Talk:Gunpowder/Archive 14

Pyrotechnic composition
I'm puzzled by using pyrotechnic composition as the very first description of gunpowder, for two reasons: 1) I doubt there are many people who know what a pyrotechnic composition is but don't know what gunpowder is, so it's utility in explaining gunpowder is limited. 2) From my reading of the pyrotechnic composition article, the term mainly refers to other applications than in guns. Whereas I think that guns are the primary application of gunpowder. So putting that description first seems to steer the reader away from the main meaning. Ccrrccrr (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have some sympathy with your argument. Gunpowder is now mostly used nowadays as a pyrotechnic priming composition; and its essentially obsolete as a propellent in guns, but that may not be appreciated. As you say, its known for its use in guns.Pyrotec (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Right--it makes sense that gunpowder is used more in other applications now, but its use in guns is of great historical importance. And many people might be looking up gunpowder to find out what is used in guns (in fact, the definition of gunpowder in American Heritage is "Any of various explosive powders used to propel projectiles from guns, especially a black mixture of potassium nitrate, charcoal, and sulfur."  In other words, that definition is "whatever is used in guns".  Ccrrccrr (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That definition causes problems. The bit about "especially a black mixture of potassium nitrate, charcoal, and sulfur" is an accurate description of what was used historically and is used today by historical re-enactment societies. For modern "gunpowder" the appropriate article is Smokeless powder.Pyrotec (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand that smokeless powder is what is used today and the the mixture described in that definition is not used in ordinary ammunition today. I suspect I wasn't clear about why I cited that definition.  My point is that in general lay usage, people use gunpowder to refer to the broad category of explosive propellants used in guns.  When they do so, they are not mistaken about what is used in guns.  Rather, they are mistaken (or don't care) about what the stuff used in guns is called by the more expert population.  We could discuss whether that usage as right or wrong.  But I don't care to.  Wikipedia is adopting the expert usage.  I don't intend to try to change that.  What I want is for the article to be friendly and informative to readers who arrive wanting to read about the broad category of stuff that goes bang in guns.  Maybe I should take a stab at revising it and see what people think.Ccrrccrr (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, so here's what I'd propose for the first sentence:

Gunpowder is a an explosive mixture of sulfur, charcoal and potassium nitrate (also known as saltpetre/saltpeter) that burns rapidly, producing volumes of hot solids and gases which can be used as a propellant in firearms and as a pyrotechnic composition in fireworks.

I think it would also be nice to have the lead explain the relationship between the terms and substances gunpowder, black powder, and smokeless powder, but I'll take this a step at at time. Ccrrccrr (talk) 01:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm OK with your revised first sentence.Pyrotec (talk) 06:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Islamic world
I have checked a number of your sources, and they do not support your claims.


 * Berthelot & Duval


 * I checked this citation, and there is no mention of poudre à canon ("gunpowder") or poudre noire ("black powder"). (For the sake of thoroughness, I also tried "poudre à gonne".)


 * Renaud & Favé


 * I checked Renaud & Favé, and could not find support for this claim.


 * George Sarton


 * What follows is the entire text of p. 569 of volume 2 of Introduction to the History of Science by George Sarton:


 * As anyone can see, there is no mention of Muslims, saltpeter or its purification, or a revolt of black slaves in Basra in 869.


 * Sigrid Hunke


 * Let us ignore for the moment that your hyperlink leads, not to the "Gunpowder" entry in the Encyclopædia Britannica as you purport, but to the "black powder" subsection of its "explosive" article, which devotes more words to the Berthold Schwarz and Roger Bacon hypotheses than to the Arabs.


 * As for your other source, pp. 36–37 of Allahs Sonne über dem Abendland by Sigrid Hunke opens with the words "schosse durch die Sprengkraft des Pulvers zu treiben, ebenfalls in China zuerst gedacht worden ist".


 * JFD (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

the first part of what you quoted "The earliest Arabic manuscripts with gunpowder recipes are two undated manuscripts" is not cited, the Berthelot & Duval's source was for what was after the comma ie. "but one of them (the al-Karshuni manuscript) was dated by Berthelot and Duval to be from the ninth to the eleventh century" and this was also cited by Ahmed Y al-Hasan check
 * Berthelot & Duval


 * Your citation ("Berthelot, and Duval,.p XII") doesn't mention this al-Karshuni manuscript either.


 * Have you actually read Berthelot & Duval, MARVEL? If not, then why are you citing it?

the source contains what i cited and the very same information was also cited by Ahmed Y al-Hasan check i think you should search well my refrences, and anyway the time phase between Khaled and Jaber is fringe.
 * Renaud & Favé


 * No, MARVEL, Ahmad Y al-Hassan does not cite Renaud & Favé in support of the claim that Khalid ibn Yazid knew of potassium nitrate in the 7th century (check).


 * As with Berthelot & Duval, it is clear that you are citing Renaud & Favé when you have not actually read Renaud & Favé.

that page is clearly a refrences page and its was written in Deutsch, so can i ask you to look in the same page in the English edition!
 * George Sarton


 * That is the English edition, which is why Sarton's personal notes are in English ("important; completing Jourdain", "a propos of Berthelot's work").
 * If you had bothered to read just a little more closely, you would realize that Sarton gives the titles of German sources in German, French sources in French (Le role joue par les medecins et les naturalistes dans la reception d'Aristote aux XIIe et XIIIe siecles, La science experimentale au XIIIe siecle) and English sources in English (The Latin pseudo-Aristotle and medieval occult science).


 * And it's a references page because that is the citation you gave ("George Sarton, Introduction to the History of Science volume 2. p.569").

britannica clearly states that their evidence that the invention could have been done by the Arabs and Encyclopedia Britannica is an academic and acceptable source and it can not be dismissed, when it comes to Hunke i will read the full sentense and give you the exact portion when i have access to the book--MARVEL (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigrid Hunke and Britannica


 * Unfortunately, the Encyclopedia Britannica is not accurate in respect of some of the claims that you have used for gunpowder. Any statements that Roger Bacon for instance, discovered/invented gunpowder are not credible.Pyrotec (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The Britannica article you cite is not its "Gunpowder" entry, as you like to pretend, but its "explosive" article (no pun intended).
 * It was written by Norman Gardner Johnson who, as Meatwaggon points out above, was Industry Manager of DuPont's Explosives Department in the 1960s and holds patents which date to 1942 and 1943 (and possibly 1937).


 * Britannica also clearly states:
 * This was written by John F. Guilmartin, Jr., who is currently a professor of military history (check). JFD (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This was written by John F. Guilmartin, Jr., who is currently a professor of military history (check). JFD (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I also think that in your enthusiasm you are making some assertions that may not be entirely correct. I am willing to accept that the Arabs had a very good knowledge of what we now call chemistry; and that this knowledge came to the west from the Middle Ages, onwards. I also accept that they had access to the necessary ingredients. However, I do not think that you can make a direct claim that saltpetre (as known by the Arabs at that time) is the same as potassium nitrate, as it is known today. There is a lot of discussion as to whether the "saltpetre" used in the earliest gunpowders was a mixture of sodium and potassium nitrates or even calcium nitrate (lime saltpetre). To try and claim that the saltpetre used in the Middle Ages is directly the same as pure potassium nitrate is not possible. Various words, such as natrium are used - it is not necessary to "prove" that it is pure potassium nitrate and I don't think that it is possible to be so.


 * The problem, at the moment, is that the gunpowder article does not correctly state the contribution that the Arabs made to its development; and the additions that you are trying to force upon us do not appear to be credible when the sources are examined by other editors, such as JFD. I happen to like the paper by Ahmed Y al-Hasan []. It basically states that the Arabs formed a vital link in the chain of knowledge/discovery/transfer from its appearance in China to its appearance in Europe. You are trying to make what appears to be an entirety different claim - independent discovery by the Arabs.Pyrotec (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

al-Hassan
What follows is a side-by-side comparison of Wikipedia material and the relevant passage from the cited source: Wikipedia identifies these as "firsts" yet the cited source does not. JFD (talk) 05:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In fact Wikipedia identifies those as "first to approach the ideal composition"; not as "firsts." Which is true. --  fayssal   / Wiki me up® 08:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Ideal composition from a chemical perspective does not necessarily mean best composition from a weapon view point, e.g. in 1380 equal parts of all three were used, by 1410 the proportions were 3: saltpetre, 2: charcoal, 2: sulfur; and in 1546, 23 compositions were used. 4:1:1 for cannon powder and 48:8:7 and 18:8:2 for muskets. Quoted in 1857, the UK typically used a 75:10:12 mixture, but France and Belgium used 75:12.5:12.5; Russia 73.78:13.59:12.64; Spain 76.47:10.78:12.75; USA 76:14:10. The idea composition was determined in the 1880s, so you know the answer, knowing the answer you are merely quoting near matches.Pyrotec (talk) 12:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am confused Pyrotec. Are you addressing my comment or JFD's one? --  fayssal   / Wiki me up® 12:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My comments mostly apply to JFD, but I'm not sure was point Wiki me up® is trying to make in the "which is true question". The accepted transmission of the knowledge of gunpowder was: China, India and/or Arabs, though the Crusaders to Europe. Both of the quoted links are in general agreement on this point. Gunpowder can still be gunpowder without having to be a 75:10:15 mixture; in fact since the development of smokeless powder a sulfur-less gunpowder Gunpowder has been (is) used as a priming composition. I'm not trying to argue than a mixture of 29.5 charcoal and 70.5 saltpetre developed in the middle ages is gunpowder, but in the last 100 years it could be sulphur-free gunpowder. Knowing that the ideal answer is 75:10:12 does not provide a go-on go test on what was gunpowder and what was not gunpowder over the last 500 to 1000 years.Pyrotec (talk) 12:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Which is true"... What I could read via the links I provided is that there's an accepted transmission of the knowledge (chinese, mongols, indians/persians, arabs, europe). Also, Robert Elgood in Firearms of the Islamic World states that al-Rammah was the first to have a clear description. The other reference states that "pure salpetre was produced as a result of careful separation and purification of salts, a process which was first described by al-Rammah." I was discussing the "first" and not the "ideal". I'd support removing the "ideal" and replace it by something like "modern." --   fayssal   / Wiki me up® 13:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The point I wanted to raise is whether it is appropriate for Wikipedia to identify certain things as "firsts" when the source cited for such claims does not. JFD (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've ordered a copy of al Hassan's book, it looked interested and I found a cheap copy a week ago in the USA, but it takes up to three weeks to get here by surface mail. I think that the Islamic (Arab) contribution does need to be expanded, but so far most edits (edit wars) have been devoted to proving that they invented it independently of China and/or before China; and no mention of the "chemistry" of the raw materials, etc, has been provided. I also agree that claiming "first" without cited evidence is not on; however, there is another related problem, e.g. different (reputably) sources providing conflicting views. The UK, unlike some countries, does not have a natural source of saltpetre, but it 1536 we appear to have bought the know how of how to make it synthetically. Most of our saltpetre came from the British East India Company and our sulfur came from countries with volcanic sources; which is why Buchanan calls it an "International Technology".Pyrotec (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I now have a copy of: al-Hassan, Ahmad Y. and Hill, Donald R. (1986) Islamic Technology: An illustrated history. Paris: UNESCO & Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Although al-Hassan has written a newer book in 2002, which is referenced above. The 1986 version supports the accepted tradition: gunpowder was developed "in China and moved slowly to Muslim lands and thence to Europe" (page 106). I will read it in more detail - it is a good read. Pyrotec (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This source contradicts the article; Partington, James Riddick; Hall, Bert S. (1999). A History of Greek Fire and Gunpowder. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-5954-9. The website of al Hassan is not a reliable third party source. See page 190 at google books J8079s (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Brown brown
I have removed the following text from the article:

" Brown brown is a form of powdered cocaine, cut with gunpowder. Commonly given to child soldiers in West African armed conflicts, the gunpowder causes irritation of the bowels, which increases aggression. "

The reason being, that unless child soldiers in Africa are shooting at each other with muskets, the "gunpowder" going into brown brown would be smokeless powder, such as the SSNF 50 contained in 7.62x39mm AK-47 rounds, and not gunpowder as described in this article.

The reference to brown brown probably belongs somewhere, but I'm not sure where, so have preserved it here. -Kieran (talk) 03:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation?
There's a problem with the way this article and the smokeless powder article are structured. In popular usage, gunpowder is used to refer to black powder and smokeless powder without distinguishing between the two, or without even knowing that there is a distinction. Right now, the lede of this article starts providing details about black powder without mentioning the difference until the body of the article. A reader who doesn't know the difference might read the lede and think he's learned something about what makes modern guns work, but be misinformed. Perhaps it's the reader's fault for not knowing what he "should know" but an encyclopedia is for the purpose of informing people who don't already know everything, so we shouldn't punish non experts who start on this page without knowing the distinction. The history of the article and the talk page give ample evidence of this problem, including the brown brown section above.

There are several ways I can think of doing this:

1) Adding a disambiguation page, and having a little italic comment at the top saying "this article is about the traditional type of gunpowder, often known as black powder. For other uses, including the modern alternative used in virtually all modern firearms, see gunpowder (disambiguation)"

2) Skip the disambig page, and re-write the lede to include description of the difference between the two, and send people right to smokeless powder rather than through a disambig page.

3) Move the content of this page to a new page titled either "gunpowder (black powder) or "black powder", and create a new article titled gunpowder that would explain the different uses of the word and the different types, and maybe have a history of the different types, and of course refer the reader to the two main articles.

I like 3 best, 2 second best, and 1 least (but it's still better than how it is now). Because 3) seems like it would certainly ruffle some feathers, I certainly don't want to do that without hearing what other people think. What do you think? Ccrrccrr (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There were for a long time separate articles on gunpowder and black powder and I suggested that they be merged; but, as they were worked on by different groups of editors, neither wanted them merged. Merger happened. The last thing we need now is re-creation of separate articles. I'm not convinced that the "gunpowder" in brown brown is Gunpowder - which is black. I suspect that brown brown contains smokeless powder. I'm not even convinced that it should appear as part of gunpowder, or even smokeless powder; it does not add to the value of gunpowder (or smokeless powder) - it merely adds credibility to the brown brown article. There was a "proper" substance called "brown prismatic powder" - the relevant article is Brown powder - and that needs to go in, not brown brown.Pyrotec (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the history lesson. It sounds like the problem that I am pointing out may have developed in the process of the merge.  And it sounds like my option 3) (back to separate pages) would be a bad idea for the reasons you mention.  Any objection to my options 1) or 2)?


 * I cited the brown brown example not because I think it belongs in this article (or smokeless powder), but because it's a recent example of the confusion many people have about what gunpowder means, and I think the current lede does not help that situation.
 * Ccrrccrr (talk) 22:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, the article Blackpowder is a link to Gunpowder which goes directly to Gunpowder, but see also | first 500 links - there is Gun powder and Black powder, to mention only two articles that link back here. I'd prefer option 1) or 2). WP:Lead states that the lead is an introduction and a summary of what's in the article. So going for the option 2) route, we already have "The term 'black powder' was coined in the late 19th century to distinguish prior gunpowder formulations from the new smokeless powders and semi-smokeless powders. (Semi-smokeless powders featured bulk volume properties that approximated black powder in terms of chamber pressure when used in firearms, but had significantly reduced amounts of smoke and combustion products; they ranged in color from brownish tan to yellow to white. Most of the bulk semi-smokeless powders ceased to be manufactured in the 1920's."
 * So a summary of that could be put into the the lead. Alternatively, the use of Option 1), e.g. having some words in italic at the top saying something like "the term gunpowder may rather loosely mean Gunpowder or Smokeless powder" would also address the problem in the short term. I don't have a strong preference between 1) or 2), but I'm not keen on 3).Pyrotec (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

A disambiguation page is not a bad idea, it should include a link to Gunpowder tea aswell. /Jonas 130.243.240.244 (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with a re-write and re-naming. This page is a jumble of blackpowder and smokeless powder information without making enough distinction between the two. It also assumes the term "gunpowder" means "blackpowder". It certainly did historically, but has not for probably a century. There need to be a short "Gunpowder" article, and more in-depth "Blackpowder" and "Smokeless Powder" articles. The merger of two such fundamentally different chemicals such as blackpowder and smokeless powder was a bad decision. Let's get this cleaned up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeadleB (talk • contribs) 22:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Volume/weight
It should be clarified wether the "recipe" is given by volume or by weight. There's a big difference. In chemistry it is usually by weight. 83.251.57.154 (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. The article should specify. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Julian S. Hatcher, Hatchers Notebook, Military Service Publishing Company, 1947. Chapter XIII Notes on Gunpowder, page 303. "The average composition of black powder is, saltpeter 75 parts by weight, sulphur 10 parts and charcoal 15 parts." Naaman Brown (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Why are there no recipes by volume listed for comparison? 24.90.104.148 (talk) 02:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)