Talk:Black powder

Move early history?

I propose once again that we move the early history stuff to gunpowder. This article currently duplicates all that early history. If anything, it should duplicate the later history, dealing with black powder specifically. Eiorgiomugini seems to be the only one who objects to this, claiming that this article would serve no purpose without the early history material, which is duplicated in the gunpowder article. But that's obviously not true. This article contains information on the composition of black powder specifically, and more importantly for the history, a clarification of the terminology. Are there any other thoughts? All I'm saying is that this article should deal specifically with black powder, and that the gunpowder article should include all the "thorny fire balls," etc. Ocanter 19:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, but I would like to go further and combine blackpowder and gunpowder because they are the same substance. The problem is that some countries consider gunpowder to include smokeless powder, but that subject is already covered by Smokeless powder, Cordite, Ballistite and Poudre B. Pyrotec 22:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Some countries (China) also consider gunpowder to also include "thorny fire balls." That to me is the main reason to keep this page. Ocanter 04:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This is totally BS, the history was that you copied it into gunpowder, and now you talking about they're currently duplicates? Anyone could check out the page history if they like. I not the only one who object on the merge, see the section "Merge into Gunpowder" yourself. And the duplicated hsitory article which you brought into gunpowder had clearly misreferenced my sources. Eiorgiomugini 00:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

First written recipe for black powder

I've added a paragraph ascribing the first written recipe for gunpowder to be from a Chinese text dating to 1044, as given in Needham's Science and Civilization in China, Volume 5, Part 7, pages 120, 122, and 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.

I am moving all the early history to gunpowder, per Pyro's suggestion. Ocanter 18:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Modified your edit to be more reflective of history. If your claim is the same tedious one 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, Europe 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. Try flinging a pile of sulfur, saltpeter, and charcoal a few hundred yards AFTER you lit the mixture on fire. Meatwaggon 07:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

How does grain size affect the rate of combustion?

--Voltagedrop 21:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

No idea, though my uneducated guess is that the finer the powder the better the results. -Hmib 05:27, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, but what does "better results" mean? Faster burn? More complete burn? Does changing grain size affect both the same way or is there a tradeoff, or is there no relationship? --Voltagedrop 21:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's a good explanation on Smokeless powder. --Brunnock 01:03, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Larger grain, slower burn. Large guns require slower combustion to overcome inertia of the ball and build pressure. "Grains" two to three inches across were used in large artillery pieces. Fine, fast-burning powder was used in muskets and shotguns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.51.25.96 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 14 June 2005

Larger guns require less of a violent, explosive shove, and more of a constant push. All grains take fire from the outside, so larger grains take more time because of larger surface area. AllStarZ 04:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

where are the arabs?

Arabs invented the blackpowder in the 7th century that is documented and there is a manuscript in cairo museum mentioning the natron "saltpeter" purification and using it in a cannon. In the past they only say "Europe" (East Asia Minor) knew gunpowder thru Arabs but now even that was deleted!why? there are many documents for the truth seekers to find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MARVEL (talk • contribs) 03:37, 17 November 2005

The Arabs invented blackpowder? I've always read that the Chinese were the ones to invent it. Can you point me to some printed sources so I can read up on it --Sjschen 03:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a good deal of discussions regarding the same topic on the gunpowder page. Seems like there is some contention on the subject of "Who invented it". From the sources stated in the "Who Inveted it" section, I suggest reverting MARVEL's edits, and re-editing to note the belief that Muslim invented black powder belief that the Chinese did so. --Sjschen 04:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

"Arabs invented gunpowder" What is your source? Please quote a publication. Why do arab alchemists refer to Saltpetre as "Chinese Snow" in their texts? Until proof is forthcoming I will revert to the original text refering to china --Benvenuto 16:05, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)

What evidence is there to say the Chinese invented gunpowder? http://www.musketeer.ch/blackpowder/history.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.195.33.66 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 5 June 2006

http://www.archaeology.org/0301/etc/kamikaze.html

This, for a start, thoroughly demolishes the aforementioned site's claim that the Chinese did not know gunpowder at Marco Polo's time. And speaking of Marco Polo, the site uses several details of his travel report as "evidence" that are definitely false. He definitely did *not* design the catapults in the mentioned siege, which ended a year before he allegedly entered China. And yes, he did not mention fireworks - similar as to how he did not mention chopsticks, foot binding, chinese writing and the Great Wall. 82.83.243.182 11:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I modified the terminology in a way that I think makes the history of the development of gunpowder more clear. Please see Talk:gunpowder. Ocanter 00:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is going to revert, please provide a primary source for Chinese gunpowder, or a detailed analysis of some really, really good archaeology. I just finished scouring Needham for true Chinese gunpowder, and I did not find it until the seventeenth century. The earlier recipes were for other combinations of saltpetre explosives. Needham has lots of pretty charts classifying a million ingredients as "carbonaceous material," but that is just his way of trying to place gunpowder very early in China. It's just a matter of terminology. I think it's better to be clear than to be chauvinistic. Ditto for the Arab gunpowder. We need primary sources or other compelling evidence. Ocanter 17:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

why is the word "nigger" used in this article?

seems inappropriate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.18.3 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 20 November 2005

• It's wholly inappropriate, and I've reverted to a previous version. Squiddy 20:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

External Link Changed

The external link to "Ulrich Bretscher's Blackpowder page" has changed.
The new URL shuld be : http://www.musketeer.ch/blackpowder/history.html

In addition it would be great if there was an "easy" way to report/update broken/out-dated links in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.217.135.111 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 9 February 2006

merge

I think this article should be merged with [gunpowder]]. The terms are usually used interchangably.--Crucible Guardian 03:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

graphite

I thought graphite coating was just to help with pouring and tamping. Do we have a citation regarding it being used for electrostatic discharge purposes?

It should be noted that black powder is milled in rotary mills. If it had a tendancy to ignite itself from some triboelectric effect, that would be problematic! Gigs 06:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Recipie?

Why is there no process listed for making gunpowder here?

It's already freely available elsewhere and it's omission seems odd as it is simple enough to do at home. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.146.187 (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Clarification needed

Could someone make this clearer?: [ It should be noted that after a major battle in 1268, accounts which based on Yuanshi, listed the events with the use of firearms to the end of Mongol's conquest, when it was last mentioned on a battle at Wuzhou in 1277. ]John Wheater 08:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

American / English spelling

Would someone (not me!) take a view as to which is best here - petre/peter, sulphur/sulfur? John Wheater 09:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm just following Needham, but I suppose saltpeter is more common now in the States. Ocanter 17:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal

The mix is sometimes dampened with alcohol or water during grinding to prevent accidental ignition.

Black powder is also corned to change its burn rate. Corning is a process which first compresses the fine black powder meal into blocks with a fixed density (1.7 g/cm³). The blocks are then broken up into granules. These granules are then sorted by size to give the various grades of black powder. Standard grades of black powder run from the coarse Fg grade used in large bore rifles and small cannon though FFg (medium and smallbore rifles), FFFg (pistols), and FFFFg (smallbore, short pistols and priming flintlocks). To reduce accidental ignition due to an electrostatic discharge, coarse black powder grains are sometimes coated with graphite dust, preventing charge build-up during handling. Very coarse black powder was used in mining before the development of nitroglycerine and dynamite.

Black powder is classified as a low explosive, that is, it deflagrates (burns) rapidly. High explosives detonate at a rate approximately 10 times faster than the burning of black powder.

Although black powder is not a high explosive, the United States Department of Transportation classifies it as a "Class A High Explosive" for shipment because it is so easily ignited. Highly destructive explosions at fireworks manufacturing plants are rather common events, especially in Asia. Complete manufactured devices containing black powder are usually classified as "Class C Firework", "Class C Model Rocket Engine", etc. for shipment because they are harder to ignite than the loose powder.

The 15th through 17th century saw widespread development in gunpowder technology mainly in Europe. Advances in metallurgy led to portable weapons and the development of hand-held firearms such as muskets. Cannon technology in Europe gradually outpaced that of China and these technological improvements transferred back to China through Jesuit missionaries who were put in charge of cannon manufacture by the late Ming and early Qing emperors. The latter half of the 19th Century saw the invention of nitroglycerin, nitrocellulose and smokeless powders, which soon replaced black powder in many applications.

Another reason for danger was the dense fumes given off and the risk of igniting flammable gas when used in coal mines.

Over 100 lives were lost during construction of the 3.3 km tunnel. The 12.9 km long Mont Cenis Tunnel was completed in 13 years starting in 1857, but even with black powder progress was only 25 cm a day until the invention of pneumatic drills sped up the work.

I had removed a huge junks of source from the article as these are unsourced, I had tired tagging [1][2], but none of those tags survived and had all been lifted/removed with no explanation given. Please do and welcome to bring those materials back, when you had searched your references and provided citations piece by piece without omit on the statements/claims. While those might be a sort of general knowledges for you, but since its without any citations, in any cases for a non-profession or laymen of the topic itself, it does seems to be skeptical for others including myself.

Read WP:REF and WP:ATT:

If a particular claim in an article lacks citation and is doubtful, consider placing {{fact}} after the sentence or removing the claim. Consider the following in deciding which action to take:

1. If it is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article, use the {{fact}} tag to ask for source verification, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time.
   
2. If it is doubtful and harmful, you should remove it from the article; you may want to move it to the talk page and ask for a source, unless you regard it is as very harmful or absurd, in which case it shouldn't be posted to a talk page either. Use your common sense. Don't be inappropriately cautious about removing unsourced material; it is better for Wikipedia to say nothing on an issue than to present false or misleading material.
   

Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities, mainstream newspapers, and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is process and approval between document creation and publication. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published is generally not regarded as reliable, but see below for exceptions. Any unsourced material may be removed, and in biographies of living persons, unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material must be removed immediately.

Eiorgiomugini 17:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe it would be useful if you read the talk page that accompanies WP:REF; whilst this is only a subjective judgement on my part, what you appear to be doing could be regarded as disruptive tagging. Perhaps this is not what you intended. Unfortunately, for you, your repeated blocking for breaking the three revert rule does give the impression that you have little regard for Wikipedia practices. Pyrotec 18:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can ascertain, Eiorgiomugini made some editorial changes to some paragraphs (possibly those related to the history of gunpowder in China) and added tags to many of the paragraphs that he did not change. He also added a through-away comment along the lines lets be fair to the rest of the article. This to me appeared to be self promotion and did not provide adequate justification for the tagging. The paragraphs that Eiorgiomugini objects to are technically correct. I get the feeling that the user has little knowledge of gunpowder in Europe / USA - but that may be unfair. I have added references to some of these paragraphs that were tagged; I have also edited some these paragraphs because the words appeared to be a straight copy from references that were not quoted. All the other paragraphs that have been tagged by Eiorgiomugini and which he regards as unreliable, are technically correct. It is not my job to go and get references for Eiorgiomugini. I have provided a number of references at the end of the article; and Eiorgiomugini will find the information that he seeks in them. I would suggest that more effective use of his time would be made if he would to read the sources and add the references to the relevant paragraphs rather than adding disruptive tagging and block deleting text from the article. As I have said earlier, this article is not perfect; and some of the sentences appear to have been lifted whole from unacknowledged sources. Eiorgiomugini could make a positive contribution here; the changes that have been made in respect of the history of gunpowder in China appear to fall into the category of Positive Contribution. Pyrotec 17:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge into Gunpowder

I don't agree with folding gunpowder into black powder, for several reasons. First, most people who input a search into this topic will search for 'gunpowder', not 'black powder', and it seems silly to me to have to redirect the vast majority of queries to a page which is probably much less often searched for. Second, the black powder page is much less developed than the gunpowder page, and honestly the only section in the black powder page which I see is a significant contribution not included in the gunpowder page is the Description, which contains a very nice part on composition of gunpowder and its kinetic properties and such. Third, the gunpowder page basically uses the words gunpowder and black powder synonymously, and with the clarification of early saltpeter explosives as 'proto-gunpowders', there is no further need to distinguish between gunpowder and black powder aside from possibly a brief sentence mentioning the fact that they refer to the same substance. Smokeless Powder developed in the 19th and 20th centuries represent a significant shift away from the basic gunpowder recipes and should rightfully retain its own page, or if a future merger with Gunpowder is considered, should get its own voluminous section in the Gunpowder page. I actually think this is the ideal, and if all three pages could be merged into a single giant Gunpowder page, with the right attribs and some pictorials, it could be nominated for GA status. Meatwaggon 20:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Both myself and Eiorgiomugini have identified various good points in this article as well as some poor points - particularly poor referencing (and in my case, found direct copying of text from unacknowledged sources). We have both made attempts to improve this article. Today I was intending to layout a new framework with the aim of doubling, or more, the size of this article; covering ancient history, and from a western viewpoint its production and use from Medieval times through to the 1960s when the UK ceased manufacturing it commercially. However, there is another article Gunpowder which covers the same topic. My proposal is to merged the two articles into Gunpowder and make this article a redirect page.Pyrotec 11:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. We could spruce up this page but there is enough information about black powder itself that we can make a separate page out of it. AllStarZ 04:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As a comment, I would ask what is the difference between the Black powder and the Gunpowder articles; as far as I can see they were written by different groups of authors, they cover basically the same topic and use the same references. My knowledge of the Eastern (pre-)history is quite poor and there is good information in both articles; however, both articles appear to have identical views, from both a Eastern and Western standpoint.Pyrotec 10:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

One way forward could be to use the Gunpowder article to refer to military uses, e.g. guns, rifles, pistols, mortars, etc, and the black powder article to refer to civil engineering uses. I was intending to expand this article to include a lot more of the manufacturing technology, and we have over 300 years of that in the UK; however the manufacturing technology is, almost, independent of the powder's final use. The range of types of ballistic properties that were exploited in war-like use were also exploited in civil use. The powders are obsolete for both civil engineering and military use. That leaves fireworks and historical weapons reenactment groups. Again, I struggle to differentiate between black powder and gun powder. I would welcome you thoughts.Pyrotec 10:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather that the contents of the gunpowder article be merged into the black powder article, since the former article makes more references to black powder. The gunpowder article could be used to either redirect to guns or black powder. AllStarZ 19:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to prefer this latter arrangement, merging the gunpowder article content into the black powder article. Gunpowder in modern times can be either smokeless powder or black powder. However, black powder is not really connected with smokeless powder for its historical development nor for its use, even to today. Black powder is still widely used in replica weapons, in fireworks, and even in large Naval guns, and is deserving of an article of its own. Black powder is not obsolete; it is just a niche technology. Likewise, smokeless powder is deserving of an article of its own. Gunpowder, however, should most likely be set up as a re-direction page, to both the black powder and smokeless powder articles, with perhaps a short historical paragraph containing the information that until smokeless powder was invented, there was only one gunpowder, namely black powder. Trying to break out military vs. civilian use is not likely to be a workable solution, as the original developments were almost always entirely militarily-based. Ball mill technology for producing black powder is limited to just the largest commercial producers as upwards of 10 tons of pressure are required for achieving decent burn rates in the final product; modern precipitation techniques, on the other hand, are much more suitable for small producers and field expedient production of black powders. These techniques, suitable for field expedient production, can produce black powder that is nearly indistinguishable from commercially-produced black powder. Yaf 03:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the history material on the early saltpeter explosives (or "early gunpowder," if you prefer) should all go in the gunpowder article, not in the black powder article. If we were to simply merge all the early history into the gunpowder article, the black powder article would be a lot more coherent, and the early history in the gunpowder article would contain more information. Ocanter 17:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Ocanter; and so I admit that the discussions above slightly concern me. From a UK perspective Blackpowder and gunpowder are the same thing. There is the charcoal/potassium nitrate/sulphur (75:15:10) mixture, which can be mealed or granular, glazed or unglazed; and also the sulphurless equivalents which are not mentioned in the article. I own or have borrowed all the references except the Chinese ones - so I have Needham (vol 5, part7), West, Buchanan, Cocroft, Brown, Kelly and Earl and all these talk about gunpowder. Gunpowder is not smokeless powder, which is based on nitrocellulose - I expanded that article; neither is it ball powder, Rifle Neonites, or Parabellium Powder, these are all smokeless powders. From a UK military perspective gunpowder as a propellant and an explosive was obsolete by World War I: being replaced by Cordite, as a propellant (I wrote most of that article), and high explosives such as TNT, RDX etc. The UK stopped making gunpowder commercially in the 1960s and all gunpowder was then imported from eastern Europe - what was known, at the time, as East Germany and Yugoslavia. Gunpowder is, or was, still used in fireworks and certain specialised applications such as quickmatch, primed cambric, fuses and timing delays. And yes it is used by historical reenactment society's. Sorry, but I have doubts that gunpowder is used in large Naval guns; I don't believe the UK has used it since Cordite came in to service; and I suspect it is Cordite or smokeless powder that is being used. Gunpowder is a much softer explosive than the nitro-based explosives and so gunpowder type mixtures continued to be used for coal mining and other mining operations where damage to the material was to be minimised. But even for this civil application, it was replaced in the UK by what was to become Permitted Explosives. The problems of flash from gunpowder made it too dangerous to use in mines, where methane and/or carbon monoxide might be present.

So in summary, I think blackpowder and gunpowder are the same and the articles aught to be merged. As gunpowder is on the CD version of wikipedia, it may be more acceptable to merge blackpowder into gunpowder. I don't regard gunpowder and smokeless powder as interchangeable terms; so Smokeless powder should remain separate from gunpowder. Pyrotec 18:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

From a US perspective, blackpowder and gunpowder are not the same thing. In the US, gunpowder includes both black powder and smokeless powder. As for Naval uses, black powder is still used in US battleships. There was an explosion from the silk bags containing black powder in the USS Iowa (BB-61) in the Number 2 turret that killed a large number of sailors in the not too distant past and forced it to be mothballed. As for cordite, the US has never used cordite; this is strictly a UK-only smokeless powder. It appears that there is a slight difference in nomenclature arising between the UK and the US usages. Black powder is but one form of gunpowder in the US. If we move black powder to gun powder, then we should also move smokeless powder there, too. Yaf 19:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, the gunpowder article includes both black powder and smokeless powder in the lede as both being considered gunpowder. Yaf 19:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that it has been entirely replaced in the UK mining type industry? I can understand why it wouldn't be used in coal mines, but I was under the impression it was still used in (sometimes underground) quarrying where explosive gases aren't an issue. Riedquat 22:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I merged all the early history into gunpowder. Ocanter 18:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we please merge the early history into gunpowder? That seems to be where all the controversey is. Then we can settle the dispute there, and let the black powder page talk about black powder specifically. Ocanter 17:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

New addition to this topic by Andy.

A rocket scientist, no joke, in spare time amateur pyrotechnics and rocketry enthusiast.

I do not think the two articles should be merged. First off, they are two completely different compositions, also having completely different applications. Historically BP was used as GP, but GP these days is typically nitrocellulose with BP only being used for re-enactments. GP is a complex topic and the article as it stands could benefit from a lot of work, as too can the article for BP; as BP is also a very complex topic, much more so that the article suggests. Perhaps a few experts on the subject!

As mentioned previous they do share a common history at points. I'm not too sure of the Wiki ethos on data redundancy, but the two articles could share common text in both articles or perhaps a link from BP to the GP page where it mentions BP used as GP, or vice versa. Or perhaps a separate article which both articles link to. Personally I think that a block of shared/similar text that both articles have would be acceptable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.243.177.211 (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

I suspect that you are American, which is why you beleive that GP and BP are different. Gunpowder is the sulphur / charcoal / potassium nitrate mixture which was later called black powder to differentiate it from the newer nitrocellulose-based powders, which were apparently called white powders; and as you correctly say Gunpowder is effectively obsolete. I agree that Gunpowder needs a lot of work, as does Black powder; but, as they refer to the same thing, why not merge them. Nitrocellulose-based powders are not gunpowder, they are a family of Smokeless powders, the first being Poudre B, and some of the others are Ballistite and Cordite - many of which are Trade Names, and have not yet to be written as wikipedia articles. Solid fuel rockets did use these materials, but now there are other types of, solid, propellants based on various polymers and oxidants. Pyrotec 12:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm suggesting a straw poll for a result on how many of them actually agreed on the merge, and how many don't, there will be less silly argument in that cases once and for all. Eiorgiomugini 00:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)