Talk:Detonator

Explosives Mid‑importance

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

Military history: Technology / Weaponry

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

exploding-bridgewire detonators do contain explosives, the difference is that the energy to set off the primary explosive charge is provided by the vaporization of the bridgewire, rather than heating or a spark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.218.212.69 (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger

Proposed merge from Blasting cap to Detonator because I believe they are synonyms. If they are synonyms, this merge will reduce redundancy and forking. Please comment on this, thank you. --Rifleman 82 02:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blasting cap is specific; detonator is a general category which covers many more detonating mechanisms than just blasting caps. They are not synonyms. These should not be merged. Georgewilliamherbert 03:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I observed that the two articles were developing independantly. If blasting caps are types of detonators, then perhaps a small section with a "main article - blasting cap" can be inserted in Detonator. I would do it if I could, but I'm not particularly knowledgeable about this field. --Rifleman 82 05:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just done that. Also I applied a cleanup tag to the article as a whole, which is not really very coherent right now, and I will work to clean it up in my nonexistent spare time...

Are you satisfied with the way things are moving, and willing to undo the merge proposal? Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 19:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. --Rifleman 82 21:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Iniation by heat/flame?

"Detonators can be chemically, mechanically, or electrically initiated, the latter two being the most common." Surely detonators can be initiated by heat/flame also?

You should sign comments on talk pages with ~~~~, that's how you get the name/date combo.

Military detonators rarely are flame initiated. Commercial Blasting caps are often flame initiated, but most military detonators try not to go off accidentally in a fire... Georgewilliamherbert 07:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a link to SPDs in the article, but that resolves to the Social Democratic Party in Germany, which I doubt is very appropriate. That link should be either deleted or fixed.32.97.110.142 20:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Dave[reply]

I don't know that the intended target has a wikipage yet; I just deleted the link. Thanks for spotting that. Georgewilliamherbert 20:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed FICTIONAL VARIATIONS section

I removed that section as it contributed no useful information to the page. In the fictional universes listed, the word detonator isn’t even used in the way the article describes, but rather as a synonym for explosive or hand grenade. Ale rc310 (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up wording in early sections of article

This article, while quite useful, reads as if written by people who do not work in the energetic materials business. Words are often mis-used or content is not clear. There's more work to be done, but I tried to clean up and clear up some of the content at the beginning of the article as well as adding references and links. I will try to keep working through the article at a later date. I welcome comments and help. DoktorScience (talk) 04:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]