Jump to content

Talk:Gunpowder/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

White Powder

hi, I am just setting a footnote in a text written in 1687 [1] - people there are talking about shooting with white powder (i.e. saltpeter only) - question: will that go off? What will be the effect? Any help is welcome. --Olaf Simons 13:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

  • no, it will not go off. Gunpowder works because the oxidizer (saltpeter) oxidizes the fuel (carbon and sulfur). Carbon and sulfur burn in open air but with the saltpeter providing the oxygen it can burn much much faster than in open air. white powder may refer to a completely different substance. There are pyrotechnical compositions called "gold powder" and "crimson powder" that have specialized uses--Crucible Guardian 03:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Not quite true -- the largest non nuclear explosion was a ship loaded with fertilizer in Texas City during the late 1940s.

"Probably"

"The earliest known documentation of black powder, the original gunpowder, are recipes in the following Chinese texts:" - I think we need a citation for that. Tom Harrison Talk 21:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have replaced "the Chinese records describing gunpowder appear to be the oldest. These records date to the 9th century" with a specific, cited reference to the "Classified Essentials of the Mysterious Tao of the True Origin of Things" (c. 850 CE) from the book Gunpowder: The History of the Explosive the Changed the World.
--JFD 01:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Picture

I removed the picture of smokeless powder because this is the gunpowder article; smokeless powder is very differnt. It would not make sense to have a picture of a chimp on the human page, even though they are closely related. I think the picture is misleading; many people still think that gunpowder is still used in firearms today. Also, gunpowder looks much different than smokeless powder and operates on a completely different basis; smokeless powder is composed of a mix of high explosives (nitrocellulose and nitroglycerine usually) in a special mix designed not to detonate. The product of their combustion is completely gaseous. Gunpowder on the other hand is a low explosive and has a considerable ammount of solid products of combustion. I can probably get a real picture of gunpowder sometime soon. --Crucible Guardian 03:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

merge

I think this article should be merged with blackpowder. The terms are usually used interchangably.--Crucible Guardian 03:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose: Thanks for your suggestion, but there's smokeless powder & this article is supposed to cover that. It's just that this article is not comprehensive enough to cover it. (Wikimachine 05:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC))

This article is about both black powder and smokeless gunpowder. A series of ill-considered recent changes, now RV'd, made it appear to be about black powder alone. Correcting these changes resolves the above issue about the illustration as well. --KarlBunker 00:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Roger Bacon

Passage on Roger Bacon and gunpowder from Gunpowder: The History of the Explosive that Changed the World, pp.24-25:

--JFD 21:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, that formula you just quoted is a recipe for gunpowder, dude. Mix some up if you don't believe me, but do it outside, and be careful. It's also the earliest written formula for gunpowder that I have found. The Chinese recipes are not for gunpowder, at least not as we defined that term, and as it is generally used. If you can show me one before Bacon's, I would love to see it--Arab, Chinese, German, whatever. Ocanter 17:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

To clarify one thing

The chinese made the first cannon in world,Huochong,a bronze cannon dated back to 1298. Ksyrie 21:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

that is actually not true. the chinese may have made the first rocket, but certainly not the cannon. it was actually made by choe mu sun, this guy who was a citizen of the Goryo kingdom. he also made the world's first mortar cannon.

(goryo=Korea)

oh yeah, "clarify". this is about gunpowder, not some "hochong". (comment added by Odst)

Potassium nitrate

I just read Partington's chapter on "Gunpowder and Firearms in Muslim Lands" and there's no mention of this. What source does this material come from?

According to Kelly (p. 62), the purification of saltpeter, the conversion of calcium nitrate to potassium nitrate, occurred in Europe either concurrent with the development of corning or subsequent to it. JFD 02:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

hey, what about the koreans?

the koreans were probably the second civilization to inherit gunpowder, but more accurately "black powder". Korean alchemist Choi mu sun developed the world's first efficient gunpowder, that was said to be more advanced than the type used during the american civil war. i dont have evidence right now, so ill cite it later.

What impact did the Korean acquisition of gunpowder have on gunpowder's global development? i.e. did the Koreans make refinements and/or use it in new ways that had a major world-wide influence? Given that hundreds of civilisations eventually acquired gunpowder and the brevity of the article I think we should only mention the civilisations that had a major impact on the world history of gunpowder. If the Korean contributions meet that criteria then by all means add it. -Cowrider 00:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

fine. the koreans kept it to themselves, although they could have been nice. It is still rational to add the korean side, because this article is not about the impact on the World history of gunpowder, but rather the achievements of a civilization, whether or not it was decisive for the development of modern gunpowder. Hell, I have no idea what i just wrote anyway! Guar har har! (comment added by Odst)

First, Korea wasn't the second civilization to inherit black powder as we don't know who really discovered it, I guess we do know that Korea wasn't the country that first discovered the black powder, since Choi apparently spy'd off the technology from china. second, efficient is a relative term and it's meaningless, unless Choi mu sun had knowledge of how west and other nations produced gunpowder. We know production of gunpowder was still very expensive and arduous process in Korea (as well as every other nations) as late as 1590's. So, I really don't see how koreans were relevant to the gunpowder history. This article would be a big mess if we include histories of how each nation gained access to gunpowder technology. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.148.10.43 (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Potassium nitrate, where?

Where can I find Potassium Nitrate?

Fertilizer

why don't you "borrow" them from your school's science storage? Guar har har! (comment added by Odst)


I believe it is in the cooking section ( canning supplies). This article doesn't give the whole story on how to make it. Probably a good idea - when I was a kid we would ahve blown ourselves up.


Well I made gunpowder a couple of times but used potassium chloride instead, got it from a pharmacy (I think it's for sore throats lol). Anyway they replaced the pharmacy with a bank and I haven't gotten any potassium chloride since ) : . Slartibartfast1992 21:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yo dude, those things are two entirely different substances- u can kill yurself- Odst 05:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude, I know what I'm talking about. Both these chemicals barely make a difference, and if they do (since i've only tried it with potassium chloride) I suppose potassium nitrate is more dangerous, since I figure it's a more powerful oxidizing agent. They're both oxidizing agents, so I don't think there's much of a difference there. Trust me, when it comes to chemistry and combustion, I know. Besides, they're compounds -the word substances seems imprecise-. Slartibartfast1992 16:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

GaaaaaaaaaaaaaHHH!! whats the differense between substance and compound? Odst 03:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Compound: chemical substance containing more than one element with these elements bonded chemically. Substance: physical matter or material. Lol really not much of a difference but I like to be precise (: Slartibartfast1992 22:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Tea vs. firearms

Regarding KarlBunker's reversion, with reason "disambig header not needed. No one is going to enter "gunpowder" if they're looking for gunpowder green tea" given, I added the disambiguation because this article came up when I was looking to see if there was an existent article on gunpowder (the tea). The tea is very commonly referred to as "gunpowder" as opposed to "gunpowder tea." - Erik Harris 23:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

But how long were you confused? This is the sort of thing where you presumably went "oh yes, of course," and immediately typed in "gunpowder tea." I don't think that a disambiguation link should be added to this article to ease a tiny minority of readers through the trivial consequences of a moment of absent-mindedness. KarlBunker 00:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation links aren't just there to stave off confusion, but to direct users to unrelated articles that use the same or similar terms. Obviously I wasn't confused by the gunpowder article, but I was looking for a different gunpowder. It's no different than other disambiguation entries that point to totally unrelated articles that use the same term. No one is going to be confused into thinking they're looking at an article about Jonny Lang's recent album (Turn Around) when they search for the title and find Enigma's single of the same name. That doesn't make the disambiguation link any less valid. -Erik Harris 13:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I was using "confused" in a different sense of the word. In the example you mention, a reader will be confused in the sense of "what the heck should I type in to find the Jonny Lang album?" and the disambiguation link is there to help him out. When there's no uncertainty about what one should type in, there's no need for a disambiguation link. KarlBunker 16:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Smokeless

Lack of information on smokeless powder. AllStarZ 03:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there a smokeless powder article ? --Svartalf 12:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

See Smokeless powder - might be a recent spin-off from this article. --CliffC 14:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is almost entirely about Black powder, I'm thinking the two should be merged, with a link to smokeless in the lead to clarify. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that something should be done about the organization of these articles; there are currently three articles about two closely related subjects. One option would be to make "Gunpowder" into a disambiguation article with links to black powder and smokeless powder (and I guess gunpowder tea). Another, as Night Gyr suggests, would be to have "Gunpowder" redirect to Black powder, and give that article a prominent link to Smokeless powder. I'm inclined to think the first option is best. KarlBunker 20:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Food adulterant

I've had several allusions in western movies and books to gunpowder being used (presumably as a noxious adulterant used for expediency) in alcohol (whiskey/moonshine) manufacture. Would anybody have sources on this or on the origin of the legend? --Svartalf 12:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This site claims gunpowder was used to "proof" whiskey. Nothing about drinking it as a mixture, but I'm guessing the saltpeter content might have an undesirable effect. --CliffC
I have heard of this also. Recently there was a boy who was popular in the news who was forced to use marijuanna and drink gunpowder and was given a gun to shoot "rebels" or something. He wrote a book about his childhood. I also read a bit about people mixing a bit with rum. I have heard claims about it acting like a stimulant, but that very well could be placebo.
When doing searches about it I only pull up stuff about using it to "proof" alcohol. I only found one source after somewhat extensive searching to a message board where one person claimed to have put some in rum during his hard biking/drinking days at a particular bar. I'm also very interested in the effects of consuming this. Partially because finding info about it seems so elusive. If anybody knows anything please say it, and maybe a part of it can appear on the main page.Rjkd12 14:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It is a fact that gunpowder was used to proof alcohol in the UK. I need to find a source, but in effect the alcohol was diluted with water in stages until gunpowder wetted with this water/alcohol mixture would not burn. It also means that some strong alcohols can be more than 100% proof. It is a laboratory test: the alcohol/water/gunpowder mixture is not drunk.Pyrotec 17:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I agree. It was used to proof alcohol for sure, this I am not denying. Any alcohol above 50% will burn, and the term "proof" is just the percentage of alcohol doubled. At 50% alcohol it will burn and is 100% proof that you are not being cheated when purchasing that moonshine. It is easy to get an alcohol above 100% proof, but most are diluted to 40% or 80 proof. Everclear is around 98%-196 proof, 151 rum is 151 proof and 101 wild turkey is 101 proof. When searching about gunpowder and alcohol the sources are 99% related to this. I do think that it is ALSO consumed, yet I cannot find much about this. So I was wondering if anybody had info about the consumption of gunpowder, not necesarily related to alcohol consumption (i.e. eating gunpowder vs putting some in alcohol and taking a 'shot.'Rjkd12 15:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not my area of expertise, but eating gunpowder is possibly a bit like eating the individual ingredients. Potassium nitrate is/was used as a food preservative but in the stomach may be converted to nitric acid, or other nitrogen-based acids. Charcoal is an absorbent, so it might help with diarrhea and the removal of some poisons. Elemental sulphur, I believe, will harm the Liver. Pyrotec 16:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Pink powder and Smoke powder/Smokeless powder and Black powder

regarding this revision : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gunpowder&diff=109607783&oldid=109429068 The first line of this article refers to two kinds of gunpowder - it used to say Smokeless powder and Black powder, but someone's changed it to Pink powder and Smoke powder, and those links don't point anywhere. I don't know anything about gunpowder, so I don't know which of these names is better. If it's an issue, maybe it's worth throwing some redirects up, but I don't know. I'm just gonna switch it back. --Tocky 06:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

Is there a reason saltpeter is spelled saltpetre? SpicyDragonZ 20:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's the more common British spellling. I was just following Needham, but I don't care if you change it. Ocanter 12:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually shaping up

You know, I almost hate to say it, but I think the article actually looks pretty good at this moment. All the factual information we have discussed is present in the article. Needham's view is presented as the dominant one, which is probably fair, but the attribution to him is clear. I restricted my own POV on the Bacon recipe as much as possible, while still conveying all the factual information, which must be presented if readers are to make up their own minds. There still is a lot of work to do on adding information about the European history. It would be nice if Meatwaggon could add a source for the "adulterated" recipes, and all the "tinkering." And Islam is still pretty much empty, although there must be a lot of Muslim sources. Ocanter 22:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I see you have re-added the Partington quote. I will not contest its validity, but I would suggest that you fully reference the edition that is being quoted. The edition I have in front of me is the first, 1960, edition published by W Heffer & Sons. It has a Forward written by Lieut-Gen. Sir Frederick Morgan, K.C.B.; and obviously, that quotation is absent.Pyrotec 11:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I did not spot the discussion below from Red Spruce. I've dabbed the reference myself.Pyrotec 13:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I now have Henry M. Elliott, (1875). The History of India as told by its own Historians: The Muhammadan Period, The posthumous papers of Sir H.M. Elliott, K.C.B. edited and continued by Professor John Dowson, M.R.A.S.. Volume VI. Elibron Classics Replica unabridged facsimile edition. It arrived today USPS Global priority from the USA. I will make use of it once I have studied it some more. But, the message, after having spent 30 minutes reading it, appears to be that gunpowder was (apparently) invented in A.D. 1317 and possibly came to India from China between A.D. 1400 and 1420. I am not changing, or adding any of this to, the article until I have read more of Elliott. Pyrotec 12:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds cool. I would be curious to find out how Elliot defines the word gunpowder. Ocanter 16:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Elliott (page 459) states that he has blown up a fort and several buildings of stone and brick so he knows what the results are like. I'm not sure that he defines gunpowder, it appears to be taken for granted that it is similar to the modern material. He spends time rejecting some (potentially) early descriptions of the use of gunpowder as being naphtha, and therefore not gunpowder. He certainly mentions 13th century receipts of sulphur, charcoal and saltpetre, of various proportions, known to the Arabs; but suggests they were from China, from the 9th century. There are some 27 pages to read; so I might revise what I say, above, when I have read it all several times. Some of this naphtha stuff reminds me of Partington's Greek fire. It is to do with words in manuscripts: tope = gun; nupth = naphtha; toofung = musket; khudung = arrow; and whether he thinks the words have been misused.Pyrotec 17:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
That's interesting. You mean Indian manuscripts? Please let us know what you find. Ocanter 22:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Gunpowder in Europe

Moved the gunpowder corning paragraph down to the Gunpowder in Europe section where it seems more appropriate, as part of the discussion of the advancements upon gunpowder made by Europe starting late in the 14th century. Meatwaggon 03:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Spread of gunpowder

Deleted the first paragraph as it essentially says the exact same thing that the first sentence of the second paragraph says. Added Needham's assertion that the presence of Taoist gunpowder precursors in China (and the lack thereof in other parts of the world) is a strong point favoring gunpowder diffusion out of China. Meatwaggon 02:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I also merged the first two sentences to improve flow, as well as edited "other historians" to include only Partington himself, as he is the only sourced reference on multiple locations for the initial development of gunpowder. I will certainly revert this edit if someone can provide a publicly accessible source that also supports Partington's contention. Meatwaggon 06:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the whole of the paragraph and the (apparent) block quotations which is (mis)attributed to Partington. (1) I have a copy of the 1960 edition of A History of Greek Fire and Gunpowder in front of me; but I cannot find this quotation in the book. (2) The words used in the paragraph misrepresents what is in Partington's book. The quotation can be re-inserted provided it can be verified, i.e a page reference provided.Pyrotec 19:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
If the person who inserted this quote originally can be located and cannot be induced to cough up a page number, perhaps he can be reported to the admins. If this quote turns out to have been fabricated I think it is more than sufficient grounds for a permanent ban on such an account. Meatwaggon 20:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The reference and quote was added by RedSpruce on 6 April 2006. Meatwaggon 23:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I moved this section to the top of "History." Good work. See discussion of terminology below, however. Ocanter 17:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The quote in question came from the the introduction to the 1999 edition of A History of Greek Fire and Gunpowder, page xvii. I was mistaken in attributing it to Partington, as the introduction was written by Bert S. Hall. The passage can be found using Google Book Search, though I can't give you a simple link to the passage itself in Google Book Search because of the way GBS randomly determines which parts of a book it will allow a reader to view. Enter the title of the book in the "Title" field and "Gunpowder is not, of course" in the "exact phrase" field, and it should show you the passage.
I apologize for my error with the actual author of the passage, but in the future, Meatwaggon, watch your damn mouth and don't be so quick to suggest that an editor has fabricated a citation. It's not uncommon for updated editions of books to be printed, and 1960 was rather a long time ago.
RedSpruce 21:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the citation. I just re-added it. Ocanter 22:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Definition of gunpowder

Moved the section on the Oxford and Needham definition of gunpowder to the top as it seems much more appropriate following the top definition than under "History and Development". I also added Needham's distinction between gunpowder and proto-gunpowder so that there is no confusion among Wikipedians here that Needham definitely understood the distinction and applied it consistently throughout the entire volume. Meatwaggon 01:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


I think that using the dictionary definition for gunpowder is very inaccurate and these days just ignorant. The person that wrote that section (no offence directed at all) was probably a layperson on the subject. The dictionary definition is plain and simple, wrong. The only people that I know that still use that definition are historical re-enactment enthusiasts. Surely a more up to date definition is required. Perhaps the definition from the "MSER 2006" legislation (UK), it pretty much nails the definition on the head. Lets not use the definition that is over 130 years old from the "Explosives Act 1875" (UK). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.243.177.211 (talk) 08:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
Your thoughts appear to be confused. Presumably by MSER 2006, you mean the Manufacture and Storage of Explosives Regulations, 2005 or do you mean the Manufacture and Storage of Explosives Regulations (Northern Ireland), 2006? These regulations don't define gunpowder, they invoke the United Nations definition.Pyrotec 11:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
There are two dictionaries quoted. Both are recent editions. If they are "these days just ignorant," as you claim, then you shouldn't find it hard to produce a definition in print that is more current. If you're talking about regulations on explosives, I would expect the law to take the broadest possible definition, to prevent someone from evading the law by altering the formula in a trivial way. I would still like to see whatever definition you are referring to, though. 75.36.227.160 11:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gunpowder/Archive_3&oldid=140303599"