Talk:Halifax Explosion

the blast travelled through the Earth at nearly 23 times the speed of sound

The article says: the blast travelled through the Earth at nearly 23 times the speed of sound, which isn't so obvious. Does it mean 23 times faster than the speed of sound in air? At STP? Presumably it travels at the speed of sound in earth. Gah4 (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I can't find anything in the NASA report on this, so I don't know why it's cited. What MacDonald says: "On land, the sound arrived first. It rippled through the earth at the punishing speed of 13,320 miles per hour -- twenty-three times the speed of sound." This is somewhat incoherent: first we're on land, then we're rippling through the earth, as if those are somehow related, and who or what is being punished -- Mother Earth? I'm prepared to be corrected on this, but I had the same thought you had when I saw your heading for this thread: this is the just the speed of sound in the earth's crust, which is (apparently [1]) something like 13000-15000 mph i.e. about 23X the speed of sound in air. While this is apparently a true statement, its use by Macdonald to dramatize something (the power of the explosion, I guess?) is misleading. It's like saying someone watching from afar "learned of the explosion at the speed of light!". Well, yeah, that's what always happens. I've removed it.

This article could use some toning down e.g. "Firefighter Billy Wells, who was thrown away from the explosion and had his clothes torn from his body, described the devastation survivors faced...". EEng 12:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Biggest explosion at the time

Which explosion that was the biggest in 1917 is an outdated fact. What is relevant to our readers is which explosions are the biggest now.

We could of course say "still one of the biggest"... but if it actually remains the biggest, why not say so?

So, @Nikkimaria:, which source says Halifax isn't the biggest explosion? Or rather, which source claims another explosion as the biggest one? What is your basis for "the sources don't agree"?

Or, alternatively, could it be that your edit summary was just too short and you meant to say you would like us to use more qualifiers? CapnZapp (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The way we were taught, the Halifax Explosion was the biggest "man made" explosion. Only with the dawn of the nuclear age was that superseded. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  13:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I have tried to clarify the statement in the article.   Aloha27  talk  13:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: The Halifax Explosion was roughly equivalent to 2.9kt TNT.

• Multiple sources claim the N1 rocket explosion was more than double that, close to 7kt, and name this as the largest [2][3][4]
• Minor Scale was over 4kt[5][6]
• Misty Picture was around 4kt[7][8]
• Operation Big Bang was 3 or 4kt[9][10]
• Some sources place the Texas City disaster at over 3kt, although estimates are variable[11][12]
• Similarly the Port Chicago disaster may have been as much as 5kt[13]

Plus many nuclear explosions were considerably larger. @Aloha27: I expect your change was meant to address this last point, but given Port Chicago was technically pre-nuclear age I'd suggest reverting. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I was looking here the ranking of the Port Chicago blast places it at #3. As I read it, the first nuclear chain reaction was December 1942. Port Chicago was a year-and-a-half later.   Aloha27  talk  14:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The nuclear age is typically dated to Trinity in 1945. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Talking about Largest_artificial_non-nuclear_explosions#Largest_accidental_artificial_non-nuclear_explosions_by_magnitude here. Nikkimaria, seems you disagree with our own list. If you would like to update the list to match your new sources, that'd be great. CapnZapp (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

To be honest I cannot see improving upon the definition given here. "The Halifax Explosion was the largest man-made explosion to occur before the dropping of the atomic bombs during the Second World War." Regards,   Aloha27  talk  20:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The issue is that sources don't agree on that claim. They do agree on the one currently in the article, at least as far as I'm aware. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Claiming what was biggest in 1917 just doesn't cut it for an encyclopedia in 2023 - it is an hopelessly outdated fact. You list sources that conflict with those selected by our Largest_artificial_non-nuclear_explosions#Largest_accidental_artificial_non-nuclear_explosions_by_magnitude page. In order to constructively move forward (i.e. updating the fact to no longer focus on what was biggest in 1917) you should gain consensus for the validity of your sources. I suggest over at our existing compilation page, so the discussion can be had just once. In the meanwhile, let us agree that page is definitive. Finally, allow me to clarify I have no beef in the game, insofar that I don't particularly care if the subject of this article ranks 1st or 10th. What I care about is getting the outdated claim off the page: we simply should not present hopelessly obsolete facts. We could instead say "it was the biggest at the time, and, as of 2023 still remains one of the largest non-nuclear explosions." or similar. CapnZapp (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

If we were to agree that that page is definitive, then - since I've already updated it, per your request - that page supports that this event is no longer the largest. Beyond that, I don't agree that we need to say anything more than this was the biggest ever at the time. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Dead external links

I am not sure how to remove dead external links as I am inexperienced and don't want to mess anything up, but there are a few audio links on this page that 'ave ceased to be :( Sorry about that! Pdxrosss (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Distance the Mont Blanc's gun traveled

This article states that the Mont Blanc's gun flew 5.6 kilometres, yet the official placard on the monument states the distance as "almost 2 miles" (so under ~3km) to Little Albro Lake, which is only 2.1 to 2.4 kilometres from the blast site. Is the 5.6 figure taking into account the trajectory and not just the horizontal distance? If so, this should be clarified as it is misleading, especially considering how the distance given for the anchor is linear. These 2 measurements should be presented in the same way, unless I'm missing something. 38.59.182.219 (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Weights of Mont Blanc's cargo

The SS Mont-Blanc article gives amounts for her cargo, saying "cargo of wet and dry 2,300 tons of picric acid, 500 tons of TNT, and 10 tons of guncotton". I think it cites Flemming for this. This article doesn't give those amounts. Does Flemming support these numbers? And is that odd wording "wet and dry 2,300 tons" what is meant? -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 22:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Flemming gives those substances (plus benzene) but not the breakdown of weights for each. Glasner gives 2,300 tons picric, 200 TNT, 10 guncotton, and 35 benzol. As for wet and dry, see the explanation at ton. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)