Talk:Pipe bomb

Comment

Information on pipe bombs should not be available on the net. Too many nuts out there wanting to destroy something. let's not make it easy for them. 68.53.152.16 01:44, 19 September 2003 (UTC)

Information on pipe bombs is already available all over the net see,[1], [2],[3] and may more too numerous to mention. More importantly, all the information required can be found in libraries. We should make the article much better, we should add a disclaimer, and give a history of pipe bomb use etc. but we should not delete it. theresa knott 10:02, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Although I agree with Theresa that the article should stay, I think it is patently ridiculous for any article here to include such specifics about the construction of such a device. The article goes beyond good taste, and to my mind opens up liabilities (although IMNAL), when such "construction" details beyond what a pipe bomb is are included in the article. The fact that "we" cannot even agree on whether to grease the threads (as discussed at VfD) should be warning enough that we do not want to go down that road - Marshman 19:13, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC) I'm also not certain that this is a logical place for the disclaimer warning since it implies that Wikipedia believes persons would use information on the page to construct the device. It is far better to simply not include such details and not have the disclaimer. - Marshman 19:29, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

But pipe bombs are so simple, so crude, that it would be very difficult not to include details of their construction :-( As far as I can tell, a pipe bomb is a bit of sealed pipe full of explosive, with some sort of fuse in it to detonate it. I suppose we could leave the fuse out of the article, but I prefer altering the tone of the article. Instead of -make sure you grease the ends or other such "advice" we could have " A number of people have died -(sources) when grains of black powder exploded and detonated the bomb as the end was being attached" theresa knott 21:05, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This article is hardly a "how to" guide, nor should it be. I don't see a problem. Anjouli 03:42, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There is enough info in my opinion. There is written to is match head and seal them in a pipe. And put a fuse inside. I think that if i click fuse i will find enough info on fuse construction. Remember bombs kill people.

21:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.77.199.79 (talk)

High school chemistry

My mother always kinda laughs over this fuss about learning bomb stuff on the Internet - the mixing, handling, and use of simple low explosives were part of her high school chemistry book in the late '50s! 142.177.19.218 04:36, 14 April 2004 (UTC)

How I would have loved to live back then... On another note, agree with the need for a disclaimer, so I made one. I did however stick it on it's own page, it's very broad and just tells people to use their brains, which is all I think we need since the Wikipedia already has a legal disclaimer. [edit] Well, I guess that doesn't work, my "Disclaimer" page redirects to the normal Wikipedia Disclaimer, which is good anyways. I'll leave the "Disclaimer" link there at the bottom of this topic anyways because it can't hurt. --Eric Kincl 68.164.245.241 00:41, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Serious criminal offence

"The manufacture of a pipe bomb is a serious criminal offence, even if experimentation is the only intent."

This needs to be clarified. In which countries is it a serious criminal offence? I can't believe it's a crime everywhere. (very few things are) Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 01:17, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For U.S. law on bombs see Destructive device. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 09:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

A few thoughts

Hi, Thought you might like a point of view from a Bomb Technicians' perspective.... In my humble opinion, you should have the term 'pipe bomb' included in your dictionary. Pipe bombs can and do injure many, killing some. The ease with which they are constructed, and the potential for injury make them frequently appear in news articles. Therefore, defining the term is a reasonable action for those who may be unfamiliar. Detailed descriptions, method of assembly, uses, are NOT reasonable. YES, they are described in sickening detail at many other websites. The key here is that those websites are not know for their veracity. Wiki is. Therefore, design data presented here adds credibility. It is not necessary to elucidate on this topic, simply to present it for what it is. In the US, recent legislation makes it a criminal offense to teach others how to build explosive devices. The potential for negative publicity is great. Or, consider this. What happens if a child builds a device based off of design information contained here, subsequently injuring himself or others? I am against the inhibition of information, but I feel that some information is best presented by certain sources. An encyclopedia / dictionary isn't the place for bomb-building info. -Shawn Shawn Hughes 19:18, 11 December 2004 (UTC)

Please elucidate (great word) on some of your data, a bomb tech would make a great information source. What is the Bill # for the US legislation, and a summary would be welcome, especially the exceptions. I would hope it would be OK to teach a bomb tech how bombs are constructed. Data about the number of people hurt / killed and frequency of appearance in the news would also improve this entry. Rs485 05:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Three Things: 1. Wikipedia is not censored. 2. Natural selection is a beautiful thing. 3. Security thought obscurity never worked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.163.236 (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Building a pipe bomb

"The use of match heads and black powder as filler is to be avoided" I don´t like the sound of that sentence ... 83.248.143.171 03:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh. I find it funny that people would come on here who have no clue about pyrotechnics or munitions , and say things like "But pipe bombs are so simple, so crude, that it would be very difficult not to include details of their construction" and than in the next sentence say "As far as I can tell, a pipe bomb is a bit of sealed pipe full of explosive, with some sort of fuse in it to detonate it." As far as I can tell you have NOT the slightest clue about munitions, and have no business being on here. Do me a favor, leave this conversation up to the professionals. Secondly, there is no formulas on here for making the solution to Black Powder / Gun Powder or any of the other dozen names you want to call it. If somebody came on here and wanted to build or attempt to build a pipe bomb, they would be an idiot. This article is for encyclopedia purposes only, there is no solutions on this page. You could be inspired to build a pipe bomb from this article (or from a video game) but could not even remotely assemble one from this article alone. Secondly, if you died by attempting to make a pipe bomb. You clearly had it coming. Natural selection would have gotten this individual some other way. If you had a pipe bomb blow up on you, during the assembly than you do not realize the scope of danger involved in making this device, nor the safety precautions you need to take. But a word of advice, If you are going to attempt to build a pipe bomb. Do not do it around other people. We would not want innocent people to die because of your stupidity :) Brdennis 10:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

"As far as I can tell you have NOT the slightest clue about munitions, and have no business being on here." see WP:Ownership of articles#Comments, although it doesn't exactly fit you, it only takes one over-zealous person to mistake this sort of thing for a sign of ownership, or even a zealous admin and you're screwed, so I'm not having a go, I'm just saying, be civil and try to avoid saying things that people might think aren't intended in good faith. ConconJondor _talk ^contribs 21:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Item

Salina Deputy Police Chief Carson Mansfield tells KSAL News that an item that resembled a pipe bomb was discovered at around 11:30 in the morning in the south end of Sunset Park by a City of Salina employee. Officers blocked off all entrances to the park, and evacuated several homes in the area. The Fort Riley Bomb Disposal Team responded to the scene, as did federal ATF agents, along with an ambulance from the Salina Fire Department. The bomb squad from Fort Riley arrived by mid-afternoon. They ended up remotely detonating three different charges before they disabled the bomb at around 4:30. There were no injuries. Mansfield says that the area is now being treated as a crime scene, and Salina Police have started an investigation. 68.103.129.157 02:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It is so stupid of people to even do this unless they are trained professionals. I bet most people would not even think about greasing the ends for "safety." Why would you put nails and stuff in it, are you out to kill? If you are gonna make if for fun, no need for that stuff, just make it and blow it up at your house (preferably in the country). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.49.246.14 (talk) 02:21, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Alternative Ingredients

Steel pipe and PVC pipe aren't the only raw materials available for fashioning I.E.D.'s. Those large 1000 count pill bottles used together with smaller pill bottles have good 'bangability' when the smaller of the two is charged, fused, and inserted into the larger one surrounded with an effective 'packing'[sand, body filler, etc.]. Body filler or fiberglass [the stronger of the two] is a more creative approach to the I.E.D. because of the infinite design possibilities of your sculpture. Say the classic spherical black cannon ball with fuse at the top. Or maybe a likeness of your ex-girlfriend. If your gonna have a bang, might as well be a little creative with it, eh?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.201.78 (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

FUD

"Premature detonation is a hazard of attempting to construct any homemade bomb, and the materials and methods used with pipe bombs make unintentional detonation incidents common, usually resulting in serious injury or death to the assembler." this is just FUD and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kermit2 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Two apparently unconnected men were killed in Grant County, Washington State, USA by pipe bombs 11 hours apart this August (2008). Google for Grant+County+pipe+bomb. The FBI and local authorities are busy tracking down leads. From the circumstances, the only guess I can make is that both were killed when bombs went off while they were screwing them together. As to why people would be assembling these at higher than the usual rate is a mystery to me, but it seems that some basic safety information should be included such as a warning to not pack gunpowder, and that screwing the ends on will set off gunpowder when it is squeezed by the threads. I don't know if these incidents are sufficiently newsworthy to put in the list of incidents, but this is a lot of people killed by explosive devices in a small population rural county during peacetime. 64.184.170.248 (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Photos for the article

There is a series of four FBI pipe bomb photos here that would aid the article. If you have the time, please add them to the article. Suntag (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Devices made from plastic pipe, such as PVC, or thick walled cardboard tube would not be normally considered as "pipe bombs".

But in other references they are still considered pipe bombs, so if this statement is true, then what are bombs made from PVC pipe considered then? 122.53.244.251 (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing the Popular Culture section

I mean, come on! Someone watching Deep Blue Sea could easily identify what the characters are rigging up. Someone playing Left 4 Dead could easily tell what one of their weapons is. Couldn't these trivia be mentioned in their respective articles, with a link somewhere to pipe bomb? If someone wants to know where pipe bombs have been found in pop culture, couldn't they just click "What links here" in the sidebar? Palladmial (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Dubious

Other sources say the device hurled from the Tsarnaev escape SUV was a pressure cooker bomb, not a pipe bomb; this needs to be confirmed with better sources, perhaps after trial materials have been made public. -- Beland (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I've seen subsequent reports that they threw both. -- Beland (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Modes of failure

They can also fail if the pipe is fully sealed and the chemical reaction triggered, but the total pressure buildup from the chemicals is insufficient to exceed the casing strength; such a bomb is a dud, but still potentially dangerous if handled, since an external shock could trigger rupture of the statically pressurized casing.

Any evidence that this has ever happened? Would require the hole for the wires to be hermetically sealed (you'd expect the wire insulation to melt and be pushed out) and be as strong as the rest of the casing. Also, the pressure wil drop considerably when the gasses have cooled down. If it didn't fail at top pressure, it's unlikely to fail later. Prevalence (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Link to spud guns

I've just reverted CodaThePortalMaster's removal of "spud guns" from the long-standing text "...pipe bombs are much more dangerous than alternatives, such as dry ice bombs or spud guns...".

His summary questioned: "...how spud guns have any relation to any type of bomb" - but the relationship is simply that they are similarly potentially dangerous devices with "a long tradition of recreational use for amusement or mischief with no intention to cause injury". Snori (talk) 07:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pipe bomb. 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/20080315002211/http://www.chicagohs.org/dramas/act2/tragedyEnacted/momentOfTruth_f.htm to http://www.chicagohs.org/dramas/act2/tragedyEnacted/momentOfTruth_f.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2024

After "However, they have also been used by Irish republican paramilitaries and by anti-drugs vigilante group Republican Action Against Drugs" I suggest to add: ", and it was IRA technicians who perfected pipe bombs designs to the point of transforming them into hand grenades of undoubtedly artisanal construction but equipped with all the features typical of industrially produced grenades (mechanical fuzes with spring loaded strikers, safety pins, fly off levers, etc)[Here citation to: IRA Improvised Hand Grenade Designs (https://web.archive.org/web/20240211145151/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/IRA_Improvised_Hand_Grenade_Designs.pdf)]" SeForPreciso (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done - The citation is simply a list of designs used by the IRA, it does not verify that IRA technicians were the ones who developed them. A PDF uploaded to commons is also not a reliable source. Jamedeus (talk) 08:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)