Talk:Phenacyl chloride

Sep articles on CN gas and chloroacetophenone?

chloroacetophenone is possibly not identical to CN gas and separation of these themes might be a good idea. Objections or comments welcome.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"CN" is the NATO standard codename for chloroacetophenone. I don't see how "CN-gas" could be something else, maybe you give me a hint? Cheers, --84.163.115.34 (talk) 13:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

CN is a finished product, probably containing solvents, etc. Chloroacetophenone is a pure chemical compound. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have few books on chemical warfare here (all are german, but US sources I've read before are affirmative on this), and "CN" is given in all of them as the NATO codename for the compound chloroacetophenone just as e.g. "GB" is for isopropyl methylfluorophosphonate. It may be technical grade, but it's essentialy the codename given for this substance. Do you have any sources supporting your assertion? What type of solution should it be? Okay, hand grenades dispersing CN contain a pyrotechnic mixture (e.g. nitrocellulose, chloroacetophenone, magnesium oxide) or an explosive blend containing PETN and CN, and would be marked "CN-Gas", but, in effect CN as codename is pure or technical grade chloroacetophenone. The books are for example Franke, S.: Militärchemie, Band 1, Berlin (East), 1977 (no ISBN); Lohs, KH.: Synthetische Gifte, Berlin (East), 1974 (no ISBN); Klimmek, Szinicz, Weger: Chemische Gifte und Kampfstoffe, Stuttgart, 1983, ISBN 3777306088 and Schäfer, A.T.: Lexikon biologischer und chemischer Kampfstoffe, Berlin, 2003, ISBN 3895745154. I mean, it's unprobable they're all wrong, isn't it? Cheers, --84.163.115.34 (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Chemists are precise with chemical nomenclature. Apart from use as a riot agent, it is a building block chemical. Do you object to having the article here? CN gas redirects here anyway (and CN is not really a gas in ambient conditions, bp 244 °C). --Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm a chemist myself. No, I don't object having the article here, I was wondering why chloroacetophenone as CW/riot control agent and as chemical should be separated. CN is not a gas, but munition containig/dispersing CN may be marked "CN-gas", as is/was the case with most CW agents.--84.163.73.25 (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sentence is missing a bit

The article has this sentence: Even though CN is still supplied to paramilitary and police forces in a small pressurized aerosol known as “Mace” or tear gas, its use is falling as pepper spray both works and disperses more quickly than CN and is less toxic than CN. It is clearly missing a bit before "both works". I think the missing bit might be "because Capsaicin" - but this is based on user-generated content on quora.com,^[1] that supports a claim that Capsaicin is surplanting CN in so-called pepper sprays because it is less toxic - it does not mention Capsaicin dispersing more quickly. But user-generated content on quora.com is not a reliable source.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Or does "as" mean "because"? If that is the case, it is not missing a bit, but is confusing because the "as" can be interpreted two different ways.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)