G. Fawkes

Some Chemistry and Physics of Explosives and Fireworks

Introduction

Some chemistry and physics of explosives and fireworks. Explore the fascinating chemistry and physics behind explosives and various types of fireworks, from crackers to Roman candles, and their thrilling impact.

Abstract

There is a certain fearful thrilling satisfaction in loud bangs. I know many otherwise apparently quite respectable people who are members of the League of Nations Union, opposed to war under any pretext, and who certainly are opposed to the use of firearms for any purpose, who take the opportunity of the approach of Guy Fawkes' Day or of Empire Day, or of some suitably authenticated fireworks day to purchase crackers for their children, which they proceed to let off for the pleasure and gratification - of those children. Children are a blessing. Few men would have the courage to give way to their desire for making loud bangs on the back lawn, or illegally in the streets, without being able to hide, metaphorically, behind the skirts or pants of the little ones. But when father brings home a mixed box of Chinese bombs, big bungers, jumping jacks, tom-thumbs, flower-pots, Roman candles and Catherine wheels, mother knows quite well who is going to get the most fun out of letting them off.

Review

The article, titled "Some Chemistry and Physics of Explosives and Fireworks," initially suggests a technical and scientific exploration of the underlying principles governing these phenomena. However, the accompanying abstract presents a striking and immediate divergence from this expectation. Rather than outlining the scientific scope, methodologies, or key findings related to chemistry and physics, the abstract offers a highly narrative, anecdotal, and philosophical discourse on the human enjoyment of loud bangs and fireworks. It focuses on the psychological motivations for their use, particularly in social contexts like Guy Fawkes' Day, and the "excuse" of children, setting a tone far removed from typical scientific discourse. This abstract is profoundly unsuitable for a scholarly journal focusing on scientific disciplines. It reads more like a personal essay or a humorous social commentary than a concise summary of a scientific paper. There is a complete absence of any scientific terminology, mention of chemical reactions, physical forces, experimental setups, theoretical models, or any indication whatsoever of the "chemistry and physics" promised by the title. The tone is informal and conversational, replete with subjective observations and rhetorical questions ("mother knows quite well who is going to get the most fun out of letting them off"). This significant discrepancy raises serious concerns about the paper's actual content and whether it delivers on its scientific premise. Given the stark mismatch between the title and abstract, this submission, in its current form, cannot be recommended for publication in a scientific journal without significant revision. The authors must either fundamentally rewrite the abstract to reflect a rigorous scientific discussion of the chemistry and physics of explosives and fireworks, or, if the current abstract accurately represents the paper's content, they should re-evaluate the paper's scope, title, and target audience entirely. A scientific paper requires an abstract that clearly defines its scope, methods, and findings, allowing readers to quickly assess its relevance and academic merit. As it stands, the abstract provides no such information, leaving the reviewer with no basis to evaluate the scientific quality or contribution of the work.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.