Talk:Tannerite

This article is descriptive in terms of firearms, and covers the firearms topic well. However, there seems to be no information about non-firearm uses of Tannerite, for example, in mining. No history or chemical composition is discussed. The article portrays a feeling that Tannerite is used only in shooting.

Emike09 (talk) 05:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That's because tannerite IS only used in the area of firearms. Who would buy expensive, low-yield explosives which needed to be shot for detonation when plain black powder will do the job and can be remotely detonated without needing a line-of-sight and a rifle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.172.41.123 (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

As demonstrated on MythBusters, Tannerite can be detonated using a blasting cap. On the show, they said that this was used to produce explosions for movies and TV special effects. Mind you, they did shoot it with a bullet to get it to explode. Having a trunk full of mixed Tannerite hit by another car did not cause an explosion, even when hit by a rocket-powered car. Nutster (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

While commercial target Tannerite and commercial explosive Ammonal are both a mix of the chemical compound ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3) and the element alumnium (Al) in powder form, the proportions are sufficiently different that Tannerite is not a good substitute for Ammonal. Movie effects teams can afford specialized high velocity detonators for boom'n'smoke gags with Tannerite which can be transported as a non-explosive when unmixed. The price of Tannerite and special detonators would be a real sticking point for any commercial mining or quarrying operation. Miners want cheap safe explosives like Tovex, Ammonal or ANFO that use more conventional detonators. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 12:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I note that an individual styled pideononthe wing has deleted a series of images I placed showing the effect of a standard dose of tannerite on a car hood. At present, I have reversed the deletion. These images show the distrucive power of this explosive target compound and add materially to the article. --Mcumpston (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Though disgusted enough to cease contributions to wikipedia, It rankled me that an individual had deleted the series of images showing the effects of the standard target dose of tannerite on an an automobile. The pictures relate directly to the discussion in the article. Further the individual who reverted the images seems to have no knowledge of the subject matter or any interests remotely connect to it. I believe he attacked the article because of something in one of my other contributions that offended him (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing&diff=30734753&oldid=30734730)

--Mcumpston (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Your beliefs are unfounded; your personal attacks (as you've been advised previously) and description of my edits as "vandalism" are unacceptable and your pictures add nothing to the article. They tell us nothing about Tannerite and could just as easily illustrate an article about some other explosive. Does anyone else want to keep them? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've cropped the Image:Tannerite2.JPG to illustrate the effects and the usage of Tannerite in recreational shooting. That's your acceptable image usage. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Tannerite in a plastic jar exploded by a bullet produces a loud boom, smoke and plastic shrapnel that is light and does not travel far.

I and my son have used Tannerite in plastic jars as recommended by the manufacturer, including using it to launch plastic water drums into the air (we had 112 acres private land to play in). That's fun.

Tannerite in metal objects (junk car, stove, mower, metal drum) have resulted in serious injury or death. That aint no fun.

I am not comfortable with showing use of Tannerite with metal targets and feel it is irresponsible. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Naaman Brown; we shouldn't be illustrating a use explicitly forbidden by the manufacturer ("Never place these targets inside, on top of, or under any surface that could produce shrapnel or within another object"). I have removed the photo. ʍw 02:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Just because the manufacturer advises against it, misuse of Tannerite occurs and has lead to property damage and injury. The image serves a useful purpose of illustrating this and I disagree with removing it since we do not have consensus. I am reversing it until we doMartinezMD (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Why should the only photo be of "misuse"? Also, the image is not of "property damage and injury" - I'm sure nobody was hurt in the making of that photo, and nothing was damaged unintentionally - so I don't really understand the relevance of your point to this photo. ʍw 03:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with displaying the "correct" use of the explosive. Please feel free to add that. The relevance of the photograph currently in the article demonstrates the effect of just a half pound of the mixture.MartinezMD (talk) 04:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The burden is on you to give reasons why we should keep this photo. You say "the photograph... demonstrates the effect of just a half pound of the mixture" (emphasis mine); Wikipedia articles do not include images for their shock value. Any of a number of explosives could be placed in a car to give a similar effect. I can't see that this photo adds any real information to the article. ʍw 04:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

In fact, I'd go as far as to say the inclusion of this image may violate this Wikimedia Foundation Resolution (linked from Wikipedia:Offensive material), which states:

"We support the principle of least astonishment: content on Wikimedia projects should be presented to readers in such a way as to respect their expectations of what any page or feature might contain."

A reader might expect to see images of the actual substances, and maybe its "correct" usage, but not an exploding car! ʍw 04:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not looking for sensationalism. I think it does, however, give the reader a sense of proportionalism, especially now that Tannerrite-like explosives have been used as a terrorist tool. In fact, I would love to see photos in the article comparing "standard" amounts of the powder with some increasing amounts as well. We could get arguably get rid of the entire "notable incidents" section using the shock-value logic because none of those used the recommended amounts. Understand what I'm saying? If the value of the visual demonstration of these effects is not agreeable to most of the editors, I'll defer since I'm not trying to be obstinate. I simply see it that someone trying to understand more about this will see that it doesn't take much of the mixture to have a significant reaction as described in text in the notable incidents section.MartinezMD (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

give the reader a sense of proportionalism

Tannerite explodes, we know that, we don't need the photo to tell us that. As many reliable sources will attest, natural gas has caused homes to explode and otherwise caused many injuries and deaths; should we try to find a still-frame of a house mid-explosion for that article?

Additionally, this 'exploding car' photo wasn't prepared by a reliable source, and so the conditions may not have been as described.

especially now that Tannerrite-like explosives have been used as a terrorist tool

Again, any explosive widely-known enough to have a Wikipedia article has been abused; I don't understand what makes Tannerite special. Unmodified Tannerite was not used in the bombs, but rather some unnamed ammonal derivative (widely described as "Tannerite-like") with potentially differing properties.

could get arguably get rid of the entire "notable incidents" section using the shock-value logic because none of those used more than the recommended amounts

I think most readers expect to read about incidents - it's probably what brought them to the article. But they wouldn't expect to see an exploding car here any more than a bullet-riddled corpse at machine gun. Also, all the incident examples do violate the manufacturer's recommendations.

doesn't take much

A half-pound is a lot, as explosives go; Tannerite is just particularly weak.

most of the editors

Discarding the discussion before last week (it's been a long time since 2008), it seems we're 1 for and 2 against (the latter being Naaman Brown and I). Note that at the time of the 2008 discussion, the resolution I linked didn't exist (and I'm sure the guidelines were different, though I'd still have agreed with Andy Mabbett). If there's no additional objections in, say, 24 hours or so, I may remove the photo (again). ʍw 15:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Re: "As many reliable sources will attest, natural gas has caused homes to explode and otherwise caused many injuries and deaths; should we try to find a still-frame of a house mid-explosion for that article?" if such an image can be found it would be a good addition to the existing image at Gas explosion (the reason that natural gas has a separate explosion page is because there are so many non-explosive uses. The whole point of Tannerite is that it is an explosive.)

Re: " But they wouldn't expect to see an exploding car here any more than a bullet-riddled corpse at machine gun", our article on Machine gun has images of them being used in combat. and it is likely that as a result there are bullet-riddled corpses nearby. We don't show the corses for the same reason we would not show photos of someone who was killed or injured by Tannerite. Showing Tannerite blowing up an inanimate object is perfectly acceptable.

I see no issue with images showing Tannerite blowing up a car or anthing else. That being said, of the three images available:

• 
  File:Tannerite explosion 2.jpg
• 
  File:Tannerite explosion.JPG
• 
  File:Tannerite explosion full 2.jpg

I prefer File:Tannerite explosion 2.jpg, but none are really what I would consider good. None of them clearly show Tannerite blowing up anything. We just see smoke from an explosion that just happened.

Regarding the other available Tannerite images:

• 
  File:Tannerite placed under car hood.jpg
• 
  File:Tannerite car hood wreckage orig.jpg
• 
  File:Tannerite car hood wreckage.jpg

I just don't see how they add to the article. The hood was already damaged, now it is more damaged.

So, in conclusion, in my opinion it is OK to include an image of a Tannerite explosion or the results of a Tannerite explosion on an inanimate object, but in my opinion none of the available images on commons are suitable. If someone finds something better on a web page somewhere, we can contact the owner of the image and ask them to release it under a CC BY-SA 3.0 License. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I would not oppose an image with something like frames from a high-speed video of a bottle of name-brand Tannerite being hit with a bullet and exploding, but I can't find anything informative like that, regardless of license, and I don't subscribe to the belief that any image is better than no image. Am I correct in concluding that you, Guy Macon, support removal of the current image? ʍw 16:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I support removal of the current image. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Per the now stronger consensus and lack of objections to my statement above ("If there's no additional objections in, say, 24 hours or so, I may remove the photo (again)"), I have removed the photo. I've also emailed Tannerite asking that they release some better photos under Wikipedia-compatible license. ʍw 18:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

This article seems to be 100% US-based, in particular when discussing legalities - for example, "they can legally be purchased" is stated without qualification, as though it applied to the entire world. Some info about tannerite's usage elsewhere would be very useful, but at least those parts based specifically on US law should be explicitly mentioned as such in the main text. (This is in no way my subject, which is why I haven't done that myself.) Loganberry (Talk) 19:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Is the product sold outside the U.S.? Currently, the U.S. law is specifically identified as such in the article. However, I believe there is still no mention of any use of the product outside the U.S. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

There is too much (a very subjective measurement) text copied verbatim from the Tannerite website . I'm re-wording the offending sections. Pfagerburg (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. I noted that an account named User:Tannerite, which I assume was created and used by the inventor of Tannerite, had edited the article, but the text in question was not added by that account. Safer to re-write it. Pfagerburg (talk) 04:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sufficient heat will detonate any given combustion-explosive mix. Should read: "by burning (at less than xxx degree)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.164.123 (talk) 03:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Nitrates (such as those in Tannerite) are used as fire starters: they definitely do burn but are seldomn explosive in fire unless confined or in massive quantities.

Maj. Joseph Stoffel, "Explosives and Homemade Bombs", Thomas, 2nd ed 1972. A manual for bomb disposal personnel has this to say about ammonium nitrate based explosives: "Disposal: Burning is recommended."

Ammonium nitrate explosives including commercial Tannerite formulations can be disposed by speading loosely, unconfined and burning. Burning is recommended for disposal of dynamite, trinitrotoluene TNT, C4 and some other commercial and military explosives. Best done by someone with some Explosive Ordnance Disposal EOD experience with controlled burns.

Ammonium nitrate in huge heaps may explode, but common disposal of small quantities (typical Tannerite target volumes 1 to 10 pounds) is by burning unconfined and spread out. I prefer to spread it on the lawn just before or during a rain. (Ammonium nitrate is a cheap commercial fertilizer after all.)

Home chemistry explosives on the other hand are notoriously unstable, so if it is "home brew" lower case tannerite all bets are off. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tannerite. 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/20091008040315/http://www.atf.gov/explarson/fedexplolaw/2007edition/index.htm to http://www.atf.gov/explarson/fedexplolaw/2007edition/index.htm

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

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} 01:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey removed a few removed broken links, hope that's cool.Jamesakameisme (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I think we'll eventually need to summarize them further as additional incidents occur. Also, one of the reports has a minor conflict on the distance (25 vs 30 yards) from the explosive. Here is one of the cases with a slightly different distance than we have listed. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/27/man-loses-leg-shooting-automatic-weapon-at-lawn-mower-packed-with-explosives/?tid=pm_national_pop_b MartinezMD (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it is emerging that the explosive used in the 2016 Chelsea Bombing was a homebrewed Ammonal mixture of ammonium nitrate and alumonum powder in Ammonal proportions and not commercial uppercase-T Tannerite or even lowercase-t tannerite homebrewed from NH4NO3 + Al in Tannerite proportions. These Tannerite accident reports could be useful in cautioning people not to blow up metal targets or use homebrewed explosives as "tannerite" but I question linking Tannerite to the 2016 Chelsea Bombing. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe mentioning the 2017 Las Vegas shooting in this article would be undue emphasis on a minor point and a disservice to our readers. Yes, multiple news sources have mentioned "Tannerite" in connection with this shooting, but I can only find trivial mentions, and the quality of the reporting around this particular factoid has been exceptionally poor. Note, for example, how in this reference, CNN refers to Tannerite as a "chemical compound" - it's not. Sources published after the CNN seem to be based on the demonstrably faulty CNN material, while those published earlier couldn't agree whether the shooter was in possession of Tannerite, tannerite (used with a lowercase "t" to mean generic ammonal), ammonium nitrate, neither, or both. The distinction would be clear and important to investigators, but less so to nonexpert newspaper reporters. I tried and failed to find some primary source material to rule out this possibility of misleading or incorrect information being repeated by news agencies copying each other, but I haven't found anything from the actual investigation stating unambiguously that Tannerite was found in the car. Because explosives weren't actually used in the shooting, it's likely this won't ever be clarified via in-depth reporting, which further indicates that this information isn't suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. ʍw 04:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@A female faust: Please explain your restoration of the disputed material. ʍw 07:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Tannerite wasn't used in the attack. I'm sure he had a tire iron in his car. Do we add a paragraph to the tire iron article mentioning he had one? Not every mention of Tannerite in the news is notable. We will have a larger article we could call "Tannerite in the news" than the article itself if we were to do that. If anything, we should look to trimming down/streamlining the section from what is already there. I've removed the entry because I agree with the editors who have commented and removed it.MartinezMD (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think he had a tire iron in his car? Only because it's commonplace. Maybe you have a tire iron in your car too? Do you have any Tannerite? I doubt it, because driving around with Tannerite is exceptional. That is why his possession of Tannerite (if adequately sourced) is relevant here.

This is also (AIUI) not a small quantity of Tannerite that he had. It was a quantity comparable to the amount that requires repeated purchases to stockpile and which has already killed several people (accidentally or suicidally). This was not a credible quantity merely as target shooting supplies. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no report he had set the Tannerite up as an explosive in his actions. IMHO it may be relevant in the Paddock article, but not this one. Currently, all of the listed notable incidents involve the Tannerite detonating. I don't think simple possession is notable enough - it was in his car, no reports it was set up to be detonated or planted anywhere. The tire iron is an analogy. Now, do I have Tannerite? That's my personal business and not appropriate to bring up on the article talk page. But lets say I do, should I have an article about it? MartinezMD (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The point is that he had a quantity of Tannerite that would be hazardous, and in excess of what is credible for use as targets. For a man who we know to be a mass shooter.

Your own trunkload of Tannerite would be a hypothetical question of WP:NOTABLE, whilst Paddock's is the lesser question of WP:UNDUE. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I understand your points. I think it's simply not enough to include. I furthermore think we need to pare down that entire section of this article. We can wait to see what other editors think. Agreed? MartinezMD (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with with MartinezMD. Any mention of the shooting in this article would be WP:UNDUE. Further, most of the source material is of substandard quality and should be subject to scrutiny (as I explained above, per WP:RSCONTEXT); content derived from the available sources wouldn't be appropriate for an encyclopedia.

I further agree that the "Notable incidents" section could benefit from some trimming; this should be discussed in the section below. ʍw 00:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see the educational or historical value in the contents of a loser's trunk (or in the value of this product itself to tell you the truth). Tannerite played no role in this tragedy and this information should be kept to that page. 50.64.119.38 (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)