Talk:Tritonal
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Impulse[edit]
The article currently says: "The aluminium improves the ... impulse of the TNT"
Is this really the right word?? I'm not an explosives expert, but I'm a mechanical engineer, and I know what impulse is in mechanics. Makes no sense to me in the context of detonations. --BjKa (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Energy content?[edit]
The figure quoted in the article for energy (400-odd kilojoules, or as much as a small candy bar) released by a Mark 82 bomb is far too low-- off by several orders of magnitude. This document created by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, contains a table (on page 7) that allows a far more reasonable yield of 1216 Mj for a Mark 82 to be calculated, based on a cited explosive yield for tritonal of 3547 calories per gram. Accordingly I have edited the article to match this more likely estimate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.26.207.137 (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Thermobaric?[edit]
Is the function of the aluminium powder that it burns when mixed with atmosohetic oxygen, as in a thermobaric bomb? This very tabloid article describes the MOAB as an oxygen sucker: https://web.archive.org/web/20170517074619/https://www.belairdaily.com/father-of-all-bombs/6372.html despite it not being described as a thermobaric weapon in the Wikipedia article. It was initially loaded with tritonal, though. But its aluminium casing could also perhaps serve as fuel. Elias (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)