Pyrotol
Explosive
Pyrotol was an explosive available for a time after World War I. It was reprocessed from military surplus, with a typical composition of 60% smokeless powder, 34% sodium nitrate, and 6% of 40% nitroglycerin dynamite. Usually used in combination with dynamite, it created an incendiary blast. Since it was very inexpensive, it was often used by farmers to remove tree stumps and clear ditches. The substance was known for being used to commit the Bath School bombing in 1927. Distribution of pyrotol for farm use was discontinued in 1928, due to exhaustion of the supply of surplus explosives.
Pyrotol was intended to make a use after the war for a large surplus of smokeless powder. It was manufactured in a contract awarded to the DuPont Company and was created in three DuPont plants: Gibbstown, N.J., Barksdale, Wisconsin, and DuPont, Washington. The active ingredient of these cartridges, Pyrotol, was free, and included in the cartridge's price; the consumer paid for the preparation and freight of these cartridges.
Pyrotol was said to cause no ill effects, like headaches, or staining hands or clothing, although the validity of this statement is unknown. A 6-ounce (170 g) cartridge of pyrotol was said to be as powerful as an 8-ounce (230 g) cartridge of dynamite, and came in 50-pound (23 kg) boxes containing 160 cartridges of the substance.
“Pyrotol” enters the record as explosive. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Pyrotol and Explosive can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Pyrotol” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Pyrotol and Explosive provides the most credible route into that argument.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 6, 2023. The linked authority identifier is Q909562. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1927 and 1928.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Pyrotol”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Pyrotol primary sources, Pyrotol archive and Pyrotol research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Pyrotol”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Pyrotol” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.