I have a naming crisis. With so many different synonyms for explosives created over the last century, narrowing down the best name for a compound can be a challenge. This challenge is especially evident when old literature is used with conventions of naming molecules that are quite unusual. I defer to the Merck Index when a compound is listed, but it only has a fraction of the explosives I have on my website. My policy then is to list the explosive based on its name given when I first encounter its synthesis in the literature. That works sometimes, but occasionally I get some weird sounding compounds.

Take nitratophosphite for instance. The CAS database does not like the name, it does recognize the name, and I can�t find any other literature that uses the name beyond what I already have. Obviously the name is improper and is listed under some other synonym within the marble halls of CAS. Only my website, and one other has information on nitratophosphites as spelled.

Apparently my website is THE definitive list of explosives in the world, nothing else matters but the information I provide. I ran across a new patent, US 20070004046, and noticed it had a very nice list of explosives. Wonderful, I thought, a large list of explosives might have a few interesting ones I can research and put on my website. I printed it off and set it aside for a rainy day. Some days later while examining the compounds I noticed a few of the rather nonstandard names that I chose to use as the titles of my explosives. A little more looking and I noticed every single explosive is directly from my website in the same alphabetical order, even the rare and unusual rocket propellants, nonstandard names, everything.

They used the listing of explosives I had from before two years ago, before I added the several dozen additional explosives that are not fully finished. The only addition the patent made was Semtex, an explosive mixture I may yet add to my site. I am disappointed that I didn�t find any new explosives, but nevertheless it is nice to see someone appreciates my hard work in putting together the ultimate collection of explosive materials, a collection that hardly scratches the surface of what is out there.

Congrats on getting...ripped off! :D ;) Seriously, though, imitation really is the sincerest form of flattery.

This might not be a bad time to point out one omission on that very lengthy list, though: erythritol tetranitrate! That's an explosive that apparently doesn't see much mention in the literature (except perhaps in the medical field with other vasodilators), but it's become a favorite among do-it-yourselfers like those here.

Is there any way you could stick ETN in there when you get a chance? That would be a nice little jab at those who stole your compilation. It would truly be a laugh if they somehow then added ETN to their list prior to receiving the actual patent they're applying for, so the application publication had one list and the patent itself had the updated list. Not that it isn't already obvious enough that they copied from you. :D

You actually CAN find material on ETN however it's not listed as ETN (& that's the trick).
What megalomania was describing was a unique time in our history when the naming conventions of the sciences were slowly changing and the development of a universal convention was being agreed upon (CAS). If you hunt, you'll see it [as well] as other explosives listed from many, many years back as different abbreviations. :confused:

I have see MHN listed as MX, ETN listed as ErTrN or ErTN, NG as NQ, The conventions get quite complex as the work on polyhydric nitric esters ensued. What we thought of as Sorbitol Hexanitrate (SHN was referred to in the early half of the 20th century as "hexanitrate" but we find a Hell of a lot of Hexa-nitrates: Inositol, Mannitol, Quebrachitol, etc. the same naming convention for Methyl-glucamine exists as "Pentayl"- (as if there is only one explosive nitrated with five positions); would this exclude nitrated cane sugar from having a "penta" in it's naming convention? It gets pretty insane. Maltose, moreover, nitrates to the octal in it's explosive form and is pretty interesting as it's even a bit more sensitive than MHN. Maltose Octanitrate (MON) may just be as close to a primary as most polyhydric nitric esters can get. :D

To use the turn of the century naming conventions and the modern is very confusing for me and I tend to look at the patent date to determine if the naming convention will still be used. However I believe that explosive "names" are really arbitrary for the most part.

I think you could consider it a compliment to your own hard work megalomania; obviously someone must considers your work worthy enough to patent, which in itself is a vote of confidence to the scientific validity of your work. ;)

I agree with Jekyll. You should be proud of it, Mega. After all, aren't we here to learn and teach?

It also kind of makes you wonder how many companies are on The Forum and Mega's website looking for useful information, rather than plotting to condemn us.