Talk:Smokeless powder

Health effects
The article states that smokeless gunpowder produces "negligible smoke when fired". I'll take that to mean that some smoke is nevertheless produced. Does anyone know if inhaling this smoke is known to have any adverse health effects? Appleseed 17:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Smokeless does not mean free of fumes. Over exposure to fumes may cause adverse health effects.Pyrotec 17:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Health risks depend on the kind of powder; especially on the non-burned parts of it. K2CO3, K2SO4, CO2 and N2 as residues from traditional powder are not exactly a problem; K2CO3 and K2SO4 are merely irritants. But Sulfur and KNO3 are.

BTW: I had the impression that the first "smokeless powders" were simply powders which contained no sulfur (sulfur only lowers the ignition temperature, and isn't strictly necessary; but this was only found out late in the 19th century). --Seegras (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I took the above question to refer specifically to the smoke from smokeless powders. That will include carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen and the breakdown products of any ballistic modifiers. You seem to be quoting breakdown products of gunpowder, or black powder if you prefer. In addition, carbon dioxide can start to get toxic once the concentrations start to get above several percent (by volume); so that needs to be considered in confined spaces. Smokeless powders usually mean powders based on nitrocellulose nitrocellulose/nitroglycerine. Pyrotec (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Cyanide from incomplete combustion and lead from priming compounds have also been identified in firing range gasses. The relative cost of analytical techniques has given us a great deal of information about relatively innocuous inorganic compounds in comparison to organic compounds potentially able to cause enzymatic mischief in exponentially smaller quantities.  Possible presence of carbon ring compounds polarized by nitrogen or oxygen substitution is a concern, but application of empirical methodology to existing data gives poor correlations of little value in identifying enzymatically active substances.Thewellman (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point. I have have seen detailed measurements of such fumes in confined spaces and on ranges; and have written reports. The effects (without going into any great detail) can be similar to the effects of pumping car exhausts fumes into the compartment; and these concentrations can quite quickly exceed Workplace Occupational Exposure Standards (and the UK, Lead at Work Regulations). In those days measurements of trace enzymatic contaminants were not considered. The carbon monoxide and cyanide (and lead) would have caused problems much sooner. Pyrotec (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Maxim's seminal patent is mentioned and linked at the end of the article but it is not included in the history area also without the leading zero to make a 7 digit patent number 0430212 rather than 430212 the link fails, this is the proper link to the patent in question but I do not know enough about edeting here to change it Windshadow 03:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

http://patimg1.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=00430212&homeurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO2%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsearch-adv.htm%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526d%3DPALL%2526S1%3D0430212%2526OS%3D0430212%2526RS%3D0430212&PageNum=&Rtype=&SectionNum=&idkey=NONE&Input=View+first+page

I deleted the sentence in history that said something about the Chinese smokeless powder. The reason I did this was because it linked to both a Chinese language Wikipedia article and a Chinese language external link. I don't think the average English language Wikipedia reader could read the two. Johnnieblue 01:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

correction to "instability and stabilization" section
In the section titled "instability and stabization", the it lists 2-nitrodiphenylamine, 4-nitrodiphenylamine and N-nitrosophenylamine as additives for stability. They are not the additives, however they are a product formed when Diphenylamine is present during the decomposition of nitrocellulose. It absorbs the nitrogen oxides that are produced in decomposition of nitrocellulose.

Kristy.klein (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not completely true; yes they are decomposition products of diphenylamine, but diphenylamine is not used in some propellants, 2-npda (for short) is used in its place.Pyrotec (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Francis Gurney du Pont
The Francis Gurney du Pont says that he and Pierre S. du Pont developed smokeless gunpowder, but this article does not mention them. What are the facts? --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The DuPont family was a major gunpowder manufacturer during the American Civil War, and assumed a leading role in the Powder Trust following the war. The family gained control of all United States competitors as nitrated organic explosives including nitrocellulose were being developed to replace traditional uses of gunpowder; so it is probably accurate to state the family had a major role in development of smokeless powder in the United States.  DuPont's contribution was to combine the best aspects of competing patents acquired largely through purchasing competing companies.  U.S. smokeless powders were widely used, since the United States was an international armaments manufacturer through the first half of the 20th century, but there were many experimenters with nitrocellulose propellents, and other nations found alternative formulations like cordite very satisfactory.  Dupont's U.S. smokeless powder monopoly ended in 1913 with a government mandated divestment.  DuPont continued to manufacture single base Improved Military Rifle (IMR) powders while Hercules Powder Company assumed control of the double base smokeless powders and Atlas Powder Company assumed control of the blasting explosives formerly manufactured by DuPont.Thewellman (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Mach disc?
Should Mach disc be linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_diamond? It looks like it's the correct article, but if it was obvious what was being discussed, it wouldn't need a link for more information.

Confusing title and introduction
Intro paragraph says this could be called “smokeless powder or gunpowder” but then differentiates it from “black powder” which then links to the actual page for “gunpowder” A. Rosenberg (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to reduce that confusion by edit dated 9 March 2024. Thewellman (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

1905 paper
April 29, 1905

SMOKELESS POWDERS.THE NATURE AND EFFECTS OF THE DELETERIOUS GASES GIVEN OFF IN THEIR EXPLOSION.

MAJOR CHARLES F. KIEFFER

JAMA. 1905;XLIV(17):1359-1365. doi:10.1001/jama.1905.92500440001001g

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/466125

2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:2524:D3C5:8916:E24A (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)