Talk:Gunpowder/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Needham on 'true' gunpowder

I can’t believe nobody did this sooner, but did anyone actually bother to look into Needham’s Volume 5, Part 7? It arrived on my doorstep today, and I have since been thoroughly engrossed. It turns out MUCH of the discussion around the dating and the formulae has been patently incorrect. The first mention of a definitive saltpeter, sulphur and CHARCOAL recipe (per Oxford’s definition) appears in 1044 AD in the Wu Ching Tsung Yao, two centuries prior to Bacon’s time. Over the next few weeks as I have more time I will be editing the page to more appropriately reflect what is now known. Ocanter, I don’t think you should have any more serious disagreements about this issue, as Needham himself has satisfied your Oxford definition of “gunpowder”.

We all "did this sooner" than you. We were just more skeptical of Needham's POV. If you look at that recipe, you will see that it happens to contain a little charcoal, but that the other ingredients far outweight the charcoal. In other words, they were trying a million things, and charcoal was one of them. Ocanter 16:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a rather hypocritical POV. First the recipe for the explosive balls were not intended to be pure gunpowder mixtures since they had to have a solid substance, be amenable to shaping into a ball form, and incorporate substances which would not just explode but continue burning after combustion. Your requirement for mostly or purely saltpeter, sulfur and charcoal has no basis in early European history of black powder either as they also contained many other other substances. Even modern gunpowders contain additives like graphite and other substances depending on the purpose. And if you had bothered to scrutinize Volume 5, Part 7 to any significant degree you will find also that the saltpeter content of early European gunpowders initially contained similar levels of nitrate as the Chinese powders, which is significantly different from the later gunpowders used by the 17th and 18th century prior to the development of smokeless powders. If we went by your twisted logic we would also have to define early European powders as NOT gunpowders due to their very low nitrate content. Yet somehow you do not do this.

Your continued denial that the 1044 recipes were gunpowder in the face of absolute proof that all three substances were present in these mixtures is a most revealing statement of your own bias. Your assertion that Needham was "chauvinist" is a strictly POV assertion for which you have provided ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE. Until you can provide sound logic as to why saltpeter, sulfur and charcoal, even mixed with other substances, do not constitute gunpowder AND you provide evidence that Needham was a biased Sinophile bent on twisting the facts, ALL of your edits will be reverted. Cheers. 146.74.1.98 23:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That's probably right, essentially. The WCTY recipes are for bombs, not for propellants, which is all the more reason not to call them gunpowder. But the real reason I don't think they should be termed gunpowder is because there is no indication in the recipes that the authors thought they were making "gunpowder" for the explosion, plus some other material that was meant to burn longer. They were making one single concoction that, as a matter of fact, was not gunpowder. It's as simple as that. The European recipes I did not survey as thoroughly, but as a matter of fact, the ingredients given by Bacon satisfy the OED definition of gunpowder. Of course you also realize that graphite is pure carbon, and will probably burn quite nicely with saltpeter.

The evidence is clear that they knew this powder was for the purpose of exploding, and plus the extra ingredients, burning, their intended targets. All you have to do is read the descriptions of the intended purposes of these weapons. You claimed to have access to Volume 5, Part 7 at your job, so what I'm saying is quite easily verifiable. I don't know how much clearer it can be. If your claim is that the 11th century Chinese powders contained other ingredients besides the three and therefore they were not gunpowders, then you need to definitively address why, since European gunpowders of the 13th century also had adulterants, it was STILL Europe that laid down the first gunpowder recipes rather than China. You need to also show that the Chinese powders had UNINTENTIONAL adulterants rather than the structural and incendiary components which seem much more reasonable in the context in which they were being used. In other words, why don't you go ahead and try to describe for us how to go about flinging a loose pile of sulfur, saltpeter, and charcoal a few hundred yards, and do it AFTER you've lit the powder on fire. That's basically what you're demanding from that text. Meatwaggon 07:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You have also apparently not been reading the sections on the Chinese using their version of gunpowder as propellants in cannon and in early handheld bronze tube-guns (forebears of the handguns), both weapons BEFORE any mention of such use in the West, which clearly showed they both independently understood and were able to apply the powder as propellants. Plus I point out again that you fail to acknowledge the fact that European gunpowders of that time were also significantly adulterated with ingredients which have absolutely no use in combustion or as incendiaries. By your definition these European powders also would certainly not qualify as "gunpowder", yet you curiously have left out of your exclusionary editing any mention of this. 146.74.1.98 02:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, I do realize graphite is carbon. So is hemp. So is root. So is a million other things. Graphite certainly contains more carbon than any of these (though even factory-made graphite is not pure carbon), but going by your quixotically narrow definition from OED which lists the three (and per your rhetorical extension, therefore no more than three), many modern gunpowders would not count as gunpowders under your defintion since they contain not just graphite, but potentially several other substances, depending on the purpose. Meatwaggon 07:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have in fact provided evidence of Needham's chauvinism, and I can provide more. But that would be quite beside the point. He's a good scholar, and we owe him a great debt. I cited him many times here. His point of view is certainly Sinophilic, Orientalist, and chauvinist. However, his point of view is also reasonable. My point is simply that he has his own point of view, and we must keep ours neutral. Peace, Ocanter 00:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact I see no evidence of any material that you've provided on this page regarding Needham's chauvinism other than your own POV claims about his being chauvinist. Citing yourself as a source is, notably, not allowed. If you have provided evidence, please feel free to point it out so I can be corrected. 146.74.1.98 02:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, providing evidence of his supposed chauvinism is quite entirely the point. You are trying to claim this world-renowned historian is not a neutral POV source, and yet you say finding evidence of his bias is irrelevant? Besides being entirely illogical, your statement here sounds more like an admission that you actually CAN'T find any evidence of his alleged chauvinist POV. His POV, unless you can evidentially demonstrate is a biased one, should certainly supercede your own without reservation, which to me and probably to others here at Wiki, has shown more than enough evidence of personal bias. 146.74.1.98 02:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Needham, Volume 5, Part 7 (1986 edition), Page 108-110

The word 'gunpowder', widely defined, should include all mixtures of saltpetre, sulphur and carbonaceous material; but any composition not containing charcoal, as for example those which incorporated honey, may be termed 'proto-gunpowder'. Our word gunpowder arises from the fact that Europe knew it only for cannon or hand-guns. In China, however prototype mixtures were known to alchemists, physicians and perhaps fireworks technicians, for their deflagrative properties, some time before they began to be used as weapons. Hence the Chinese name for gunpowder, huo yao, literally 'fire-chemical' or 'fire drug'. One also has to note that although a couple of centuries of the earlier stage of proto-gunpowder occurred in China, it never appeared in Europe at all - this in itself is an argument of some weight for diffusion from Asia.

All the conditions necessary for the first discovery of gunpowder were present in China by Han times. Saltpetre, as we have seen, was then already known, and fully recognised by +500. Sulphur too appears in the +2nd-century Shen Nung Pen Tshao Ching (Pharmacopoeia of the Heavenly Husbandman), and in the natural history of Wu Phu, the Wu Shih Pen Tshao of about +235. Charcoal was a substance commonly used in China from high antiquity. Alchemists were there also, busy from Chhin times onwards in the search for life-elixirs, which naturally involved the putting together of chemical products in all combinations and permutations. The only question is, when exactly these three substances were first mixed, and the incendiary or explosive property of the mixture realised. Since substances used in early time could not have been very pure, especially in the case of saltpetre, and also to some extent sulphur, one would rather expect the first Chinese mixtures to have been incendiary rather than explosive. But it is time to define our terms more clearly. We may reasonably draw up a scheme of combustible substances on the following criteria, depending on the character of the combustion. (1) Slow burning. The old incendiaries: oils, pitch, sulphur, etc., used doubtless on the earliest incendiary arrows, as weell as by other methods of delivery. See pp. 75ff. above, on shih yu and the like. (2) Quick burning. Distilled petroleum or naphtha (Greek fire, meng huo yu), either hurled in breakable pots with fuses or projected from mechanical flamethrowers. Still basically incendiary, though more effective against personnel. (3) Deflagration. Low-nitrate powders, containing (a) carbonaceous material, or (b) charcoal as such. To deflagrate is to burn with a sudden and sparkling combustion, producing a ‘whoosh’ like a rocket; and indeed as the nitrate proportion is increased these mixtures become suitable for rockets, as also for ‘Roman candles’, fire-lances (huo chhiang), or ‘eruptors’, as we shall call them when of large dimensions. They could project incendiary balls, poisoned smoke-balls, and pieces of broken pottery and metal; though again essentially incendiary, they were as flame-throwers still more offensive against enemy troops, though not very prolonged in action. But here enters in the beginning of gunpowder’s propellant property, since it carried the rocket huo chien retroactively to its destination. (4) Explosion. This occurs with mixtures having higher proportions of nitrate, best with sulphur and charcoal alone as combustibles, but also sometimes in the presence of other substances such as arsenic. This may be termed ‘weak explosion’, giving the ‘explosive puff’, but if the firing is done in a closed space a considerable amount of noise can be produced, in fact a ‘bang’, and thin-walled containers of cast iron or other metal (‘bombs’, huo phao) can be broken by the explosion. (5) Detonation. When the nitrate content reaches the level of ‘modern gunpowder’, i.e. a suitably prepared mixture of saltpetre, sulphur and charcoal in the proportions 75:15:10, a ‘brisant’ explosion results upon firing. Metal containers burst with a loud noise, tearing and scattering, but leaving debris, and holes are blown in earth or masonry. The gunpowder is now a full propellant for projectiles launched from metal-barrel cannon or guns with walls of adequate strength (huo thung, huo chhung). It is much too ‘fast’ for use in rockets. The proportions of the components just given are those of ‘service gunpowder’, which has great propulsive force, but the ‘theoretical’ percentage figures are considered to by 75:13:12. This mixture, gradually attained through some ten centuries from a probable starting-point of equal quantities of the three constituents, constituted the first chemical explosive known to man.

Needham, Volume 5, Part 7 (1986 edition), Page 117

It would have been around the year +1040, during the life of William the Conqueror, that Tseng Kung-Liang and his assistants were writing down the first gunpowder formulae to be printed and published in any civilisation, though evidence already given (pp 80, 111) shows that the essentials of the mixture must have been known and used for at least a century previously. In the Wu Ching Tsung Yao there are three of these formulae, first for a quasi-explosive bomb to be shot off from a trebuchet (huo (phao) yao), secondly a similar bomb with hooks attached so that it would fasten itself to any wooden structures and set them on fire (chi li huo chhiu), and thirdly a poison-smoke ball which would attack the enemy chemically (tu yao yen chhiu)……

Needham, Volume 5, Part 7 (1986 edition), Page 120, 122, 123

The second gunpowder formula (Fig. 10) is for ‘thorny fire-balls’ (chi li huo chhiu or huo chi li)… Here are the listed ingredients: Inner ball oz. Sulphur 20 Saltpetre 40 Coarse charcoal powder 5 Pitch (li chhing) 2.5 Dried lacquer, pounded to a powder 2.5 Bamboo shoots 1.1 Hemp roots, cut into shreds 1.1 Tung oil 2.5 Lesser oil (hsiao yu) 2.5 Wax 2.5

Outer coating Paper 12.5 Hemp (fibre) 10 Minium (red lead) 1.1 Charcoal powder 8 Pitch 2.5 Yellow wax 2.5

… Although the nitrate-content is in this case so low, the name of true gunpowder cannot be withheld because a considerable quantity of charcoal was present; and it would be reasonable to compare the figures on the first line with those established just above for the incendiary bomb of proto-gunpowder.

Meatwaggon 23:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There is more hemp than charcoal. The Chinese "traction trebuchet" is yet another example of Needham's backward imposition of European terminology and hindsight on Chinese technology. Ocanter 16:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hemp is possibly a binding agent in this context. Or perhaps used to prolong the burn time after impact, or perhaps used for any of several other reasons. You have yet to explain how to fling a mass of powder several hundred yards on a trebuchet without it's being bound up or congealed within other structural components, and how to delay the initial combustion until well clear of the launching device (and operators), and how to prolong the burn time after it detonates against its target. Speaking of trebuchets, would you like to invent a new word to describe traction trebuchets without including the word trebuchet? Needham would have had to concoct a new word. But in fact he didn't need to. The traction trebuchet, even at a cursory glance, is essentially identical to the counterweight trebuchet in all facets except one, the method of downward power delivery at the non-business end of the fulcrum. A wooden box filled with rocks utilizing gravity, or, a set of rope strings pulled by a crew. Only this difference separated the traction and counterweight trebuchets. It is certainly grossly inaccurate to categorize the traction trebuchet as either a catapult or ballista, and its obvious similarity to the counterweight trebuchet is certainly reason enough for Needham to have called the thing a 'trebuchet'. Meatwaggon 08:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Meatwaggon (talk • contribs) 23:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

If you care to look below under Definition of Gunpowder, you'll see I've aready quoted Needham Needham, Volume 5, Part 7 (1986 edition), Page 108. That was on 10th April 2007. Pyrotec

Meatwagon, I'm glad to see you are finally corroborating what we said earlier. Those recipes are not gunpowder. They are not black powder. They are combustibles mixed with saltpetre. You have simply verified everything I said earlier, while also providing a handy summary of Needham's somewhat biased point of view. The dates you offered merely clarify the citations that were already given. You haven't changed any chronology at all; you've merely applied the word "gunpowder" to early concoctions, following Needham. Your quotes are all summaries of Needham's point of view. The only original source you cited simply confirms what I already said. Ocanter 16:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are just patently wrong. Despite Needham having clearly made the distinction between proto-gunpowder and true gunpowder, you continue to hold your own narrow amateur opinion above his notably professional one, not to mention charging him with bias for which the only evidence you offer is that his assertions differ from your own. This clearly will never hold up under scrutiny by admins, and if these charges and reverts continue without any other evidence that you can offer, I will ask for admins to evaluate POV on this article. Again, your edits will be totally reverted. Cheers. 146.74.1.98 23:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that beyond defining the difference between 'proto-gunpowder' and 'gunpowder' Needham does not distinguish any "early" gunpowder as you erroneously attempted to attribute to him. Once the requirements of the three substances are present Needham gives them the definition 'gunpowder'. Any further refinements on the recipe (and there were MANY) were refinements of 'gunpowder', not of 'saltpeter explosives', not of 'proto-gunpowder', not of 'early gunpowder', as if 'early gunpowder' somehow did not count as gunpowder per se. In fact the most definitive recipe of gunpowder in the form of exclusively three ingredients in the ratio 75:15:10 was not achieved by Europe until the 17th century, and was then superceded by smokeless powder in the 18th and 19th centuries. Again you have turned a blind eye on this clearly gradual evolution of gunpowder up to the 17th century, ostensibly for the sole purpose of denying that "China invented gunpowder". That this is true is perfectly clear to most people, but somehow not to you. 146.74.1.98 23:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Meatwagon, I would encourage you, nay, implore you, to run and find an admin to hear your case. Any admin who looks at this discussion will see that you are being unreasonable, threatening, and in short, up to your old tricks. You are correct that Needham says that all those recipes were gunpowder. You are not correct that they were gunpowder. The difference between Needham's approach and yours is that Needham is careful to define the terms he is using, and quite open about his own point of view, whereas you seem to think that his point of view is the only point of view. You seem to believe that Needham says it was gunpowder, and therefore it was gunpowder. But if you look at Needham's own definition of gunpowder, you will see that he openly admits that he is defining that term in the widest possible sense. But that is not the only possible definition, and in fact it is his own. It's not useless. He's a good historian. But we shouldn't follow his definition blindly. We should be critical of his point of view. Ocanter 00:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is getting rather surreal. So really, if anyone is allowed to have precedence in regards to defining what is and is not gunpowder, it should certainly be yourself, whoever you are and whatever you do out in the world, and certainly not the world-famous historian who spent his whole life researching this material. Yeah.

Let me include it again, just so we aren't confused about which sentences are involved here:

The word 'gunpowder', widely defined, should include all mixtures of saltpetre, sulphur and carbonaceous material; but any composition not containing charcoal, as for example those which incorporated honey, may be termed 'proto-gunpowder'. Our word gunpowder arises from the fact that Europe knew it only for cannon or hand-guns. In China, however prototype mixtures were known to alchemists, physicians and perhaps fireworks technicians, for their deflagrative properties, some time before they began to be used as weapons. Hence the Chinese name for gunpowder, huo yao, literally 'fire-chemical' or 'fire drug'. One also has to note that although a couple of centuries of the earlier stage of proto-gunpowder occurred in China, it never appeared in Europe at all - this in itself is an argument of some weight for diffusion from Asia. My italics.

Actually if you look at Needham's definition, he immediately acknowledges that there is in fact a distinction between early saltpeter explosives that include carbonaceous material (what he distinctly calls 'proto-gunpowder'), and true gunpowder in which charcoal itself is a significant component. I see that you have conveniently ignored his clarification and instead chosen to blindly take his first sentence entirely out of context. In terms of his POV, I have noticed that besides your OWN sage opinion, you have not produced any other source anywhere near Needham's level (or anywhere at all, for that matter), stating that the Taoist powders of the 11th century were NOT gunpowders. Until and unless you do, you are ALONE in your opinion, and your edits will certainly be reverted, and I do plan on bringing this to the attention of the admins. What we've talked about here is more than enough, I think, for them to render a NPOV decision. 146.74.1.98 02:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally I think it's kind of funny that you accuse me of being 'up to my old tricks', especially since your friend and soulmate Moeru Toukon has accused me of being a newbie and a bot account because I disagreed with him. But I do wonder where my old tricks are coming from, especially since I only started editing Wiki in earnest this month of this year. No, ocanter, it is the logic and evidence itself that is compelling, not any tricks. I would rather wish for you to use the same rather than resort to banal accusations of trickery. Meatwaggon 08:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Meatwagon, I will try to entertain this argument a little longer, but please try to refrain from insults and threats.

First, you are indeed correct that Needham calls the WCTY recipes "gunpowder." You are not correct that everybody calls them gunpowder. The OED definition does not include them. However, it is true that the OED does not say, "They were not gunpowder." Typically with a well-researched source like that, the editors are addressing an educated, intelligent audience. They do not usually spell out obvious conclusions. So it would seem pedantic and insulting in that case to say, "Therefore the WCTY recipes were not gunpowder." They assume that their audience is intelligent enough to figure that out. However, I understand that you are very enamored of Needham's point of view, and very impressed with his credentials. I will therefore attempt to find another historian who holds the more traditional point of view. It can't hurt. In the meanwhile, please take a look at the OED examples:

I am not correct that everybody calls them gunpowder? So far the only source that does not call the 11th century recipes 'gunpowder' is yourself, and I find that rather amusing, in all honesty. The OED gave a short definition of the most modern version of gunpowder which contains only N, S, and C. It was not meant to be a description exhaustive of the entire developmental history of gunpowder. And I really don't think you are in ANY kind of position whatsoever to state what the OED editors would regard as 'obvious conclusions'. And regarding Needham's POV, I certainly hold his POV in infinitely higher esteem than your own. And I will wager most of the rest of the world that cares anything about these subjects would do the same. You really are setting yourself up to be totally annihilated by placing your own biased opinions above his researched facts, especially with the way you subtly and indirectly attempt to erode and drive down the sheer weight and volume of his life's work to a level which you yourself may hope to transcend by devious words and unlimited editing powers alone. And I must say that I do somewhat enjoy your farcical yet at the same time slightly humorous attempt to be condescending towards my respect for Needham's authority. Again, I think it's 'pretty' obvious that most people who travel in these circles would do the same when asked to weigh the historical authority of Ocanter versus that of Needham's. And of course I look forward to you bringing out another historian even remotely worthy of Needham, whenever that may be, who holds your own peculiar view, though I hardly accept that such would be considered "traditional" by any stretch of the imagination. Meatwaggon 02:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[a1387 Brev. Bartholomæi (Anecd. Oxon., Mediæval, I. I. 3), Pulvis pro instrumento illo bellico sive diabolico quod vulgaliter dicitur gunne.] 1411 Indenture in Excheq. Accts. Q. R. Bdle. 44, no. 17 (P.R.O.), Une petit barell' de gonpouder. [Misdated 1338 by Nicolas Royal Navy II. 476 App.] 1414 in Rymer F{oe}dera (1709) IX. 160 Aliquod Gunpoudre versus Partes exteras, in Portu prædicto. 1446 in Archæologia XXII. 63 Bought ij hand~gunnes de ere iiijs. Item, gonepowder iiijs. 1464 Mann. & Househ. Exp. (Roxb.) 160 Item, payd ffor xij. li. gonnepowdyr..xij.s. 1485 Naval Acc. Hen. VII (1896) 13 For ij barrelles Gonnepowdre. 1533 MORE Apol. xxxiv. Wks. 898/1 If he founde a corner of his neighbours house burning, he wold of greate loue and polycye lay on fagottes and gun~powder to put out the fyre. 1549 Compl. Scot. vi. 42 The reik, smeuk, and the stink of the gun puldir. 1555 Acc. in T. Sharp Cov. Myst. (1825) 193 Payd for xij li of gonepother xijs. vjd. 1599 SHAKES. Hen. V, IV. vii. 188, I doe know Fluellen valiant, And toucht with Choler, hot as Gunpowder. 1692 Capt. Smith's Seaman's Gram. II. v. 93 Gunpowder, as it is made in this Age, is compounded of Saltpetre six parts, and of Brimstone and Charcoal of each one part. 1797 Phil. Trans. LXXXVII. 290 The best gunpowder..is composed of 70 parts (in weight) of nitre, 18 parts of sulphur, and 16 parts of charcoal. 1827 CARLYLE Misc. (1857) I. 22 The three great elements of modern civilization, Gunpowder, Printing, and the Protestant Religion. 1846 GREENER Sci. Gunnery 69 Gunpowder is a lever if exploded on a solid base, if not, its effects become limited in proportion.

You'll notice that all of them refer to "powder," and all of them to black powder. Pulvis is Latin for "powder."

If in fact there had been no explicit statement of the recipe for gunpowder in Europe, you could easily claim that the European recipes that contained adulterants were not true gunpowder. I have indeed heard that some European recipes contained adulterants, and that the presence of these was seen to represent Chinese influence. However, it is certain that Bacon's formula did not include them. Therefore anybody working with the same knowledge to which Bacon had access would recognize the additional ingredients as "adulterants" of black powder. It is not clear at all, however, that the WCTY authors recognized this. In other words, I am not attempting to say that all European recipes were "true gunpowder"; I haven't looked at them all. I am only saying that Bacon's was.

You may or may not be surprised that none of these quotes impress me any more than being told the stoplights just changed in Gnome, Alaska. Perhaps you can tell me what evidence exists that Europe was able to immediately distillate the three primary ingredients of gunpowder without any record whatsoever of tinkering, without any record whatsover of having had access to proto-gunpowders. And now you pull out with the "I have heard that some....", which immediately raises red flags for me. I'm going to have to call BS on that one. I base this on the fact that had you actually known these 'facts' you would have presented them already long before, as well as on your previous statements in which you professed ignorance of European gunpowders in general. But now all of a sudden, lo and behold, you 'know' that "some" European gunpowders had adulterants and that those were the ones influenced by Chinese powders. You will certainly have to provide a source for this little red herring. Meatwaggon 05:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I heard it from you. Look above. You made that statement yourself. Ocanter 12:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh really? That's strange. Please feel free to point where exactly I claimed that Europe developed a finished N:S:C powder without record of tinkering with N/S/C/+ powders, or how it developed a finished gunpowder without having had any history of centuries of dabbling with proto-gunpowders of the kind N/S/+, or where I claimed that some but not other European gunpowders included adulterants. These were your claims, sport. Meatwaggon 23:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

On April 18th, you said, "Plus I point out again that you fail to acknowledge the fact that European gunpowders of that time were also significantly adulterated with ingredients which have absolutely no use in combustion or as incendiaries." You even challenged me to acknowledge it! I see now, however, that you were making an even broader statement, that you knew for a fact that every European gunpowder recipe contained stuff other than the black powder formula given by Bacon. I assumed when I read that that you knew what you were talking about, but now that you mention it, what is your source? Since you have made it clear that you are claiming that all European gunpowders "of that time" contained "adulterants," you must have access to the formulae used to make gunpowder in all the gunpowder manufacturing facilities in Europe between 1250 and 1628. That must make quite a bibliography. Go ahead, share those primary sources with us for your claim that every European gunpowder "at that time" contained "adulterants." Primary sources, please, or really good archaeology. I can wait. And by the way, exact quotes and page numbers would be fantastic. Ocanter 21:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You point out that the Chinese used these early mixtures as propellants, yet they did not use pure gunpowder even then. What greater evidence is there that they did not understand the optimal formula? If they had understood how to formulate black powder, surely they would have used it in firearms. But there is no formula for black powder, even after the first Chinese cannons appear in the archaeological record (the dating of which still looks a little fishy to me). This strongly indicates that they did not have a formula for black powder until much later.

I did not claim that by 'these early mixtures' that I know whether the propellants used 'pure' mixtures of exclusively N, S and C or not. In fact I don't know, and neither do you, for that matter. Needham, besides providing evidence that the Chinese were going around during the 12th and 13th centuries stuffing "huo yao" into the backs of their cannons and tube-guns and combusting those mixtures for the purpose of launching projectiles before anyone else thought to do it (and writing about it before anyone else), does not elaborate on the exact composition of those gunpowders. So you really cannot at all claim that they did or did not understand how many or which ingredients were absolutely necessary. I'm not actually even sure they would have utilized such recipes had they known about them, since Needham is quite clear about the need for there to be various types and strengths of gunpowders depending on both the launcher and the projectile. Going back to the sticky bomb recipes, the fact is that for the first time gunpowder is mentioned as having a composition of saltpeter, sulfur and charcoal, and the other ingredients that are mentioned are more easily explained as both structural and incendiary components necessary for the purpose of the bomb than as random doodads that were chosen for kicks. I am certain the writer of WCTY was not sage enough to look into the future and see that Ocanter would someday demand that he specifically tease out the necessary and sufficient components of the purely explosive part of his bomb recipe. That he did not, is of course unfortunate, but by no means an indication that he therefore did not know. Regarding Bacon's own description, he certainly does mention the three prime ingredients alone. On the other hand, the fact that the European powders of his time contained several other adulterants is certainly an indication that Europe did not know, at least initially and certainly during Bacon's time, that only three were necessary. Bacon could certainly have omitted other ingredients which were present in much less quantities than the three mains. If it were the case that Europe in general had followed his description to the letter rather than experimenting with various formulas, which incidentally both Needham and Partington describe, there would be no debate. But history shows 13th century Europe did in fact dabble with N/S/C/+ mixtures until at some point it was discovered that only three were necessary. The fact that they did this at a time when China itself with dabbling with similar concentrations of N/S/C/+ and the fact that they have no other forebears strongly suggests this diffusion occurred from China not long before that. Meatwaggon 05:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the term "traction trebuchet" comes from Needham or some other relatively recent author. I believe his POV was that the Chinese weapon diffused westward and evolved into the European trebuchet. There is no evidence for this. His chronology depended on Islam carrying traction trebuchets westward very late. But it is obvious from the Byzantine sources and a great deal of more recent scholarship that a traction trebuchet was used in Europe before Islam itself. Anyway, besides the obvious similarities, there is one crucial difference, namely that a real trebuchet can knock down enormous rock fortifications with a small team of men, while a "traction" trebuchet requires an large team of men (better known as arrow-fodder in this scenario) to get a fraction of the power. The scientific principle missing from the "traction trebuchet" is the concept of stored gravitational energy. Needham is a loss at how to explain the Chinese engineers' failure to invent the real trebuchet ("counterweight trebuchet"), so he smudges some figures quite deliberately. Look at his estimate of a Chinese "pace" when he's discussing the range of the weapon he thinks was a real trebuchet. It's 1.65 yards. Nobody walks that fast. It's twice as large as his Chinese "pace" used elsewhere. You asked for evidence of his bias. That looks like pretty good evidence to me. I'm not saying we shouldn't believe anything he says, only that we must be critical. Ocanter 18:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, the difference as I pointed out already is the concept of stored energy in the counterweight vs. manpower in the traction. Besides the means of propulsion, and therefore the lethality, what else can you name as a fundamental difference between these two types of trebuchet? Clearly, none. If you want to say that the traction trebuchet is NOT a trebuchet because it does not have a counterweight, that is your opinion. What else then would it be? Of all the manifold models of propulsive siege weapons devised since the dawn of warfare, there need be only three classes that will easily encompass most or all of them, catapults, ballistae, and trebuchets. Which one does the traction trebuchet fit into? Hmm, let's thump our heads about that one for a while. Looking at your next statement regarding Needham's motivations, it is clear to me that you already have a preconceived bias against his work despite your perfunctory airs about his work being respectable in general. The fact is that technology develops over time, and that starting in the 14th century European science and technology took off exponentially compared to the rest of the world. Try reading Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond, not to mention Needham's own acknowledgements and musings on the Grand Question, for how and why this revolution occurred in Europe rather than China or somewhere else. Europe indeed refined gunpowder into a high-nitrate, three component formula, tube-guns and early cannons into handguns and more powerful cannons, and trebuchet which became immensely powerful because they used gravitation rather than manpower. Needham is clear about how Europe was able to design a better trebuchet, but what is not clear is your understanding of his motivations. I don't see any evidence of Needham trying or even having to make excuses for why China did not make the leap to counterweight technology. Europe outpaced China in technology, it's as simple and as easy as that. No excuses needed. As for your accusations of his "smudging" figures and inconsistently using his own definitions and terminology, unless you can provide exact page numbers to his works which I can have access to (and I pretty much guarantee you I can) and which clearly demonstrate his alleged unprofessional behavior, you will have lost any shred of credibility whatsoever on this forum, and basically anything you claim from then on will have no weight at all. Please think very carefully about what you say from now on. Meatwaggon 03:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

p.206 and p.208. On page 206, note 4, 1 pace=0.75 yards, a far more reasonable stride. A note on p.208 (or maybe a few pages later, following the same discussion) gives an English equivalent of 1.65 yards. Ocanter 12:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Page 206 is an illustration of a Chinese sea-mine from the 14th century. Page 208 describes other types of sea mines used by the Chinese and their various mechanisms of action. If you are not talking about Volume 5, Part 7, you need to specify which volume and which part you are referring to. Up to this point we have focused entirely on 5, part 7 and if you are looking at another text you need to say so. Meatwaggon 23:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Much as I dislike spoiling a good arguement, I have the Cambridge University Press 1986 edition of Volume 5, Part 7 in front of me and Meatwaggon is correct about pages 206 & 208, i.e. sea mine illustration and description of sea mines respectively. Pyrotec 15:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a different volume that discusses the trebuchet. Let me go look it up. Ocanter 17:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It's Volume 5, Part 6, on "military technology." The "Gunpowder Epic" forms its own "part," Volume 5, Part 7, in the work. It disturbs me that anybody could not see Needham's obvious bias, though, between the lines on every page. The whole argument about General Shen's trebuchet betrays his bias. Despite the fact that all the evidence points to an external invention and eastward diffusion of the trebuchet ("counterweight trebuchet"), he holds out hope that a lone Chinese invented it, then suddenly died, leaving no trace of his accomplishment. His only evidence is the range of the engine, and if you look at those figures, you'll see why he had to smudge them so badly. It was actually just a regular traction treb. But by doubling (!) the measure of a "pace," he doubles its range, allowing him to hold out hope that there was independent invention of the trebuchet ("counterweight trebuchet") in China. Authors like Needham understand that intelligent people will see their point of view for what it is, and take what they say in the proper light, making an effort to see the facts through the authors point of view, but also looking at them objectively. They do not intend for people to take what they say as gospel, and go around repeating it without any sort of critical analysis.

Despite Meatwagon's objection, however, whether or not Needham is biased is quite beside the point of whether we should simply accept Needham's POV without question, and simply make his POV the POV the article. We should not accept anybody's point of view without question. It is only relevant to the question of whether we can trust him at all. And nobody is saying we can't trust on him at all. I am just saying that we should make it clear when we are presenting Needham's point of view, and when we are representing facts. For example, it is a matter of fact to say that there is a book, which has been dated to 1044, that contains a Chinese recipe recorded for a mixture that includes all the ingredients Needham listed (I trust Needham so far as to believe, for example, that he translated the Chinese symbol for "charcoal" correctly). But it is not a fact that the English word gunpowder is defined to include that mixture. That is Needham's point of view, based on Needham's definition, which is based on Needham's desire to show an advanced state of early Chinese science. Ocanter 18:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Volume 5, Part 6 will be arriving in a few days, so I'll make a more thorough reply at that time. Incidentally, you are quite wrong to claim that I seek to mindlessly accept Needham's POV. What I have sought is for you to provide scholarly evidence that Needham was biased in the manner which you claim, and I have already repeated this demand several times. If it was so blatant that Needham was a Sinophile to the extent that it significantly compromised his work, other authors would have pointed out his mistakes long ago, especially regarding your claim about him fudging distances with the trebuchets. Surely it would've been easy for you to have found just one such author if this were the case. And I'm certainly not talking about people like that one engineer whose grossly biased and factually unsupported POV paragraph that implied the Romans supplied the Chinese with early gunpowder technology or some similar such nonsense was inserted by your friend Moerou Toukon a while back. Needham was a giant in this field, along with Partington, people have certainly written and discussed their contributions to the development of gunpowder. Where oh where are the people who now look back with supposedly more neutral POVs and have caught his biases? Note that it is not wrong for Needham to have wanted to show that early Chinese science was advanced if it were indeed the case. What you (and your more qualified source(s)) need to demonstrate is that Needham went too far and claimed that Chinese science was more advanced than it actually was.

In the end, though, you remain still at a complete loss how to explain away the other ingredients in that recipe as unnecessary garbage rather than as structural and incendiary components. If that bomb had had a metal exterior shell and was designed solely for the purpose of exploding and throwing shrapnel you would have had a stronger case. But you don't. Meatwaggon 19:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

A case for what? I am not saying that the ingredients in those recipes, besides the three that are also in gunpowder, served no purpose. I am saying that their presence in all those recipes makes the whole concoctions something other than gunpowder. I am also saying that because there is no extant Chinese recipe for black powder itself, by itself, before the seventeenth century, there is no proof that the WCTY authors recognized the formula for black powder. You seem to be saying that they knew a formula for black powder, and they added "other ingredients" to apply the black powder to their particular purpose. You imagine them, I suppose, sitting around, saying, "How shall we make a bomb? Well, we can mix up some black powder along with some binding agents..." But there is no evidence that "black powder" was recognized by them. Going by their own historical sources, it appears they said, "How shall we make a bomb? Well, we know that saltpetre makes everything burn faster. Let's add saltpetre to this, that, and everything else, until we find something that really makes a big boom." So they came up with some pretty cool saltpetre explosives, some of which contained all the ingredients necessary to make gunpowder, if they had been combined by themselves, without the plethora of other materials. But there is no recipe for black powder itself. There are only recipes for many (far more than three, especially later--doesn't Needham list like a couple dozen?) explosives that contain saltpetre (none of which are pure blackpowder, however), some of which include all the ingredients to make black powder, but none of which are black powder.

Now that I think about your remark about "carbon," however, I think I am beginning to see the relationship between your thoughts and your words. You say, "Hemp is carbon," when you mean, "Hemp contains carbon." You say "The WCTY bombs are gunpowder," when you mean, "The WCTY bombs contain gunpowder." But to claim that those engineers "invented gunpowder," you have to be able to show that they knew what gunpowder was. But without evidence of this, such as a recipe for black powder itself, or the archaeological discovery of an intact charge of black powder, or something like that, you cannot prove that they recognized the formula for black powder, that is, for gunpowder. Ocanter 20:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, if you are saying that hemp is carbon, you obviously do not know what hemp is or what carbon is. I don't think I have an obligation to discuss the content of this article with someone who believes that hemp is carbon. Hemp is a plant. Carbon is an element. They are not even in the same category of thing. Ocanter 18:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

OMG, I simply stand amazed and aghast at your sheer powers of deductive ability. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Apparently you think I don't know hemp is a plant because I said "hemp is carbon". But when I also said "root is carbon", why didn't you also immediately gloat that I didn't know what the definition of 'root' was? I almost simply cannot go on due to being nearly overwhelmed by incredulity at your statements. But I shall. Einstein, hemp IS carbon. So is root. Any other person with even a limited understanding of biology and chemistry would understand what I was trying to say. But somehow you don't. I find that fascinating, really. Not really. Actually I find your statements here utterly disingenuous, as I clearly pointed out the vast differences in carbon content between hemp, root and graphite. This is the crux of Needham's "carbonaceous material", the relatively low amount of carbon contained in such ingredients that denied the recipes which contained them the denomination of 'gunpowder'. BTW, feel free to stop discussing this article any time you want, and feel free to name any reason whatsoever, even your supposed belief that I don't know what carbon is. But know that my own discussion and editing will continue without you regardless. Cheers. Meatwaggon 02:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Another misunderstanding you seem to have is that I believe the Chinese explosives were not as cool as gunpowder. This is not my opinion. The engineers were in fact good at what they were doing. But what they were doing, at least at first, was not making guns. They were blowing stuff up and setting it on fire. Therefore, you're essentially right, that they were not trying to refine black powder. I am saying esesntially the same thing. You just seem to want really bad to say that the first gunpowder recipe was from China. However, the truth of that statement depends on your definition of "gunpowder." Your definition of gunpowder depends largely on your point of view. Ocanter 18:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really concern myself with what you think is cool or not cool, and I recognize of course that this is your attempt to sound conciliatory yet at the same time subtly insert an oh-so-slight wedge in definition between 'the Chinese explosives' and 'gunpowder', which is somehow okay because you also think 'Chinese explosives' are 'cool' (of course just as long as I don't call them 'gunpowders', right?) And I don't know any definition of gunpowder, the name notwithstanding, which requires knowledge of their use in guns, especially made obvious if we are using 'gunpowder' and 'black powder' synonymously, which we are. Using the mixture to blow stuff up and set stuff on fire is perfectly legitimate as an express purpose of gunpowder whether or not it's to be used as propellant. This is all about as silly as it gets. The Chinese were certainly the first ones to use gunpowder as both explosive and as propellant, so your argument here sounds less rational and more grasping at straws. It is clear that you just seem to want realy bad to say that the first gunpowder recipe was from Europe. The truth of that statement does indeed depend on the definition of gunpowder. Unfortunately for you, the definition set down has really had no influence at all from your own life's work. Thus we will continue to go by Needham's definition. Cheers. Meatwaggon 03:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you have ignored my request that you refrain from insults and threats, I don't feel any particular obligation to continue this conversation. If you want to talk about gunpowder, I'll still be here for you. If you want to get out your emotional baggage, I suggest you seek professional help. You just keep asserting the same things over and over, and citing your secondary source that "just arrived at your doorstep." But when it comes to analysis of the primary sources, you start saying things like, "Hemp is carbon." When I point out the stupidity of that statement, you just type it again in capital letters. I don't think I'm really talking with a rational person anymore. And since you seem to be the only person advocating we follow Needham's point of view verbatim, I wish you would stop using the word "we." Weren't you going to seek administrative action? I wish you would do so soon, and save the rest of us the trouble. Ocanter 12:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I do believe you just gave the Indian sign of you being quite finished here. I don't have any emotional baggage, and I do empathize with your frustration that none of your arguments seem to have any actual legitimate, rational or evidential weight. And my "secondary source" is Needham, which makes it kinda funny as well as informative that you disdain it as a secondary source. So far the only secondary source that you've cited is your OWN (apparently) exceedingly vast store of historical knowledge in gunpowder which in your eyes has elevated your opinion above that of Needham's.

I do have to say that I find it infinitely amusing that you continue to harp on me saying that hemp is carbon, as if you don't, even at this point, understand what I'm talking about. I do believe that speaks to your stupidity oh so much more than my own. Note that you are the first to throw an actual insult by calling me stupid, not to mention attempting to insinuate that I am psychologically disturbed and in need of professional help. My own evaluations of you so far have by and large been limited to pointing out your biased POV. And since you have NO reputable historical source whatsover to back up your POV, you are surely alone and unsupported. As for admin NPOV, it is certainly in process. Cheers. 146.74.1.98 20:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)