the paper it was sitting on completely free of burns. Much of the fear of it among organic chemists comes from the even higher instability of other organic peroxides (diethyl ether, anyone?) which spontaneously form over time from oxygen / light exposure and are more sensitive. I learned what it actually was later and would not prepare it on any scale now, but only because of the legality issue. I'm guessing it is not looked upon too fondly by the BATF, and having ~30% H₂O₂ sitting in your house is a generally bad idea.

To put that in perspective, I also prepared a small amount of NI₃ for one of those demonstrations... now that is much closer to "totally unstable". I've seen light gusts of air cause crystals to explode, and those are probably 1-2mg crystals we're talking about (at worst). It explodes in solution if too hard an object is used to remove crystals, and must be handled with a soft-haired paintbrush even in the "safe" wet form. The demonstration in that case was about strained molecular configurations, and the demo was to touch a crystal with a down feather on the end of a stick, which naturally causes it to explode. I can't imagine either of these demos being done in a high school these days. They Terk Err Jerbs (talk) 05:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Recipes for acetone peroxide

On 23 March 2016 at 14:35 someone using the user name "Leprof 7272" posted the following comment in the "History" section: "What is "Acetone peroxide" in paragraph 1? Paragraph 2 describes dimer; is paragraph 1 about first synthesis of the trimer, other? This is the problem with WP:OR by editors. If this is discussed in modern review (Secondary source), the actual form of the 19th century preparation is likely presented, or at least posited. THat must appear here, with the citation."

As requested, I posted "the 19th century preparation[s]" as well as secondary sources that state that Wolffenstein prepared the trimer form of acetone peroxide and that Baeyer and Villiger prepared both the dimer and trimer forms of acetone peroxide. However, I don't think that Wikipedia should post recipes for explosives, particularly for explosives that terrorists have used repeatedly, as this article itself states repeatedly. Furthermore, there is also a danger of the general public using these recipes to make and use acetone peroxide. (On YouTube, people have posted videos of themselves doing precisely that.) Therefore I will rewrite the recipes to make them more vague and therefore less useful. VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, so presenting information that is widely available elsewhere should not be prohibited per se. However I think the most relevant guideline is WP:NOTCOOKBOOK. It simply is not appropriate to present this level of detail in an encyclopedia. Boghog (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)