Talk:Fuse (explosives)

fuse : for civilian useage. fuze: for military useage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.116.220.235 (talk) 06:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I just want to say that as a born and bred American, a native speaker and the holder of a graduate degree, that I have never, ever seen the word "fuze" before. When I first saw it here on wikipedia, I assumed that it was a Britishism. Now, the 'z'-spelling may have currency as a very specific kind of device, but I would say that to call it an Americanism is patently false, as an alternate spelling for 'fuse'. My two cents, at least. 70.92.1.10 04:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm a United States Marine and an ammunition technician. Fuzes are, among other things, ancillary items required to detonate our rounds, and you'll also find fuzes inside, for instance, hand grenades. As stated above, fuses are slow-burning materials that detonate an explosive (or, even, as with a fragmentation grenade, a fuze) in a set period of time. A fuze initiates a high-explosive train and detonates a main charge. 68.118.13.103 05:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Fuse & Fuze are the same thing, the Z version does not denote anything different to the S version

No, they aren't the same thing. Please read all the above. Military usage is consistent. Georgewilliamherbert 18:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually they are the same thing, the only distinction is in the Americanisation of the term fuse. If you trained outside of the US, you would find the term fuse used to denote anything from a burning fuse to a VT etc. In fact the term fuse, is referenced by The United States of America in several patent applications, and can be referenced online on various US websites, so even in the US ther term fuse is used by many. "TheNose | Talk" 19:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have in my posession English, German, Israeli, and NATO weapons operational manual and design specification documents that use "Fuze" in the US standard method (and that's just on quick look, I've probably got more around somewhere). This is not just an americanism. Please read the above discussions - this keeps coming up, and there's plenty of evidence that in at least significant parts of the world there is a difference in the terms. Even if it was only in the US (and it clearly ISN'T), it would require noting that the usage is different in places. Georgewilliamherbert 19:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Quoting "in the US standard method", I wasnt aware Wiki was American only.

UN in Pakistan refer to Artillery fuse^[2]

Daily Telegraph Quoting American Human rights watch regarding an incident in Gaza^[3]

US Military MSDS Safety Information for M762 ARTILLERY FUSE^[4]

I could go on, but as fuse is the same as fuse, and all my training manuals refer to fuse. "TheNose | Talk" 19:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The first 2 citations are popular press articles, which are not reliable sources for precise technical jargon within a field. The last is a Materials safety data sheet, which uses "fuse" at the top (again, this is a popular and not specific military or explosives field document) and then about a page down says that the precise name for the item is a "Fuze".

There's no dispute that there are tendencies for popular usage to use them interchangably. There is clear consensus that at least in the US, and in many foreign military documents (not UN, actual military usage), Fuse and Fuze are different. Specific technical usage in a field trumps popular misuse of terms. Please stop making this change. Georgewilliamherbert 19:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If I might make a suggestion:

One way to approach this issue would be to keep the fuse/fuze distinction (as it does seem to be legitimately used in a substantial number of sources), but also add a section discussing the terminology per se and outlining the various subtleties (of which I suspect there are many, not least the CoEn/AmEn issues) with the use of each term in different contexts. Kirill Lokshin 20:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I would respectively disagree, the 2 spellings of the word fuse have the same meaning. Just because some people have taken to using a different spelling to describe what is fundamentally the same thing "something that causes something to burn/detonate or deflagrate". The use of the word dates back hundreds of years and can still be referenced to modern day munitions used in WWI, WWI, Korea, Vietnam, Falkland Islands, Suez, Gulf 1 & 2 and so on. In fact references to the word fuse can be found in the US patent database to describe IPR in modern day artillery shells/equipment. The correct spelling is fuse, I agree some people have chosen to spell it differently that is fine, but not necessariuly correct. Why does Georgewilliamherbert chose to keep reverting my amendments (3 reverts today), further more why revert chnages made after the correction of the spelling. "TheNose | Talk" 22:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Fuze is correct by US military standard and in common use within NATO countries and former Warsaw Pact countries, China, India, Israel, and even English defense industry; that's enough to leave the article as-is at least pending more detailed discussions here. Please stop making the changes to the article (fuze->fuse) until we have an adequate chance to discuss it here on the talk page.

If I reverted another edit of yours, unrelated to the fuse->fuze spelling, then I apologize. I didn't spot that in the article history. Feel free to re-add it.

Thanks for engaging in the discussion here. Georgewilliamherbert 22:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The reverting of other changes is unfortunate, and hopefully something that won't be repeated; in any case, everyone should be discussing things rather than just forging ahead with large-scale modifications of the article.

As far as the question of "correct" spelling: it's clear that there is some distinction in how the terms are (correctly or otherwise) used—even if only one of national dialects—and this ought to be documented in the article. Whether the distinction need actually be employed throughout the text is something that might better be answered by a more thorough comparison of different sources to determine how prevalent any actual fuse/fuze usage difference is. (This comparison, would, incidentally, provide ample sources to actually document the dispute itself, as well.) Kirill Lokshin 22:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, just visit the US Department of Labor's dictionary of explosives terms. (The USDL regulates worker safety.) It never mentions "fuze". http://www.osha.gov/doc/outreachtraining/htmlfiles/blasting.html Scott Adler 22:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

OSHA doesn't regulate military equipment. Look at all the DOD links above: this is a real, verified, confirmed, commonplace military munitions term. Georgewilliamherbert 04:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Fuze is what is written on artillery ammunition packaging in English speaking countries.

OFG Hogg in his 'Artillery: its Origin, Heyday and Decline'(1969)states the following(pg 183): 'The word "fuze" is often spelt "fuse" by those unaquainted with artillery usage. This is incorrect. "Fuse", derived from fusus, the past participle of fundo, means "to melt", e.g., the term "fuse-wire" used in electrical circuits. "Fuze", on the other hand, is the shortened or modern method of spelling "fuzee", meaning a tube filled with combustible material. It is a derivation of fusus, a spindle and from the French fusee, a spindle full of thread. It is well to make this point at the outset.'

You can use fuse wherever you want unless you are referring to the fuze that is a component of artillery ammunition.

Incidentally the word 'fuze' apears to have been standard in UK military use in the early 20th Century. Don't have any contemporanious documents to check earlier.

Nfe 07:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that just about ends the argument, Nigel ! Proof that fuze is in fact a different word, which unfortunately sounds like another unrelated word. Hence people get confuzed. If the military in all the English-speaking countries insist on fuze, I think Wikipedia articles dealing with ammo and ordnance should follow. British ordnance manuals as far back as 1872 used fuze exclusively. As in Pettman's General Service Fuze.Rcbutcher (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know these are most commonly created with a thick walled paper tube instead of a hollow wooden dowel.

The spolette is also most often ignited by the quickmatch leader fuse rather than the lift charge (the shell is loaded with the spolette oriented upwards to reduce pressure on this weak spot, the solid disc in the other end of the shell can handle more pressure) the lift charge is then ignited by a passfire fuse (quickmatch) connected to the spolette and placed along the side wall of the shell towards the bottom where the lift charge is placed.

Pyrotechnica IX and XI contains articles by A. Fulcanelli where traditional Italian / American shell design is described in great detail. Ere 09:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This has surfaced again over at Talk:Contact fuse. Following a request to rename it to the correct spelling, one editor's response has been to start edit-warring by rewriting the whole article (and its references) to use "fuse". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/ammunition/junghans/

  Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 10:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Just in case anyone here isn't already aware, there is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Fuze#Spelling (again) at Plasticine. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fuse (explosives). 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 https://web.archive.org/20080212073943/http://stinet.dtic.mil:80/oai/oai? to http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA312253

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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} 00:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Is this article in English or American English? At the moment, it doesn't say. If that can be clarified, then the spelling can be corrected as appropriate. Hengistmate (talk) 06:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

American 'English' is so far from 'real' English - in spellings and grammar - that it might well be called 'Usan', the main language used by Usans in Usa! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sala hantle (talk • contribs) 17:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fuse (explosives). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090319014342/http://213.162.22.164/fileadmin/pdf/mbc/IWP/SC_june05/speeches_gs/HRW_17June05.pdf to http://213.162.22.164/fileadmin/pdf/mbc/IWP/SC_june05/speeches_gs/HRW_17June05.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)