text:
Hope Vale, Queensland

Hope Vale (also known as Hopevale) is a town within the Aboriginal Shire of Hope Vale and a coastal locality split between the Aboriginal Shire of Hope Vale and the Shire of Cook, both in Queensland, Australia. It is an Aboriginal community. In the, the locality of Hope Vale had a population of 1,004 people.

Geography
Hope Vale is on Cape York Peninsula about 46 km northwest of Cooktown by road, and about 10 km off the Battlecamp Road that leads to Rinyirru National Park and Laura.

History
Johann Flierl, a missionary of the Lutheran Church, established the Elim Aboriginal Mission (1895; -15.25761°N, 145.31417°W) on the beach of the north shore of Cape Bedford and the Cape Bedford Mission (1886) nearby. While it initially flourished, Elim's future became grim and the people were relocated to Hope Vale.

Owing to fears that the German-influenced Aboriginal people might cooperate with the advancing Japanese in World War II, the total population of 286 was evacuated south to various communities by the military in May 1942. The German Lutheran missionaries were sent to internment camps. Most of the people were sent to Woorabinda, near Rockhampton, in Queensland, where a large number reportedly perished from disease and malnutrition. Hope Vale was re-established as a Lutheran mission in September 1949. Aboriginal people from the Hope Valley and Cape Bedford Missions settled there. A work crew was allowed to return in 1949 and the first families came home in 1950. Hopevale Post Office opened on 1 May 1965 and closed in 1990.

Due to a lack of reliable water supplies at Elim, and the establishment of a government funded school in Hope Vale itself, the community was shifted about inland to its present site.

Today, Hope Vale is the oldest continuing mission community in North Queensland.

Language
Guugu Yimithirr (also known as Koko Yindjir, Gugu Yimidhirr, Guguyimidjir) is an Australian Aboriginal language of Hope Vale and the Cooktown area. The language region includes the local government area of the Aboriginal Shire of Hope Vale and the Shire of Cook, particularly the localities of Cape Bedford, Battle Camp and sections of the Normanby River and Annan River.

Hopevale is home to several clan groups who mostly speak Guugu Yimidhirr and other related languages, as well as English.

Demographics
In the, the town of Hope Vale had a population of 974 people.

In the, the locality of Hope Vale had a population of 1,015 people.

In the, the locality of Hope Vale had a population of 1,004 people.

Government
Hopevale is no longer run as a mission by the church but by its own elected community council. In 1986 it received a "deed of grant in trust" (DOGIT) which "granted title to 110,000 ha of land which was previously Aboriginal Reserve Land held by the Under Secretary as trustee, to the community council to act as trustees of the land for the benefit of the residents." The Aboriginal Land Act 1991 (Qld) transferred into Indigenous ownership all previous reserve land under DOGIT (Deed of Grant in Trust) titles.

 * "The Warra people of the Hopevale Community of Eastern Cape York Peninsula in Queensland received acknowledgement of their native title rights in December 1997. The determination recognised rights of exclusive possession, occupation use and enjoyment over 110,000 ha. (Native Title Determination, Warra Peoples, Hope Vale Community of Cape York (NNTT ref# QC96/15))"

Education
Hope Vale has a primary (Preparation to Grade 6) campus of Cape York Aboriginal Australian Academy, which is headquartered at the corner of Thiele and Poland Streets in Cairns (-15.2952°N, 145.108°W).

There is no secondary school in Hope Vale. The nearest secondary school is Cooktown State School in neighbouring Cooktown to the south.

On 21 July 2008 the Hope Vale community opened the Indigenous Knowledge and Technology Centre, in the Jack Bambie building at 5 Muni Street. The now-Indigenous Knowledge Centre was established in partnership with Hope Vale Aboriginal Shire Council, the State Library of Queensland, Dot Com Mob, SJB Architects, Work Ventures, and the AMP Foundation. This centre provides a library service, training venue, and public Internet access.

Modern culture
The Hope Vale community has a strong choral singing tradition since its evacuation to Woorabinda. The ensemble has performed at the Queensland Music Festival on three occasions—in 2005, 2007 and 2009.

Notable people

 * Eric Deeral (1932–2012), who was the second Australian Aboriginal person elected to an Australian parliament and the first to a state parliament.

 * Queensland rugby league player Matt Bowen (born 1982).

 * Lawyer and activist Noel Pearson (born 1965), who has criticised the level of violence in the community.

title: Hope Vale, Queensland


text:
Zagato Raptor

The Zagato Raptor, sometimes referred to as the Lamborghini Raptor, is a concept car design created in 1996 by Zagato in partnership with Alain Wicki for Lamborghini. The body features the Zagato "double bubble" design and an innovative door design where the whole middle section of the car swivels up and forward. The chassis is borrowed from a 4WD Lamborghini Diablo. The design was completed and a sample vehicle displayed at the Geneva Auto Show in 1996. At the time of showing, it was believed that the car was ready for production.

Utilizing the drivetrain and 492 hp V12 engine from the Diablo, but eliminating the Anti-lock braking system (ABS) and traction control system, as well as the extensive use of carbon fiber for the body work made the vehicle significantly lighter than the Diablo, thus potentially faster. To make up for the lack of ABS and the higher potential speeds, an upgrade from the Diablo's braking system was used.

Most media sources speculated that it would have been an excellent car to bridge the gap between the Diablo and its successor, then called the Canto, but Lamborghini did not produce the Raptor. Alain Wicki briefly tried to develop it on his own with Zagato's help, but nothing became of his efforts. He owned the only prototype until 2000, when it was auctioned at the Geneva Auto Show and bought by a private car collector.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Zagato Raptor


text:
Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry

Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry is a 1974 American road crime drama film based on the 1963 Richard Unekis novel titled The Chase (later retitled Pursuit). Directed by John Hough, the film stars Peter Fonda, Susan George, Adam Roarke, and Vic Morrow. Although Jimmie Haskell is credited with writing the music score, the soundtrack contains no incidental music apart from the theme song "Time (Is Such a Funny Thing)", sung by Marjorie McCoy, over the opening and closing titles, and a small amount of music heard over the radio.

Plot
Two NASCAR hopefuls, driver Larry Rayder and his mechanic Deke Sommers, successfully execute a supermarket heist to finance their jump into big-time auto racing. They extort $150,000 in cash from a supermarket manager by holding his wife and daughter hostage.

In making their escape, they are confronted by Larry's one-night stand, Mary Coombs. She coerces them to take her along for the ride in their souped-up 1966 Chevrolet Impala. The unorthodox sheriff, Captain Everett Franklin, obsessively pursues the trio in a dragnet, only to find his outmoded patrol cars unable to catch Larry, Mary, and Deke after they ditch the Impala for a 1969 Dodge Charger R/T 440 at a flea market.

As part of the escape plan, Larry's vehicle enters an expansive grid of walnut groves, where the trees provide significant cover from aerial tracking, and the many intersecting roads ("with sixty distinct and separate exits") make road blocks ineffective. The trio evades several Dodge Polara patrol cars, one of them a specially prepared high-performance police interceptor that effectively keeps up with the Charger, and even Captain Franklin himself in a Bell JetRanger helicopter. Believing they've finally beaten the police, Larry and company meet their doom when they collide with a freight train pulled by an Alco S-1 locomotive, which unexpectedly emerges from a walnut grove.

Cast

 * Peter Fonda as Larry
 * Susan George as Mary
 * Adam Roarke as Deke
 * Kenneth Tobey as Donahue
 * Eugene Daniels as Hank
 * Lynn Borden as Evelyn
 * Vic Morrow as Franklin

Original novel
Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry is based on the novel originally titled The Chase (later renamed Pursuit) by Richard Unekis, published in 1963. It was Unekis' debut novel. The New York Times called it "a brilliantly detailed and breathless tale of pursuit".

The story incorporated a phenomenon that was relatively new in 1963: major auto manufacturers were putting powerful V-8 engines into mid-sized cars (the dawn of the "muscle car" era) and young thieves behind the wheel of these cars were now able to outrun the economy 6-cylinder sedans driven by police in many jurisdictions. The protagonists of The Chase used such a vehicle, a Chevrolet, and made use of the checkerboard of roads in the farm country of Illinois to outrun the police, as well as the cover of an approaching thunderstorm. The end of the novel closely matches the film, only with a tanker truck involved.

Filming
The film was shot in late 1973 in and around Stockton, California, mostly in the walnut groves near the small town of Linden, California. The railroad track in the final scene of the film served the Diamond Food processing plant in Linden and was abandoned in the 1980s when the plant switched to trucks for their transportation. The track still exists, in an abandoned state, and is owned by Omnitrax Corp.

The supermarket scenes were filmed in both Sutter Hill and Sonora, California, the drawbridge jump was filmed in Tracy, California, the swap meet scene in Clements, California, and the climactic train crash was filmed on the Stockton Terminal and Eastern Railroad in Linden, near the intersection of Ketcham Lane and Archerdale Road. The Bell JetRanger helicopter used in the climactic chase was flown by veteran film pilot James W. Gavin (who played the character of the pilot as well) and was actually flown between rows of trees and under powerlines as seen in the film.

In the commentary of the 2005 DVD and later Blu-ray releases, Hough says two blue 1966 Chevrolet Impalas, as well as two 1969 (and one 1968) Citron Yella Dodge Chargers were used in the filming. As the film was a low-budget project, and no more than three Chargers could be purchased, a team of mechanics would work on the cars overnight to repair damage, while the film crew would cycle through the available cars throughout the shooting day. Car haulers would follow the filming team with the additional cars as they were available.

In the same interview, Hough revealed that the ending in which the Charger crashes into the train was not in the original script. The novel upon which the film was based ended with the robbers colliding with a tanker truck, but since the Linden filming location offered a maze of railroad crossings, the ending was changed to incorporate the collision with the locomotive.

Hough said the lead characters did not die in the script: "I did that myself without asking or telling anybody. Consequently, we would not be able to make a sequel because the leading characters were all killed. But a statement I really wanted to make, was: speed kills. If you're gonna drive a hundred miles an hour, you’ll get yourself killed, so you'd better not speed."

Fonda said the film was shot "pretty much in sequence. We had about 20 exciting stunts and about five minutes worth of acting. We had to make our scenes count. Adam Roarke, Susan George, and myself were sort of like The Three Stooges I guess you could say...I had a fine time making the film. It was a lot of fun.”

Post-production
The film developers thought that the Dodge Charger was actually bright yellow so they "corrected" the film negatives to eliminate the greenish tint of the car. Therefore, the entire movie in theaters, on TV, and on VHS was originally very warm toned. The color was more correct in the 2005 DVD release (and later Blu-ray releases) and the Dodge Charger became the correct lime green color.

Box office
Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry was released by Fox in the spring of 1974 and was a surprise hit. It grossed $650,709 in its opening week in Texas and Oklahoma. It earned rentals of $12.1 million in the United States and Canada, making it Fox's most successful film of the year. By 1977, it had earned an estimated $14.7 million in theatrical rentals.

Fonda said the film "made a shit pile of money. More money than any film Dennis [Hopper] ever made." He added, "I couldn't believe that so many moviegoers had seen the film four or five times. I could understand them seeing Easy Rider four or five times or maybe even The Hired Hand, but why Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry? Heck, I was even embarrassed by the title."

Nonetheless the film established Fonda as a draw on the exploitation circuit and most of his films over the next few years were action movies.

On February 18, 1977, the film came to broadcast television (with several scenes cut before the theatrical release reinserted to extend the film's length to the minimum required to fill a standard two-hour time slot). These added-for-TV scenes have never been released to home video.

Critical reception
The film received mixed reviews from critics.

Edgar Wright said the film influenced Baby Driver. He said he "always felt sorry for the actor Adam Roarke in it who plays Deke. He's in the movie for the entire thing. You assume in the movie that Adam Roarke is going to die at some point, but he's there right to the end, so it really should be called Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry and Deke. Why does this guy get left off the title? He's been there the whole time."

Home media
The film was released on VHS and Beta in October 1979 on Magnetic Video.

On June 28, 2005, the film was released on DVD through Anchor Bay Entertainment as a "Supercharger Edition". It included a color-corrected and fully restored theatrical version of the film as well as many bonus features.

On April 12, 2011, the restored film was released again on DVD, this time through Shout! Factory, packaged as a double feature with another Peter Fonda film Race with the Devil. This release contained fewer bonus features than the Anchor Bay release.

This same release debuted on Blu-ray for the first time on June 4, 2013.

title: Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry


text: Talk:Lloyd House

title: Talk:Lloyd House


text:
User:Eloquence/monobook.js

function externISBN {

var magicURL = "http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/MAGICNUMBER/wikipedia08-20"; var magicRegex = /MAGICNUMBER/ig; if(mw.config.get('wgPageName') != "Special:Booksources" && mw.config.get('wgPageName') != "Wikipedia:Book_sources"){ for (var i = 0; i < document.links.length; i++) {              if( document.links[i].href.match(/isbn=(.*)/) ) { document.links[i].href=magicURL.replace(magicRegex, RegExp.$1); }   }  } }

function global_append_tab(url, name, id) { var na = document.createElement('a'); na.setAttribute('href', url); var txt = document.createTextNode(name); na.appendChild(txt); var li = document.createElement('li'); if(id) li.id = id; li.appendChild(na);

// Grab the element we want to append the tab and append the tab to it. var c1 = document.getElementById('column-one'); var tabs = c1.getElementsByTagName('div')[0].getElementsByTagName('ul')[0]; tabs.appendChild(li); }

function add_britannica_tab { var title=mw.config.get('wgPageName'); if(mw.config.get('wgNamespaceNumber')==0) { global_append_tab('http://school.eb.com/search?query='+title+'&ct=eb','in britannica','eb-search'); } }

$(externISBN); $(add_britannica_tab);

title: User:Eloquence/monobook.js


text:
Talk:Matzah ball

Untitled
A single recipe, properly cited, should not violate copyright. --Goodoldpolonius2 06:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Page cleanup
I've changed some perplexing claims in the article. I do know where the author got the idea that "matzah, eggs, oil and water" are the main cooking ingredients available during Passover ( don't Jews get scurvy every spring?), or that one's Shabbat observance has any effect on one's perception of matzo ball soup. Just weird. Flourdustedhazzn 09:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In any case, it would take more than 8 days to get scurvy.

Gebruchts to Gebrochts?
since the hyperlink at Gebruchts leads to an article titled Gebrochts, should the spelling be changed in this article? Does Wikipedia like that sort of standardization?Richardson mcphillips1 20:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Spelling Consistency
Both "matzo" and "matzah" are used in this article. According to the Wikipedia style manual, a consistent spelling is preferable. I am inclined to change all instances of matzo to matzah in order to match the title of the article. Anyone else have any suggestions? 24.98.26.139 (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Worse is that the Matzo article is spelled the other way :( —[ Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 08:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Need disambiguation: American Jewish parties near Xmas
Matzah balls are also American Jewish parties held on or near Christmas, ofter singles events. This terminology is very widely used in the American Jewish community, and this phenomenon probably deserves an article of its own.

Matzah Ball parties set for 6

MatzoBall official website
 * Matzo Ball® Party is a project of the Society of Young Jewish Professionals. Now in its 21st year, the Society of Young Jewish Professionals, commonly known as SYJP, Inc., is the nation's largest and most successful membership organization for Jewish professionals, ages 21-49. SYJP,Inc. offers men and women the opportunity to meet in an environment conducive to developing networking opportunities, long lasting friendships and romantic relationships. We have sparked over 1,000 marriages and thousands of friendships thus far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.179.40 (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"Fifteenth Matzo Ball brings Jewish singles together for Christmas Eve" The Boston Herald; December 24, 2001 15 Matzo Balls brings Jewish singles...

"Matzo Ball draws thousands: Christmas Eve parties becoming a Jewish..." Sunday Gazette-Mail; December 24, 2006 ; The Associated Press Matzo Ball draws thousands...

"Matzo Ball set for Christmas Eve" Washington Jewish Week; December 6, 2007 Matzo Ball set for Christmans Eve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.179.40 (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hoax section removed
I have removed a section, input by an IP, about how "early morning consumption of matzah ball soup may have detrimental effects." The list of speakers at the "Food for Your Whole Life" symposium referred to is available on-line and the speaker cited is not on it. JohnCD (talk) 12:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Similar dish in other Eastern European cuisines?
I am a longtime matzo ball connoisseur, and have been told by a Lithuanian friend that there is an identical dumpling in Lithuanian cuisine, known as "kleckas" in at least some regional dialects of Lithuanian. I couldn't find any other information about this term online. Does anyone know anything about it and how it's related to matzo balls? Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 03:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation
How is "knaidel" pronounced by English speakers? Do they pronounce the K? — Kpalion(talk) 00:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes.Drsruli (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

A qwwwaaaweg get jfQQQQQQQ
qq qqqAwwws was wwwswwsdd we eswwwsws a q 46.193.239.226 (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, potato knaidel as an alternative on Passover itself. Drsruli (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Matzah ball


text:
Flower & Garnet

Flower & Garnet is a Canadian drama film, written and directed by Keith Behrman and released in 2002.

Plot
A father finds difficulties in expressing his love to his children. Garnet (played by Colin Roberts) and Flower (Jane McGregor) have grown up in an environment of stifled grief. Since their mother died, Ed (Callum Keith Rennie), their father, mostly just lives without a goal. Eight-year-old Garnet struggles to comprehend the world around him, while sixteen-year-old Flower seeks love with her new boyfriend. Forced to become a real parent to Garnet, Ed buys Garnet a gun and shows, for the first time, his real affection for the boy.

Awards
Behrman won the Claude Jutra Award for the best feature film by a first-time film director at the 23rd Genie Awards. The film was named to the Toronto International Film Festival's annual year-end Canada's Top Ten list for 2002, and won the Vancouver Film Critics Circle Award for Best Canadian Film.

At the 2002 Whistler Film Festival, the film won the Audience Award.

Roberts received a Genie Award nomination for Best Actor, while Rennie won the Vancouver Film Critics Circle Award for Best Actor in a Canadian Film.

Composer Peter Allen won a Leo Award for his film score in 2003.

title: Flower & Garnet


text:
Talk:Shotgun slug

Picture of Brenneke
The article needs a description of a Brenneke slug. RPellessier | (Talk) 06:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I'll take a shot at it, no pun intended. Here's the briefest description I can think of that touches upon all the salient points:

 * Shotgun slug of German design, distinctive for its wadcutter profile, the cast-in vanes on its sides intended to impart spin by air resistance, its felt base wad held in place by means of a steel screw, and its hard lead alloy construction. Unlike most solid shotgun projectiles, it is cast of a hard, tough lead alloy approximating linotype alloy, rather than swaged from pure soft lead.  It was designed to provide increased penetration in soft tissue for hunters of large dangerous game, such as Alaskan brown bears.  They have been fairly popular with hunters in the United States and Canada for decades.

 * What do y'all think?

 * That looks good, but there is an article Brenneke slug that covers most of that. Might be worth you looking over to see if there's anything you can add there.  scot 20:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge slug articles
I don't agree that this should be merged in Shotgun shell, but I think the minor slug articles would benefit from being merged into this, such as Brenneke slug, Foster slug, etc. Arthurrh 01:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposed merge: There is enough information in the Brenneke slug article to justify itself. Additionally, if articles are merged, the differences between various shotgun slugs will be minimized, and users will be less inclined to add additional information about individaul slugs. Twanebo 23:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Mistake
This article describes the Brenneke slug as being a variant of the Foster slug, but the individual articles on each slug indicate that the Brenneke slug dates to the 1890's, and that the Foster slug was not invented until the mid 1900's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.91.83 (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction
This article claims that the 'rifling' on a Foster slug imparts spin, but the Foster slug article states that it does not. Which is it? 203.20.253.5 04:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

 * It does impart some spin, but the issue of "how much" and "does it make a difference" are subject to debate. Chuck Hawks says the rifling is not effective, by this article on new slug designs shows that the new, high-tech slugs for smoothbores still use rifling, some, like the Winchester Super-X PowerPoint, RackMaster, and some slugs I've seen for handloading, have even extended the fins up to the tip so that they become more effective.  On the other hand, no one quotes any sources or stats on just how much spin is or isn't imparted by the "rifling", but since they makers still include it, I'm going to guess it does serve some purpose.  As for why all rifled slugs are also mass-forward designs: since the spin is imparted by airflow, something, such as a mass-forward design or an attached base, is required to keep the slug stable until it can begin to spin.  scot 15:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

 * One more note...if it was in fact the case that mass-forward design was all that was stabilizing a rifled slug, you would expect it to tumble after it impacted and flattened out. Looking at the performance in ballistic geletin, you can see that the slug reaches full expansion (from 18 to 28 mm) only 5 cm into the gelatin, and continues on for 30 cm more in a straight line, coming to rest front forwards.  That seems to be strong evidence that the slug had developed some spin before it hit the target.  scot 15:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead needs work
I just happened by and noticed the lead changes tense twice and isn't very clear all around. I will try to tweak it but don't have time at present so if someone else gets a shot please do so.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Benefits
It would be of great value if this article discussed the benefits of slugs as compared traditional rifles in generic terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.159.115 (talk) 03:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

March 23rd edit concerning the "Use" section
A recent edit added a large paragraph directly into the "Use" section. It concerns an alleged study done by a company called Mountaintop Technologies.

The existing body of the section claimed that shotgun slugs provide better range while hunting. The new additions from the edit claim this to be false, and go on to claim the study proved it true. On top of this, rather than modifying the whole section to show the new information, it was added in such a manner that causes it to look more like a forum post, as if arguing with the existing information rather than just updating it.

As a final point, while it concerns a study done, there is no citation anywhere in the section. I was going to edit it to fit better on the page, without the argumentative nature, however I was unsure if the lack of citations concerning a study meant that the edit should simply be reverted.

Could someone more familiar with the guidelines concerning citations decide if it should stay?

Zamte (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

sabot slug?
The article states that all "sabot slugs" are of jacketed or monolithic copper construction. However, I am given to understand that Federal Cartridge Co. manufactures and sells a saboted shotgun slug in calibers 12 and 20 gauge that is an unjacketed projectile made of pure soft lead, about 0.58" caliber in 12 gauge, in a plastic sleeve, apparently intended for use with rifled barrels. I do not think that this is the first such design ever to have existed, and in fact the article mentions the old BRI designs from forty years ago.

Also, speaking of ammunition for shotguns that discharges a single large projectile contained in a protective sleeve of some kind, would the old Finnish hunter's trick of removing the lead birdshot from a shotgun shell and replacing it with a large (15-18mm) steel ball bearing wrapped in paper, ball bearing and wrapping thickness chosen carefully and fitted to the specific shotgun so that it will not damage the choke? This was, back in the Depression Era, a way for a hunter who might have had only a shotgun and not a rifle in his possession to hunt for elk or wild boar. It was said to be not very accurate, and could only be used effectively within 30-40m, but was much preferable to a pointy stick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.40.24 (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Shotgun slug. 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/20090625092359/http://taser.com/products/law/Pages/XREP.aspx to http://taser.com/products/law/Pages/XREP.aspx

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Spin
I added a reference that stated that the projectile was spun. This edit has been repeatedly reverted to a flawed, inaccurate edit that does not reflect either the reference or reality. For one, this statement, "The actual purpose of these fins is solely to minimize the friction on both the barrel and projectile" is untrue. The fins impart spin that stabilizes the bullet. This is not gyroscopic stabilization, rather the reference says it corrects for imperfections in the slug. --Winged Brick (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you read both this article, and the reference?
 * Neither of these question that the ribs impart spin to the slug. Instead the article and ref states, "these ribs impart no significant stabilizing spin". The point is that this spin has no stabilising effect, not that there is no spin.
 * As you're already at 4RR I'll leave you to restore this. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Your point is cherry-picking a statement out of the article. Yes, I read both this article, the article I added, and the references already here.  The fact is the 'reversion' was adding back untrue information.  My edit does not say that the ribs add stability (they do) but rather left it at the fact that they spin the slug and that is their design.  The NCJRS article says, "The slight rotation imparted by the ribs reduces the effect of manufacturing irregularities. In tests performed by Winchester-Western, the slug rotation was confirmed, resulting in consistently smaller groups for rifled slugs than unrifled slugs." Therefore, the ribs gave the slugs spin and the spin resulted in smaller groups.  That is not my conclusion, that is the conclusion of the article.  This does not contradict what it says earlier about imparting 'no significant stabilizing spin' rather it confirms that the spin is not completely useless, as the wikipedia article previously implied.  I am not restoring anything. WP:3RR does not apply to correcting erroneous information.  It is also not a weapon or threat to be used when you have a weak argument for your reversion. --Winged Brick (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The FBI reference is quite specific, "Neither Brenneke nor Foster slugs depend upon the rifling ribs or projectile spin for stability. ". The ref you have since added is a WP:SPS that is obviously based on the FBI wording (even a high school plagiarism detector would flag up the wording) but adds its own ex machina and unfounded claim for stability.  Now averaging out manufacturing errors might be one benefit from rotating slowly but that still does not make this a spin-stabilised projectile. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The FBI reference also says, and I repeat, "The slight rotation imparted by the ribs reduces the effect of manufacturing irregularities. In tests performed by Winchester-Western, the slug rotation was confirmed, resulting in consistently smaller groups for rifled slugs than unrifled slugs." Look, if you aren't going to read my post and you're just going to smash the revert button, this isn't a discussion at all. At no point do I recall asserting that the spin STABILIZED the slug, rather that, first, it spun, and second, that spin added to the accuracy of the shot.  BOTH these assertions are COUNTER to what the previous edit said and WELL supported in the reference.  I will remove the SPS.  Please, don't go off half-cocked and revert the edits en masse.  I am attempting to refine it so it meets WP standards.  All you appear to be doing is yelling "NO" every time you find a small flaw.--Winged Brick (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You can also do the spin stabilization calculation with equations from Bryan Litz's book. Spin stabilization requires significantly faster twist rates than what results from the ribs on a slug.  This is in agreement with the FBI report.  Spin does not add to the accuracy, when the spin is so little.  Basic ballistics.  Please go with what the sources say.  (FBI source, not the WP:SPS.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Miguel, have you bothered to actually READ any of my edits? At no point did they assert spin stabilization. Not once.  I was attempting to correct the errors in the initial version which I edited.  THAT version stated that there was no spin and no advantage to the angled flutes other than marketing.  In fact, this was in error.  The version people keep reverting to retains those errors.  Can you cite the current version and where it is in error and I will attempt to correct it.  PLEASE stop the en masse reversions.  I am making good faith edits and correcting errors here and the reversions are uncalled for and tedious to the process of building consensus. --Winged Brick (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course I have read your edits. However, they are clearly incorrect.  The spin is patently incapable of improving the accuracy, being it is so little.  That is what the FBI report says. That is what the quote from the FBI report also says.  Please revert to the cited consensus version containing the quote.  You are well past 3RR.  See WP:3RR.  Thanks.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, for a third time, I will quote the FBI report: "The slight rotation imparted by the ribs reduces the effect of manufacturing irregularities. In tests performed by Winchester-Western, the slug rotation was confirmed, resulting in consistently smaller groups for rifled slugs than unrifled slugs." Now... did you read it this time? Because that the slug rotation was confirmed and that the groups were consistently smaller.  This is the very definition of improved accuracy.  You say, "The spin is patently incapable of improving accuracy, being it is so little."  Well, the patent says it improves accuracy.  I believe you are mistaking gyroscopic stability with the true purpose of the spin.  The spin assures that slight differences in manufacturing to not cause the slugs to veer one direction or the other.  While the hollow base keeps the slug flying nose forward, the spin means that any inconsistencies result in a spiral flight path rather than a consistent yaw off course.  This results in a more accurate shot per the reference, per the patent, and per empirical data. You keep trying to argue that the slug isn't stabilized by the spin and I NEVER SAID IT WAS!  I said what the reference said, that it is more accurate.  I have made the edit in good faith, provided a citation that is an authoritative government source published in an academic journal and I have not misquoted or misrepresented the facts.  Please provide a SOURCE that contradicts what it says, or else let the edit stand.  Because you disagree means nothing.  The source has not been refuted; it is a reliable source. You would have me revert to the incorrect version arrived at without a discussion or consensus. --Winged Brick (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You keep removing the text, "these ribs impart no significant stabilizing spin onto the slug as it travels through the air."
 * Why? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Reducing indent: I removed the statement because it is false. The spin is not insignificant as slugs that do not spin are less accurate. As the citation states, "The slight rotation imparted by the ribs reduces the effect of manufacturing irregularities. In tests performed by Winchester-Western, the slug rotation was confirmed, resulting in consistently smaller groups for rifled slugs than unrifled slugs." Smaller groups, otherwise known as increased accuracy, is in no way, shape, or form insignificant. Further, the statement is misleading.  The phrase, "as it travels through the air", is immaterial as the source clearly states that the spin is imparted in the cartridge and the bore, not in the air.  It belies a basic misunderstanding of the patented and proven mechanics of the slug.  --Winged Brick (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

 * Enough's enough: Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring Andy Dingley (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So, rather than discussing it here, you report it to the noticeboard? Please, tell me what is wrong with the current edit and I will fix it.  I have made bold, good faith edits with proper references and I feel like the editors I am supposedly arguing with do not understand the material they are reverting.  Simply stated, the reversions began because with the statement, "fins do not impart any stabilizing spin" which the edit did not assert they did.  The users doing the reversion are doing so based on a misunderstanding of the material.  "Stabilizing Spin" or "Gyroscopic Stability" is different than a spin meant to cancel out asymmetrical aerodynamic forces.  In fact, Foster and Brenneke slugs are both aerodynamically stabilized however they spin to cancel out manufacturing irregularities.  I did not assert that they were spin stabilized, only that they spun.
 * Again, I challenge the Miguel and Andy to point out what is wrong with the current edit rather than doing an end-around and attacking the editor. Sure, stopping me from editing will end the discussion, but that does not mean that my edits were not warranted.  The article was written with falsehoods that the reference from a scholarly journal clearly refuted, so I rewrote the section to include this.  Hard to follow?  You don't have to follow it. Read the current section and tell me what is false. --Winged Brick (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You haven't responded to any of the direct questions here. You simply 5RR blank and revert, removing the formatted ref and page number, then reintroducing it as a bare URL and claiming that it now refutes the direct statement it gives as, "these ribs impart no significant stabilizing spin onto the slug as it travels through the air." Andy Dingley (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I never stated that they impart spin as they travel through air. They are not designed to do so.  I stated that they impart a spin, but that spin comes from the inside walls of the shotgun shell hull and the bore of the shotgun.  Also, the terms 'significant' and 'stabilizing' are misleading.  Nowhere is it claimed that the spin is intended to stabilize the slug.  Nowhere is the word, 'significant' described.  The phrase, "as it travels through the air" is also a qualifier that is nowhere stated, implied, or relevant.  Nobody said that the fins impart spin as the slug travels through the air, but they do spin and that spin comes from the bore.  FACT: The slug spins (supported by NCJRS reference). FACT: The slug gets the spin from 550 to 3,000 rpm (24-129 feet per rotation assuming conservative 1,200 FPS also from NCJRS reference). Feel free to call 3,000 RPM insignificant, but it's enough to keep a coin from falling over. FACT: The slugs are more accurate when spun (NCJRS). FACT: The spin is imparted as the slug travels down the bore (NCJRS). FACT: The slug can be fired safely from even the tightest choke (NCJRS).  As for my using a bare URL as a reference, it's still a reference.  I have no clue how to nor do I need to fix the reference to where it meets whatever standard you wish to hold it to. Feel free to fix it if you would like to be constructive. Just because it's improperly formatted does not mean you revert it.  Also, I believe the US Department of Justice Crime Laboratory is about as authoritative as a reference can get.  Removing material based on that reference will require more authoritative references.  Good on you if you find one.  There are sources which disagree, however when two sources disagree, the more authoritative one wins out.  All of the duly referenced facts in the NCJRS article are reflected, to the best of my ability, in the text of the article. I removed erroneous information that was there before and I believe I made a bullet-proof case for removing the statement you brought up.  Now, please bring up another issue with the Foster Slug section and I'll either fix it or defend it.  --Winged Brick (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Have removed the incorrect information yet again, and restored the full cite with the actual quote that clearly shows that the spin does not provide stabilization, as the quote in the reference plainly shows. Also, Mr. Forster invented it. He spelled his name as Forster.  However, it was noted in the earliest publications as a "Foster" slug, due to a misspelling of his actual name.  The misspelling stuck.  Much the Same as the derringer spelling, which also misspelled the inventer's name, too.  Independently, Bryan Litz's books provide equations that clearly show that the small amount of spin imparted by the web on these slugs does not provide any significant stabilization.  Just by virtue that there is a small spin does not impart stabilization.  The small amount of spin also cannot improve accuracy.  The FBI report clearly states that the spin does not stabilize the slugs (either type.)  Please do not edit war, and continue wanting to believe what the cited quote clearly shows is not the case.  Please.  Thanks.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I have no clue where you are getting the 'incorrect' part since I have have point-by-point followed what was in the reference. If you doubt the reference, find you another one.  It's Foster, BTW, unless you changed his name.  Feel free to mention that it is MISspelled in some locations, but also do a darned good job of referencing that one. Since the majority of your edit was OR, unreferenced, speculation, or advice to handloaders, I reverted it en masse. --Winged Brick (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The man's actual name was Karl M. Forster. The first people who published the info in the 1931 time-frame misspelled his name.  The common spelling of the inventor's name has become Karl M. Foster, even though it is not how he spelled his name.  The round was then marketed in 1936, and has been sold commercially since then.  No speculation.  Fact.  The quote from the reference also states that there is no stabilization from the spin.  Youre edit warring needs to stop.  Two editors are trying to correct the information, and you insist on edit warring, while reading references incorrectly.  Stop it.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Funny that he should sign his name, "Karl M. Foster" on his patent then. Are you confusing Karl Foster with the "Forster" brothers who made reloading equipment?  Please see the next section for the explanation of why I reverted your edit.  Please cease edit warring and reversions. --Winged Brick (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

 * Why are you still blanking article content, and the supporting FBI ref, which state "There is no spin stabilisation"? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I am not blanking article content. See the next section in Talk where I, point-by-point, explain my removal of said content.  As for "spin stabilization", the edit I am reverting to does not advocate spin stabilization.  What is said is wholly supported, if not word-for-word, in the FBI article. If you have not read what I have written here, do not read the references, and do not read my edits, I find it tedious to work with you. --Winged Brick (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that thing which you do? It's removing content: several hundred bytes of it, just look at the page history and the red figure as you reduce the size.
 * Also, "I'm not edit warring, I am editing" is nonsense: that thing which you do? It's edit warring.
 * When you remove this content you remove a specific detailed ref from the FBI and also a near quote from it, "this is not spin stabilisation". Just because you keep the bare and unintelligble URL from the FBI source doesn't mean that you are not removing this sourced content. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Just because you keep taking a quote out of content from the REFERENCE I provided, does not mean that what the article says, what you are reverting, is not supported in the reference. I already explained this in nauseating detail above.  You have not read this, apparently, or you would understand MY POINT.  I understand your point.  You say that your quote from the article means you are right, when I did not assert spin stabilization ANYWHERE in ANY of my edits, which you have not read.  READ my edits then READ the referenced article. --Winged Brick (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

 * OK, I'm calling your reverts as simple vandalism from here on. The other active editors have expressed some degree of consensus over the other version (further editors are very welcome to comment) and all you do is the same revert, stripping the good ref and its "there is no significant spin stabilisation" quote. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You can call them whatever you want, but you continue to REFUSE to address the line-item edits I made per the section following this. I will continue to edit.  What I am doing is not reverting.  I am restoring the edit that YOU or YAF have reverted. --Winged Brick (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Ribs, Roll Crimping, Name, etc.
Starting a new section to explain my reversion point-by-point: 1) "Ribs" are the preferred term per . They are also a more accurate description as 'fin' implies that they stabilize the slug by spinning it through the air.  Rather, they act more like reverse rifling acting on the projectile in the bore, per the patent. It is also desirable to use the same nomenclature throughout the article. 2) Spin: The spin is, indeed, imparted on the projectile. Two separate styles of slug use external rifling to spin the projectiles. This spins them slowly and improves accuracy. This has been authoritatively demonstrated by the article I linked. 3) Range: The slug has no intrinsic range.  It is wholly subjective and in the place of any statutory/manufacturers recommendation, or broad consensus, 'range' should be left out as arbitrary and, frankly, silly. 4) Choke wear:  Manufacturers consistently state that the slug is SAFE to be fired from any choke. Modern choke is designed to withstand steel shot without damage. A lead slug that is DESIGNED to be shot safely through the choke does not wear the choke. That is, of course, unless you have a darned good reference that says it does. I need measurements and barrel life estimates. 5) Handloading: Wikipedia is not a reloading manual.  I removed reloading suggestions. --Winged Brick (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

English vs. Metric Units
The long-standing English language convention has been to express shotgun loads in terms of ounces and grains. Likewise for rifle bullets, the long-standing English language convention has been to specify grains for rifle bullets. Changing to rounded metric units loses all the precision in terms of providing useful English language information. The 7/8 oz. slug is the lightest slug in common use. The 150 grain and 168 grain 30-06 bullets are typically within a tenth or two of a grain of these units. Converting to "rounded" metric units loses all precision, where the precision of the weight in grains becomes other than 150 gr and 168 gr. This is the English Language Wikipedia. The long-standing practice of using both grains and ounces for shotgun loads, and grains for rifle bullets are what all the English language reloading manuals are written in, too. Force-fitting an ill-fitted metric rounding loses all the precisions that are required. As noted in the article, there is no substitution of components when reloading shotgun shells and slugs. The pressures are too close to the maximum. Introducing approximations to very precise English units is simply dangerous. Force-fitting metric rounded data is simply not a way to maintain understanding of the folly of not following longstanding convention. The English units for precise grains and ounces must remain as the primary units, with metric conversions being secondary. The English language shotgun shell reloading books are not written in Metric units. Have restored the English units to prevent misleading readers. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

 * Hello . Sorry for the long delay to get back to this article. I was the one who took initiative to add more SI unit conversions to this article, as well as ordering them first with U.S. customary units second in parenthesis.

 * According to the Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, "The main unit in which a quantity is expressed should generally be an SI unit or non-SI unit officially accepted for use with the SI." In other words, SI units are the default primary units. There are listed some few exceptions to this according to the Manual of Style:
 * "In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United States, the main unit is generally a U.S. customary unit (22 pounds (10 kg))."
 * "In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom, although the main unit is generally a metric unit (10 kilograms (22 lb)), imperial units are still used as the main units in some contexts (7 miles (11 km) by road)."

 * I do not see how this article subject has strong ties with the United States or the United Kingdom, as shotgun slugs are used across the globe. Shotgun slugs in Europe have commonly been designated with projectile weight in grams and cartridge length in millimeters for probably over a century. Most people outside the U.S. and U.K. do not understand their respective U.S. Customary unit system and English unit system. It could also maybe be argued that this article is a somewhat scientific, which would also would result in not meeting the criteria for U.S. customary units being the primary units.
 * Sauer202 (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Shotgun slug


text:
Talk:Dynamite

Sizes?
The "standard" dynamite cartridge is 8" x 1 1/4" (20.3 mm x 32 mm);  it weighs approximately (varying by density) 8 ounces (.5 lb; 227 g.)  It is based on the gunpowder cartridge for mining invented by Ben Franklin. Although it comes in Many sizes; from 7/8" x 9"" for hand drilled-holes; up to 4" x 36" or so.

How To Section
This is all well... and good, and has proven to provide the user with interesting information. May I suggest adding a "How-To" section to the article ? (I am not fluent enough with this topic to write it)

I'm considering playing around with different chemical compositions and thought that it might be interesting to see household items which might provide the proper components for something of this nature.

Perhaps outside the realm of a traditional Encyclopedia, but I figure I'd comment and see if anyone has anything to say / add.

 * Are you seriously suggesting we put in how to make dynamite from household chemicals in wikipedia? TastyCakes 05:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Beefart (who happens to have a Ph.D. in such stuff) says: By good fortune, it is not possible to make dynamite from "household chemicals". *** compound is very, very, very unstable and it will explode ***. Many, many people have died or been injured while making nitroglycerin. One of them was a member* of Nobel's family and it broke his heart. Use your chemistry set to make something harmless and funny instead, such as stink bombs. That way you will grow up with your face intact and all ten fingers.

 * Nobel lost two of his brothers while they were trying to find why nitro shipments were blowing up. The shock gave his father (also an inventor; of Plywood) a stroke; he died babbling a few years later.70.176.118.196 (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Kieselguhr
I changed kieselguhr to diatomaceous earth since that is how it's packaged in the U.S. and the kieselguhr link is redirected to diatomaceous earth. Rsduhamel 18:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dynamite has not been used commercially for decades.
Dynamite is still kicking and hard, even nitro nobels subsidiary Forcit still makes it. Used it about month ago :)

 * This is also my understanding. Although "dynamite" originally referred to nitroglycerine in diatomaceous earth, today commercial "dynamite" is made of mixtures containing mostly ammonium nitrate.  It's still packed in the familiar red* tubes. -Wfaxon 04:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

 * It is generally in heavy-gauge Manila (yellow) paper or similar to brown, grocery-bag material. A Few manufacturers use red or bright orange casings. It is generally paraffined for waterproofing, but that can cause a low oxygen balance-- carbon monoxide and other fumes in an enclosed area. Some grades are then "sprayed", not "dipped" in paraffin to reduce these fumes.70.176.118.196 (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Austin Powder Company does promote their non-nitroglycerin products heavily (safer handling, especially after storage, compared to nitroglycerin based dynamite); however, Austin does list their Dynamite Series in Blaster's Guide: Resources. Austin Powder, Dynamite Series, Nitroglycerin Based Products. Downloaded today 9 Apr 2011. Please note that the nitroglycerin-based dynamite is listed as "SHELF LIFE One year from date of manufacture under good storage conditions." In other words, you order it and use it within a year: good for an on-going quarrying operation but useless for any military use (which is why "military dynamite" is RDX+TNT, stable over long-term storage compared to the equivalent 60% Extra Gelatin). Naaman Brown (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Loss of life
Dudes, we need to find a citation so that we don't have to argue about words such as "considerable". I have tried to find the dates and the casualty figures for the two explosions (I lived there and I heard them) but I have had no success. Can anyone help?

All ways stay in peace <3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.39.231.239 (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Due to, owing to
These are NOT interchangeable. If you don't know the difference, play it safe and use owing to. The expression "with limited loss of life due to the modular design of the factory" means, literally, that "the modular design killed the people".

Nitroglycerin
Nitroglycerin is not stored best frozen down because it becausewtg3gymntbrvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvs MUCH more shock sensitive so I deleted that sentence.

11/20/06 - This may be the wrong place to post such a comment/question, but I was watching a movie last night that the actors found a couple of sticks of Dynamite in a freezer and one of the actors stated that once the dynamite dropped 3 degrees it would explode. I noticed this post stated that the Nitro within Dynamite is volatile when frozen so it seems there is partial truth to this but is it true about the degree drop causing it to explode. They were stating only a fool would store dynamite in a freezer which it appears to be true. And no I do not have dynamite much less in my freezer, I just from time to time like to see if what someone says is true is so based on some type of data. Thanks and please feel free to send me an email at pjhinde@aol.com if you have data or post it here.

Pat

Just corrected your spelling. Nitroglycerine is safe to handle when Absolutely frozen, below about 56 Fahrenheit, but, on thawing, large ice crystals with sharp edges break loose, causing extreme shock sensitivity until fully thawed. There should be a section on this unfortunate property, and how antifreezes, like Ethylene Glycol Trinitrate, prevent this and also add to the blast. Also, Nitro's reputation for the Worst Headaches. Miners would chew a piece of dynamite or stick it in their sweatband to get used to it. If you stop being exposed, the headache tendency also returns,70.176.118.196 (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Oil Well Fires
Shouldn't we discuss explicitly that dynamite is used to put out oil well fires? At the moment, it is only brought up in the pop culture section. 69.9.28.40 01:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Generally, shaped charges of RDX are used. "Red" Adair started the use of HE oil--well extinguishing.. The "Devil's Cigarette Lighter"; a fire visible by John Glenn in space, was snuffed by Adair.70.176.118.196 (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect content?
Why does it say " It was invented by Swedish chemist and engineer Alfred Romero in 1866 in Krümmel (Madrid, Spain) and patented in 1867." in the article section and the Alfred Nobel in the History section? - I don't know that much about Alfred Nobel, but I somehow doubt that he was named Romero at any point in his life. He was the inventor, wasn't he? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.100.124.219 (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

I was wondering that, too. I remember reading about how Alfred Nobel invented dynamite, became super rich, and then made the Nobel Prize thing. Someone should fix it. 24.136.88.151 05:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Same here - in a recent television documentary it was stated that nitroglycerin actualy was invented by a co-student to the young Nobel when they where studying chemistry in Paris - probably the above mentioned, Alfred Romero. I was also stated that Nobel later acknowledged this by supplying the inventor with a life long pension. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.164.222.145 (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Sawdust?
Is it not true that sawdust can be used as a replacement for the diatomacious earth? I.E, mixing sawdust and nitroglycerin can also create dynamite, correct?

 * Nitroglycerine based dynamite has been made mixing dynamite with sawdust, with sawdust and nitrates to burn the sawdust, with ammonium nitrate which is another explosive itself. Diatomacious earth is inert and served to cushion the nitroglycerin which is sensitive to shock. The other substances used to make other variaties of dynamite are either explosives themselves or fuels that add to the explosive effect while also serving to cushion the nitroglycerin against shock. Common commercial dynamite was usually made to be used in an on-going mining or quarry operation and was not intended to be stored for long because time or extremes of weather can seperate the volatile nitro from the cushioning material (see the plot of the movie "Sorcerer (film)"). Naaman Brown (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Dynamite in war - incorrect?

 * Nobel later on deeply regretted his inventing of the explosive due to its use on the battlefield as a means of killing. This led him to use the great fortune dynamite brought him to fund the Nobel Prize.[citation needed]

At least the German Wikipedia states that, despite frequent claims to the contrary, the classical (Gur-)dynamite was never used in battle because it was too sensitive at this point. (Entgegen vielfacher Behauptung wurde das klassische (Gur-)Dynamit Alfred Nobels nie im Krieg verwendet, da es zu diesem Zweck noch viel zu empfindlich war.) So what is true? Was some variety of dynamite used? Which variety? Did this really motivate Nobel to fund the Nobel Prize? (Why then are there prizes for physics or chemistry?)

If nobody can provide any source, I'll delete the dubious passage quoted above. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

 * You are correct dynamite was never intended for the battle field, but his invention of Ballistite and Smokeless powder were. The quotation, if correct, does not apply to dynamite. His wills are discussed in detail in (the English translation of the original German): Schück, H. and Sohlman, R. (1929). The Life of Alfred Nobel. London: William Heinemann Ltd. The book is marked as Authorised by The Nobel Institute. His will, hand written in Swedish, is published in full - but I can't read it.Pyrotec (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I had read years ago about Spanish-American War era use of dynamite in warfare. Wikipedia has articles on USS Vesuvius (1888) and the dynamite gun. It does not sound like a major contribution to late 19th century warfare at all. Since dynamite was mostly used for mining and construction, I would like to see a good contemporary source testifying that Nobel so rued his invention of dynamite he created the Nobel Peace Prize. It sounds like a meme that has been repeated simply because it sounds right. Naaman Brown (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * added-- The limited shelf life of nitro-based dynamite (one year according to Austin powder Co.) made it obsolete for military use once stable explosives like TNT became common. Naaman Brown (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This is correct. A few dynamite guns were tried, The shells were propelled by steam, or compressed air, rather than gunpowder.

I cannot quote a reference, but I read Nobel, like Oliver Winchester was "haunted" by the dead caused by mis-use (and, in Winchester's case, the Proper Use-!) of their inventions. All the ghosts of those killed in accidents handling nitroglycerin bothered Nobel so, that he had consulted a medium. She said he must donate his fortune to the good of mankind to find peace in the afterlife. A similar story is told about Winchester's widow, Sarah Winchester. She was haunted by ghosts of Oliver's inventions, consulted a medium, and was told noise would keep the spirits quiet. So, she had her house in San Jose. CA, constantly added-on too, in hope the pounding would temporarily silence the vengeful spirits. This "Winchester Mystery House" is open to the public. Rooms and doors go nowhere, etc. One wonders if Krupps, Maxim, Gatling, Browning,DuPont, etc, had similar stories?70.176.118.196 (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)70.176.118.196 (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Dates Incorrect
In the article, it says Nobel invented dynamite in 1866. In the photo caption, it says the patent application is from 1864. As I don't have an encyclopedia handy to look this up, does anyone know which is correct? Comment added 00:41 27 June 2008 by 66.92.217.194.

 * Now corrected. The photo caption for the patent was mis-titled, the Patent refers to Nitrogylcerin not Dynamite.Pyrotec (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Questioning Military Dynamite Data
Military dynamite has approximately 60% of the strength of nitroglycerin-based, commercial dynamite

This statement is unclear.

Grades of commercial dynamite were rated by the percent of nitroglycerin, commonly 30%, 40% or 60% nitroglycerin depending on use (in quarrying, lower percentile to move rock, higher percentile to shatter rock). 60% of the strength of nitroglycerin-based, commercial dynamite is meaningless. 60% of what? 30, 40 or 60% NG?

My notes show military dynamite is a 100% equivalent of commercial dynamite rated as 60% nitroglycerin.

From my notes from an explosive ordnance disposal manual and a police bomb squad manual, military dynamite is formulated to be the equivalent of commercial dynamite rated as 60% nitroglycerin. The formula given for the "military dynamite" mixture was: 75% RDX 15% TNT 5% SAE 10 engine oil + polyisobutylene 5% cornstarch

Yes, FM 5-250 states: (2) Military Dynamite. Military dynamite is a composite explosive that contains 75 percent RDX, 15 percent TNT, and 10 percent desensitizers and plasticizers. Military dynamite is not as powercful as commercial dynamite. Military dynamite’s equivalent strength is 60 percent of commercial dynamiters. Because military dynamite contains no nitroglycerin, it is more stable and safer to store and handle than commercial dynamite.

But no, military dynamite is as powerful as commercial dynamite with the equivalent strength of 60 percent nitroglycerin.

Another source http://www.uxoinfo.com/uxoinfo/ordfillers.cfm states: "Dynamite - Military dynamite is not a true dynamite instead it is manufactured with 75- percent RDX, 15-percent TNT, 5-percent SAE 10 motor oil, and 5-percent cornstarch. It is packaged in standard dynamite cartridges of colored wax paper that is marked either M1, M2, or M3 on the cartridge. This marking identifies a cartridge size difference only, since all military dynamite detonates at about 20,000 feet per second, which is equivalent in strength to 60-percent straight dynamite. Since it contains no nitroglycerin, military dynamite is safer to store and transport than true dynamite and is relatively insensitive to heat, shock, friction, or bullet impact. When removed from its wrapper, military dynamite is a granular substance that is yellow-white to tan in color that crumbles easily and is slightly oily and does not have the characteristic sweet odor of true nitroglycerin based dynamite."

"60-percent straight dynamite" means dynamite that is 60% NG, not "60 percent of commercial dynamite." Also, the term "straight dynamite" means the filler or "dope" is non-explosive such as kielsguhr (in some commercial dynamites the filler is sawdust plus sodium nitrate, or ammonium nitrate, which actually add to the effect of the percentile of NG). So "60 percent straight dynamite" means the explosive equivalent of 60% nitroglycerin.

Military dynamite is a one-for-one equivalent of commercial 60% straight dynamite, and using it as a 60% replacement for commercial dynamite could lead to overcharges: Military dynamite is a 60% replacement for nitroglycerin.

Correct me if I am wrong, bitte.

Other notes:

Common commercial grade of dynamite is 40% nitroglycerin in half-pound sticks 8 x 1.25 inches.

Dynamite in normal working condition will burn in a fire and will detonate only if subjected to shock (blasting cap). However, dynamite that is old or stored under extreme conditions and has "sweated" nitroglycerine is unstable.

Commercial dynamite with nitroglycerin and sawdust often contained sodium nitrate to oxidize the sawdust in the explosion; sodium salts left as residue from these forms of dynamite will cause rust on iron or steel surfaces, as a clue to the type of explosive used.

Nitroglycerin based dynamite will make white smoke, leave a sweet or lingering odor, and handling the dynamite will often give a "nitroglycerin headache" or NG headache.

TNT based "dynamite" will make a grey or black smoke, leave a weak or acrid odor and is sometimes called "the good stuff" because it does not cause NG headache in handling and stores safely under conditions that render nitroglycerin based dynamite hazardous.

When I retrieve the manuals to be able to make verifiable source cites, I may edit the article. Naaman Brown (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I retrieved and read Army Tech Manual 9-1300-214 on military dynamite: (h) Military dynamite M1, M2, and M3 is a medium velocity (6,096 meters per second) blasting explosive in three cartridge sizes. Military dynamite M1, M2, and M3 has been standardized for use in military construction, quarrying, and service demolition work. The explosive composition is packaged in standard dynamite cartridge waxed-paper wrappers. The models differ only in the cartridge size. Cartridges are 1 1/4 inches in diameter by 8 inches long for the M1, 1 1/2 inches in diameter by 8 inches long for the M2, and 1 1/2 inches in diameter by 12 inches long for the M3. The composition used is: Percent RDX 75 +1.0 TNT 15+0.5 Grade SAE No. 10 engine oil plus 5 +0.5 polyisobutylene Cornstarch 5 +0.5 Desensitized RDX, which is coated with engine oil before mixing with the other ingredients, and grained TNT are used in the manufacture of the dynamite. Military dynamite M1, M2, and M3 is equivalent in strength to 60 percent commercial dynamite. The military dynamite is safer to transport, store, and handle than 60 percent straight nitroglycerine commercial dynamite and is relatively insensitive to friction, drop impact, and rifle bullet impact. The composition remains plastic at 57°C after 24 hours. Military dynamites are odorless, free from nitroglycerin toxicity, nonhygroscopic, and chemically stable when exposed to 80 percent relative humidity at 71°C for one month. No freezing occurs in cold storage or exudation in hot storage. Turning of shipping containers during storage is not necessary. Therefore I am clarifying the article. If someone followed the meme that "military dynamite was equal to 60% of commercial dynamite" instead of "Military dynamite ... is equivalent in strength to ... 60 percent straight nitroglycerine commercial dynamite" too much military dynamite could be used as a replacement for commercial dynamite. Naaman Brown (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

 * You are absolutely correct. FM 5-250 misinterpreted the correct data, which is contained in TM 9-1300-214.  As you know (from Table 8-77 of that TM), 60% commercial dynamite is pretty much the most powerful version of dynamite; only gelatin dynamites are more powerful (termed 100%, but containing 'just' 91% nitroglycerin).  Good catch!

 * I would, however, dispute the ordata statement that "Military dynamite is not a true dynamite . . . " As the TM notes, "Commercial blasting explosives, with the exception of black powder, are referred to as dynamites although in some cases they contain no nitroglycerin."  76.125.60.137 (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

A Demolitions book rated Military Dynamite (TNT) as 1/3 more powerful than commercial dynamite. In other words; if it took so many pounds of Military TNT to cut so much steel in a bridge; you needed to add 33% if using commercial grade.70.176.118.196 (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Name
Origin and meaning of the name "dynamite"? Drutt (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Military Dynamite Sentence?
In the first paragraph of the article it has the sentence "Military dynamite achieves greater stability by avoiding nitroglycerin." It seems to me as very out of place. It definitely does not fit with the content of the first paragraph, and seems as if it was just tacked on. 208.80.74.54 (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Dynamite has Greek and not Latin Roots
It derives from the word "Δύναμις"(=power) and not "Potentia" (The Latin equivalent). It can be easily found in every English-Greek dictionary, it's a very common word that still exists in modern Greek as far as I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.242.137.52 (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

History; United States
It should be noted Nobel called his powder "Dynamite" from the outset. Some countries, like England, nicknamed it "Nobel's Safety Powder". A record of the accidents from straight nitroglycerin should precede Nobel's discovery, giving it more merit.

The first dynamite company was in San Francisco, CA, about 1867. In order to circumvent Nobel's patent, it was soaked in wood pulp, etc, not kieselguhr, as the patent stated. This was Giant Powder Company; the name "Giant Powder" became an American generic for Dynamite (a copyrighted term). Hercules, in the East Bay, followed. After several explosions, Giant and Hercules were absorbed by DuPont. Giant moved back east to Wilmington, Delaware. Hercules manufactured dynamite, then nitrate fertilizer. then imported it, before going out of business. Du Pont bought out many firms. In 1911, after the Sherman Anti Trust act, DuPont had to release its near stranglehold on dynamite manufacture in the U.S.

Du Pont, oddly, had initially resisted the manufacture of dynamite, spreading propaganda it was "unsafe". Peddlers would show sticks to miners, then set them on fire, hit them with hammers,etc,  to prove it was ok. They even gave away free samples to anyone who'd try it. None was made on the east coast until DuPont's  Repauno plant opened in 1886. Then, the buy-outs began.

The only dynamite mfgr. in the U.S. to date is Austin Powder in Cleveland, OH. Du Pont now only manufactures paints and chemicals. Apache Powder, near Tucson, AZ, only mfgs. Ammonium Nitrate, and wholesales explosives. This is mostly due to nitrate pollution into the artesian aquifers of the surrounding cities of Benson, Curtis, St. Davids, and Tombstone. There are several Canadian, Indian, European, and South African concerns still going. Dynamit Nobel is the best known.

Dynamite made silver, nickel, and other metals we take for granted now commercially available. The depth and hard rock of the Comstock Lode made its mining nearly impossible until its invention. Black powder was cheaper, but it took seven to nine times as much. Large holes had to be made to place the kegs. Due to its low briscane (shattering power), black blasting powder would only break rocks to boulder-sized pieces, making for more work. Dynamite, though more expensive, was much cheaper to use as it used less, and shattered rocks to bits. Silver prices soared until its general use. (The "Cartwrights" on the TV show, Bonanza, owe their fortune to the Comstock Lode and Dynamite. The initial airings are dated around 1867.)It also made mining of the Anaconda range in Montana possible and profitable. Many alloys that build our jet aircraft, etc, are made so because of hi explosives like dynamite used in mining.70.176.118.196 (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Move for Semi-Protection
There seems to be a lot of vandalism from unregistered users. I think there's more than the expected 5% of total edits (although I haven't taken the time to find the exact percentage). See Rough guide to semi-protection for criterion necessary to make a page semi-protected. I think Dynamite should be considered for semi-protection, personally, I'm tired of fixing vandalism and would prefer to semi-protect the page and be done with it. Few unregistered user edits are actually helpful. Explodo-nerd (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Nobody said anything so I requested for it to be semi-protected. It will be semi-protected for 3 weeks, although I'm skeptical that this will resolve the issue. I think it will need to be permanently semi-protected. We'll see if the vandalism continues when the semi-protection expires. Explodo-nerd (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

First man to use Dynamite in rock blasting?
I have just read the obituary for Thomas E. Crimmins of New York City, (volunteer fireman, contractor, mechanical engineer) which cites him as "the first man to use dynamite in rock blasting."

I have no idea how to confirm this, but for those in the know I thought it might be prudent to add here.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=FB0A10F83E5517738DDDA00894D1405B818DF1D3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.219.30 (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrong calculation the energy of dynamite explosion ????
This text is incorrect:

"A stick of dynamite contains roughly 2.1 MJ of energy.[10] The energy density (joules/kilogram or J/kg) of dynamite is approximately 7.5 MJ/kg, compared to 4.7 MJ/kg of TNT."

Why???

The 1kg of nitrogliceryn contains 6.0-6.2MJ of energy. Original, first Nobels dynamite contains 75% nitrogliceryn and approximately 23-25% diatomaceous earth. The diatomaceus earth (diatomite) is no energetic material (it is no explosives material. it is unreactive absorber).

Maybe somebody tell me why 1kg of dynamite (contains 75% Nitrogliceryn) contains more energy than pure 1kg of nitrogliceryn in this article???

Nitrogliceryn is more energetic explosives then dynamite (!!!!). R.E. factor for nitrogliceryn is 1.54 and for the dynamite is only r.e.= 1.25.

The value of energy (heat of explosion) = 7.5MJ/kg for dynamite is incorect, becouse only the most powerfull explosives (and pure) like hexanitrobenzene, DDF, MEDINA, Octanitrocubane can contain density of energy over 7MJ/kg (!!!!).

Nobel's Dynamite contain approximately 5MJ/kg of energy depends (of course) on the concentration nitrogliceryn and other explosives in the mixture of dynamite. The additional reductors also have effect on heat of explosion but We can afford on neglect this small influence here.

1kg TNT contain approximately 4.0-4.4MJ of energy depends on the literatures sources. TNT r.e. factor=1.00;

The Trinitrobenzene (TNB) contain approximately 4.7-4.8MJ/kg of energy - r.e. factor = 1.20;

1kg of RDX contain approximately 5.5-5.6MJ energy, r.e. factor = 1.60;

Now You can own calculate correctlly the energy of Nobels dynamite and the energy of Military dynamite!!!!

Dualin
I was going to make an article about this explosive substance but after reading this article I'm not too sure about it now. According to the dynamite article, dynamite was invented in 1867 and is based on nitroglycerin and sawdust or wood pulp can be used. But according to this 1870 book, dualin was invented in 1869 and took the place of nitro-glycerine and dynamite. The dictionary definition of dualin is "an explosive substance consisting essentially of sawdust or wood pulp, saturated with nitroglycerin and other similar nitro compounds. It is interior to dynamite, and is more liable to explosion." I don't know much about explosives but to me it sounds like the WP dynamite article has a confusion with dualin: using nitroglycerin, sawdust or wood pulp to make dynamite. It would be nice if this could be cleared up.  Volcano guy  15:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to have read your source correctly. Its a book dated 1870 refering to Mining and Mines in the USA. Dynamite, at that time, was a registered trade name and refers to particularly product manufactured by a particular company which was sold in certain countries: mostly in the UK, South Africa and Australia, but also the USA. Its not in the dynamite article but there was a recognised explosives cartel where Alfred Nobel, in Britain, and the German explosives manufactures carved up the world trade in explosives between themselves. Dualin is another (possibly) similar product with a registered trade name that appears to be common in the USA and Germany. So what what gives you the expertise to claim that the wikipedia article on dynamite is confused: it is not? Dualin, appears to be an inferior and less safe product, which your source clearly states. It was possibly used in the USA because it was cheaper than Dynamite, which would have to have been imported in the USA via one of Alfred Nobel's official agents, and it was possibly a way of getting around Nobel's US trade marks / patents. Pyrotec (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. I was just confused because the two explosives are similar.  Volcano guy  17:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Dualin was also used in Canada because I have read about its use at an early 1900s mine in my area.  Volcano guy  17:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I did some more (quick) research on this topic from a UK perspective and there are a few points that I could add. I also picked up a copy of "The Du Pont Canada History", written in 1982, when I was in Ottawa four years ago, so I know that Canada was making black powder (Gunpowder) from 1860 onwards, but I don't think it was making any high explosives in the 19th century. I don't really know about Canadian explosives legislation, but from a UK perspective, explosive regulations in effect banned the manufacture, importation and use of all explosives except those on a list of authorised explosives. Canada might have had similar laws. These lists included many (comparable) trade name explosives. Nobel's UK patent on Dynamite No. 1 expired in 1881, so after that anyone could make it, and that could/would have lead to a fall in price. To get round that a Nobel-Dynamite Trust was in operation between 1880 and 1887, between British and German manufactures, to control prices (and trading areas) across most of Europe and Australia and South Africa. In 1897 there was a similar-type agreement set up between the Nobel-Dynamite Trust and du Pont, in America, and that lasted until 1907. Canada had very high import duties on American explosives (to price out US manufacturers) and that seems to have lasted until 1906, when Canada became a free trade area (for explosives). If as you say Dualin was in use in Canada about 1900, then it might well have been imported from Germany. Canadian Explosives Ltd was set up in 1911 (see Nobel, Ontario), so from about World War One, onwards, Canada had a domestic supply of high explosives. Albeit, the company had US and British owners (du Pont and ICI)Pyrotec (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The year was 1908 when the mine was using it. The document I read was about two miners who got killed by a charge of dualin. Apparently the charge only partly exploded so the miners were trying to clean the blast hole out and reload it. But the rest of the charge exploded while cleaning it out, killing the two men and injuring three others. Anyway I just think there should be an article for dualin. There seems to be no articles mentioning dualin but it can be added in Mining equipment under blasting since it was used for blasting rock.  Volcano guy  21:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

60.240.209.203 (talk) 07:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Disagreement with another Wikipedia article
Both articles will have this exact message added to their talk section. The explosive yield of both TNT and Dynamite are cited as different values in their respective articles, and as multiple different values within a single article. The Wikipedia article on Dynamite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamite) cites TNT and Dynamite to have explosive yields of 4.0 MJ/kg and 5 MJ/kg, respectively, whereas the Wikipedia article on TNT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitrotoluene) cites TNT and Dynamite to have explosive yields of 2.8 MJ and 7.5 MJ/kg, respectively. In the TNT article, there is a line, "The explosive energy utilized by NIST is 4184 J/g (4.184 MJ/kg).[16]", which probably means to say that TNT has an explosive yield of 4.184 MH/kg, making for a probable third value, but the statement is ambiguous: On first read, I thought that NIST was an explosive that produced 4.184 MJ of explosive energy for every kg utilized. Suggest changing it to something like, "The NIST records the explosive yield of TNT as 4.184 MJ/kg.", if that is what is actually meant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.225.120 (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Direct quote
Under the Form section of the article, there is a direct quote that is paraphrased from it's source: "A stick of dynamite thus produced contains roughly 1 MJ of energy [6]." This needs to be paraphrased or quoted instead of plagiarizing the source. Autonomou5 (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dynamite. 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/20120321201205/http://www.austinpowder.com/BlastersGuide/docs/pib/Dynamite%20Series.PDF to http://www.austinpowder.com/BlastersGuide/docs/pib/Dynamite%20Series.PDF
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060630065530/http://www.oregon.gov/OSP/AES/Dynamite.shtml to http://www.oregon.gov/OSP/AES/Dynamite.shtml

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

dynamite for farmers
FWIW, I remember reading an article (in Science I think) some years ago which stated that, while dynamite certainly revolutionized hard rock mining and demolition, Nobel's biggest customers were American farmers, who used it to clear their land of stumps. The eastern half of the US was originally mostly forest, which had to be cleared to facilitate plowing. That is a lot of stumps. While you can easily uproot stumps now with machines, at the time it was quite difficult, and dynamite solved a major problem for farmers. If true, it might be worth looking for a reference and filling in this bit of history. AJim (talk) 04:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

TNT paragraph
Everything in the paragraph WRT to Bugs Bunny, literacy and Whiskey labeling is extremely dubious and of course lacks any citation. I'm going to remove it because it's obviously nonsense. 139.138.6.121 (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

What is the prototype to Dynamite
What is the prototype to dynamite. Like what invention inspired dynamite.2.29.250.239 (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not quite sure what you mean. The article makes it rather clear that Nobel was driven by a desire to make the recently synthesized nitroglycerin – a powerful explosive with much potential for industrial applications, but also an extremely dangerous one, owing to its sensitivity to both heat and shock – safer to handle, which would make for a commercially viable product. Nobel experimented with different ways to accomplish this, so there were probably many "prototypes". WP Ludicer (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dynamite


text:
User talk:Nowraboy

Hi, glad to see you've registered an account. Not trying to be unfriendly, but could you provide some verification of the article The nowra boys? I wasn't able to find any on Google, and I'm not sure that the group is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Any verifiable information you could give me would be very helpful. Best, Meelar (talk) 06:52, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted The nowra boys, as was the decision of the community. See you around. Rje 00:38, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nowraboy


text:
Don Kirkham

Don Kirkham (February 11, 1908 – March 7, 1998) was an American soil scientist regarded as the founder of mathematical soil physics. His special interest was the flow of water through soils and drainage of agricultural land. He was awarded the 1983/4 Wolf Prize in Agriculture and the Robert E. Horton Medal in 1995.

title: Don Kirkham