Talk:Gunpowder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces...
 Weaponry task force
Wikipedia CD Selection Gunpowder is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

Contents

[edit] Discussion has enough parts where menu seems appropriate

And the menu has shown up all auto-magically.Opalpa 16:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC) Although people are getting pretty passionate about who invented black powder, in its original form, it was pretty useless for guns. Demixing occurred under the effect of vibrations, e.g. in the knapsack of a marching soldier. As a result, the powder sample poured into a gun did not have the right proportions of the three ingredients. The same volume of powder, depending on its vibration history and whether it was sampled from the top or bottom of the powder container could either fizzle or burst the gun barrel. Corning is the process that made black powder reliable for use in guns. It was invented in Europe, probably in France or Italy, when someone mixed a bit of wine with black powder. Stable granules were, then, formed. Each granule contained a mixture of the three ingredients with nearly optimum proportions. Demixing could no longer occur. 129.100.229.166 21:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Cedric

[edit] Cannons first in Europe

Removed the comment that cannon were first seen in Europe unless someone provides a citation. I know cannon were used extensively by the Mongols in the conquest of Southern China.

[edit] Ratio of Elements by weight, volume, other measure?

Hello, the ratio of elements necessary for gunpowder fails to note whether the ratio is by weight, volume or a different measure. I'm suprised that almost all internet references leave this out. As someone deeply confused by this I'm inserting by weight, even though I've only found one reference after some extensive searching. Opalpa 16:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  • The measurements are by weight. By volume, the components are roughly equal as both carbon and sulphur powders are less dense than potassium nitrate. THE KING 08:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The article now makes this clear.Cwiki 09:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smokless Powder

Umm, I thought that smokeless powder was not considered to be an explosive. Unlike black powder, it doesn't produce an explosive effect (only rapid combustion) when burned in free air. The heightened pressure of a gun barrel plugged by a projectile is necessary to produce any sort of dramatic effect.

Kat 02:08 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Blackpowder just burns in free air also. Rmhermen 04:56 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

[edit] When was gunpowder discovered in Europe?

User:68.110.171.226, please provide a cite for blackpowder still being used in mining. Until then, I'm removing it. —Ben Brockert (42) 00:21, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

There are plenty, but here are two:
[1], [2]
If you're complaining about the present-tenseness, yes, do change that. I'd meant historically, obviously we've got better explosives nowadays. (ie: Nobel prize comes from the innovator of a better explosive for military and mining use).
~ender - 2005-03-18 12:45:MST

[edit] Muslim contributions

Does anyone know if the addition of material about the Muslim background of gunpowder is real? Clearly it should not replace the history information that's already there, but if it holds it should at least be merged. The source given says:

Mir Fatehullah Khan is known to history as the inventor of gun and gunpowder. The presumption that gunpowder was first made by the Chinese does not stand the test of historical research. Writing in his book Arab Civilization, the author says that "gunpowder was a great invention of the Arabs who were already using guns". Guns were used by Arabs in 1340 A.D. in the defence of Al-Bahsur, when Franzdol besieged it. The statement of Dr. Leabon about the invention of gunpowder by the Arabs is further corroborated by Mr. Scott in his well-known work, History of the Moorish Empire in Spain.

Interesting, at least. I'm not convinced of the source though — guidance anyone? For now I'm going to try and merge them, but I'm still not convinced of the source given. —Zootm 11:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I've just removed it, it was neither informative nor salvageable. If anyone wants to try and make sense of the source (or give a better one) that'd be good though. —Zootm 11:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


Cannon were made in Ghent in 1313 and Florence in 1326. The earliest Chinese cannon to survive has been dated by Howard Blackmore to 1332. Guns may have been used by the Arabs in Spain in the 1340's. "Mir Fatehullah Khan " - never heard of him. With Khan as a surname he sounds like a Mongol, not an Arab. How can guns predate gunpowder? I suggest it is the confusing terminology of the period. The words applied to guns, gunpowder and bullets originally had other meanings. There is ample evidence for the Chinese invention of gunpowder in the 9th or 10th century. However it was the Arabs or Europeans who realised the importance of saltpetre content in increasing explosive force enough to make cannon practical and deadly (rather than frightening). Read Prof. Partington's History of Greek fire and Gunpowder for the full arguement. I'm sure there are many Journal articles published since his book came out arguing the pros and cons of the Chinese/arab/European debate.—benvenuto 17:25 18 November 2005
The earliest Chinese cannon to survive dated back to 1298,see Huochong Ksyrie 21:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pressure

The article says, "Unlike smokeless propellants, it acts more like an explosive since its burn rate is not affected by pressure..." Is this correct? My understanding is that the burn-rate of both black powder and smokeless powder does vary with pressure, to the extent that it will detonate if confined. Does anyone have a good reference? Tom harrison 16:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Who invented it?

Its vox populi that the chinese came up with it first, but somehow, i read yesterday in a Nietzsche book (i think it was the antichrist) that the germans invented powder first. Now, as anyone might know, Nietzsche was in a mental institution when he wrote his most famous works (wich explains a lot of things). But, my question is, why did he sayd that?, was it just ranting or did he really had proof?

The Chinese were using black powder for fireworks and signaling around 1000 AD; An Arab (I don't know his name) used it to propel an arrow from a reinforced bamboo tube in 1304. A German monk, Berthold der Schwarze, is credited with inventing gunpowder and bronze cannon in 1313. There are documents that suggest Roger Bacon knew the formula for black powder in 1249. Probably it depends partly on definition; Is it gunpowder if it's not used in a gun? What exactly is a gun? Is any deflagrating mixture gunpowder? Anyway, whether or not Nietzsche's assertion is correct, it is at least reasonable.
Some references:
Tom harrison 12:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Berthold Schwarz is a mythical figure. However he was commonly credited with discovering gunpowder at the time Nietzsche was writing—benvenuto 17:25 18 November 2005

From a recent version of the article:

James Partington states in A History of Greek Fire and Gunpowder:

Gunpowder is not, of course, an 'invention' in the modern sense, the product of a single time and place; no individual's name can be attached to it, nor can that of any single nation or region. Fire is one of the primordial forces of nature, and incendiary weapons have had a place in armies' toolkits for almost as long as civilized states have made war.

Tom Harrison Talk 14:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Partington is a distinguished scholar and historian of science. Joseph Needham cites him in Science and Civilisation in China. It is entirely appropriate to quote from Partington's work. Tom Harrison Talk 11:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No, he doesn't had a qualification on historian background, could he read manuscripts, latin or classic chinese texts? That's the main problem James Riddick Partington Biography Eiorgiomugini 11:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
He was sufficiently well-qualified to have been president of the British Society for the History of Science, according to the reference you provided. Tom Harrison Talk 12:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Well-qualified on reputation you meant, the problem is that he doesn't had a qualification on historian background, its not something for him to make such quote with regard to the History and origins, maybe you can placed it under the Composition, characteristics and use, since his field is on chemistry, but not under the History and origins. Eiorgiomugini 12:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I meant exactly what I wrote, thank you. As a chemist and as president of the British Society for the History of Science, he is well-qualified to write about the history of gunpowder. No doubt that is why Needham, another distinguished scholar, cites him in his own work. Tom Harrison Talk
Needham actually cites from primary sources more from him, although he might quote some example from his work, but that doesn't makes him a scholar or historian on such issue. Please provide a sources that James Riddick Partington is actually a historian or scholar, did he had any degree, PhD for a historian? Eiorgiomugini 12:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
His body of published work on the history of science, and his position as president of the British Society for the History of Science clearly show that he was a respected historian. But there's no point in each of us repeating arguments the other has found unpersuasive. I think a second opinion is called for. Tom Harrison Talk 13:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
It won't be unpersuasive, if you had provided a source. Since you're the one who made this addition, its your responsible to provide a sources which you cited. So far I had seen only one of his published work on the history of science, even which he doesn't had a qualification on historian background. I think we should just placed the quote under the Composition, characteristics and use instead of History and origins Eiorgiomugini 13:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Partington is obviously a citable scholar. If you don't agree with that, you can settle the issue by quoting some part of the WP guidelines where it states that, in order to be quoted, a scholar MUST have a Ph.D. in EXACTLY the field he is being cited in, and then proved documentation that Partington does not have such a degree. Also, what does "its your responsible to provide a sources which you cited." mean? Are you asking for a valid source that proves that a source is a valid source? If you're going to argue a point, perhaps you should get a friend who speaks English to help you. Also, Partington is not saying anything controversial here. He isn't saying that some particular person did or didn't invent gunpowder. He's just saying that it's too simple a thing to be "an invention" in the modern sense, and it was probably invented independently by various people at various times. Since English isn't your native language, perhaps this wasn't clear to you. KarlBunker 14:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't makes such assumption that I couldn't even know what your simplicity quote are. I never state that his work can't be quoted on this article, but not under the History and origins, YOU should had quoted his work under Composition, characteristics and use instead of History and origins. Since you want to make an addition, you should be the one to provide a cited work from a historian, not some guys who are ignorance in this field. And lastly, he's not a HISTORIAN, not unless you could proved it. He is NOT well-qualified to write about the history of gunpowder, so cited his garbage somewhere else. Eiorgiomugini 14:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
"Partington is not saying anything controversial here. " Its seem like you should had get a friend who speaks English to help you, because he also state that "no single nation or region can be attached to the discovery of gunpowder". Certainly, incendiary weapons have had a place in armies' toolkits for almost as long as civilized states have made war, since fire is primordial forces of nature, and had been used since the paleolithic times. But what has it got to do with the discovery of gunpowder? Eiorgiomugini 15:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I confess I got childish there for a minute. I apologize, and I've deleted my last comment (Bad bunny! Bad!). KarlBunker 15:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Regarding Roger Bacon -- yes, he's often credited with the invention of gunpowder, but from what I can tell, he was describing the formulation of it but did not make any claims to inventing it; his were the first descriptions in the West of gunpowder. He may well have introduced it to the West as well, probably picking it up from the Arabs during the Crusades. He can be worked in, but not as inventor. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem is that, the article seem to imply that someone had credited him as one of the inventor, even as clearly shown from his work, he's not an inventor for such powder, he also mentioned that the gunpowder from his times was "known in diverse places". No modern historian would had been absurdness enough to credited this discovery to him, at least not in the sense for a competent historian to do that. Eiorgiomugini 16:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Right. So the solution is addin to the article something along the lines of "In the West, Roger Bacon was the first to describe the formula for gunpowder in his blah-blah-blah in whatever-year-it-was, leading many in the ensuing centuries to the mistaken belief that Bacon invented gunpowder -- even though Bacon himself mentioned that gunpowder was known in diverse places." --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"Four Great Inventions of Ancient China - Gunpowder Credit for the invention of gunpowder also goes to ancient China. Ancient necromancers discovered in their practice of alchemy, that an explosion could be induced if certain kinds of ores and fuel were mixed in the right proportions and heated, thus leading to the invention of gunpowder. In the Collection of the Most Important Military Techniques, edited in 1044 by Zeng Gongliang, three formulas for making gunpowder were recorded; an explosive mixture of saltpeter, sulfur and charcoal. Dr. Needham identified these as the earliest formulas of such a kind. The method of powder-making was introduced to the Arab world in the 12th century and to Europe in the 14th. Gunpowder was originally used for making fireworks and its later adaptation revolutionized warfare across the world. Ancient necromancers put minerals and plants together, hoping to make some medicine to keep alive forever. Flying firearrows(Tang Dynasty) Grenades (Song Dynasty), Bronze cannons (Yuan Dynasty)..."

Enough is enough. Are you people purposely trying to turn Wikipedia into a garbage dump of lies, half-truths, and equivocations? Being neutral, does not mean equivocating facts until they are no more than the shadows of misinformation. Step out of your bigotry for a moment and face up to the truth! It is truly disappointing to see that Wikipedia the free encyclopedia has turned into Wikipedia the free fabrication. Yours, =Axiom= 03:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, 69.194.137.183 -- If you can provide a quote where Needham or some other historian says that gunpowder is clearly and definitely a Chinese invention, I for one would be happy to see that added to the article. It wouldn't be acceptable as the only scholarly opinion voiced in the article, since that wouldn't reflect the current balance of opinions among historians. But it would make an interesting counterpoint to the Partington quote that is currently in the article.
Just note that it has to be the words of Needham or some other historian, not something that is spoken by the article as if it was unquestioned fact. KarlBunker 04:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Note that the editor in question has been indefinitely blocked for legal threats at Talk:Crossbow. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Gunpowder was definitely invented in China.This article makes it sound as if you can't really know if the Chinese really invented it.

"The origin of gunpowder was probably Chinese, for it seems to have been known in China at least as early as the 9th cent. and was there used for making firecrackers. There is evidence suggesting that it came to Europe through the Arabs." (http://www.bartleby.com/65/gu/gunpowde.html)

I am changing the article and WILL leave it as I changed it until somebody can counter the evidence from a more trustworthy source. Mine is from The Columbia Encyclopedia, the sixth edition. (Wikimachine 15:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC))

The earliest types of Gunpowder (such as black powder) as well as the origins of its development should attribute to China. Such claims are made by the Encyclopædia Britannica [3] [4] and the Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition [5]. I think it is widely accepted that it was first invented in China. --67.2.148.187 07:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

In the past I've objected to language that name China as the origin of gunpowder with that much certainty, but as I've seen more and more references, I've come to agree that that's the widely accepted view. I've altered the wording of that part of the article a bit for better flow and to give more info. KarlBunker 10:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The article currently puts forward the view that gunpowder may have been discovered independently by different cultures. I think we should also add the other (and more widely held view) that it spread from China to Europe. I propose the following change:

It is generally thought that the knowledge of gunpowder gradually spread west, via the Silk Road, from China to the Middle East and then Europe. However, some historians believe that gunpowder was probably discovered independently by different cultures at different times. As James Partington writes in his History of Greek Fire and Gunpowder:

Gunpowder is not, of course, an 'invention' in the modern sense, the product of a single time and place; no individual's name can be attached to it, nor can that of any single nation or region. Fire is one of the primordial forces of nature, and incendiary weapons have had a place in armies' toolkits for almost as long as civilized states have made war.

203.206.208.11 06:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Please don't use weasel phrases like "It is generally thought that..." A credible source that fairly unambiguously credits gunpowder to the Chinese is Jack Kelly's Gunpowder. You should find some pretty thorough citations of that book in the black powder article. Kelly's book is a pop history, so not it's not nearly as scholarly as Partington, but after reading Partington, I think what he means in the above passage is not so much gunpowder as incendiary weapons, which have unequivocally been invented independently by different cultures at different times, but that may just be my POV. JFD 22:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, well, here's something interesting: I just went through Partington's chapter on gunpowder in China and nowhere does he mention the mid-9th century "Classified Essentials of the Mysterious Tao of the True Origin of Things" which Kelly cites as the first documentation of a proto-gunpowder. Needham seems to accept it as a reference to true gunpowder, or at least he dates the invention of gunpowder to China in the +9th century. According to the introduction to the 1999 edition of Partington by Bert Hall, "Gunpowder proper seems to have first appeared in 1044 A.D. in China, and to have worked its way westward over the next three centuries by routes still uncertain," referring to the 1044 "Collection of the Most Important Military Techniques" which includes three recipes for "gunpowder proper." Does anyone know if the "Classified Essentials of the Mysterious Tao of the True Origin of Things" was not available when Partington was writing his book (which was first published in 1960)? JFD 04:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I've checked the following sources, which all say that the knowledge of gunpowder spread from China to the West:
Brown, G. I. (1998). The Big Bang: A History of Explosives. Sutton Publishing.
Ebrey, Patricia Buckley (1999). The Cambridge Illustrated History of China. Cambridge University Press
Gernet, Jacques (1996). A History of Chinese Civilisation. Cambridge University Press
World Book Encyclopedia (2005).
Kelly gives the most detailed explanation. He states that it probably spread from China to Europe. He lists the following three points of evidence:
1. Precedence: its first recorded appearance in Europe is some 300 years after the first Chinese reference.
2. In China, gunpowder was gradually refined over the course of several hundred years, whereas in Europe it appeared suddenly, in a relatively mature form.
3. The early European recipes for gunpowder contained the same poisons (such as arsenic) as the Chinese formula. Since these chemicals do not add anything beneficial to the performance, it would be an unlikely coincidence for both recipes to contain them if they had evolved independently.203.206.208.11 23:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
This is my attempt at adding a line that states the knowledge of gunpowder in Europe probably spread from China. Please feel free to suggest how it can be improved:
There is no direct record of how gunpowder came to be known in Europe. Most scholars believe that the knowledge spread west from China to the Middle East and then Europe, possibly via the Silk Road.[1][2][3][4] Other historians believe that gunpowder was probably discovered independently by different cultures at different times. As James Partington writes ......Cowrider 09:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that would be an excellent addition. Of course, it would be best to use full "cite book" templates for the references. KarlBunker 05:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
All this, and still no ancient source that attests Chinese gunpowder? The recipe given in the Chinese source does not describe gunpowder, which is defined in our own encyclopedia as "black powder (S+KNO3+charcoal) or smokeless powder." S+KN03+realgar makes another, less powerful, incendiary, which, as I understand it, would not be explosive enough to use in a gun. I have read elsewhere that the charcoal, particularly the method of producing an ideal charcoal, is actually the key to the explosive power of black powder. Surely the Chinese alchemists would have thought of simply adding more saltpetre, if that had been the only problem with their recipe. From the sources given here, including those given by users who favor the theory of a Chinese origin of gunpowder, it does not appear that the Chinese ever made what we are calling gunpowder. They made another explosive that was sufficient for grenades, rockets, and arrow-bombs, but not for guns. A couple users have been kind enough to cite secondary sources for the claim that Chinese had a real gunpowder and guns in the twelfth century. However, in this case, that is not adequate. We need either a clear citation of a primary source that unambiguously describes guns or gunpowder (with charcoal), or a detailed analysis of the secondary sources, with full citations, including page numbers. Thanks, and peace. Ocanter 18:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Ocanter, where is your source that Chinese gunpowder is in the form that you described? And why is proof that Chinese had cannons by the 12th century not adequate? It would be clearer if you emphasize for what is this not adequate for? Proof that the Chinese had gunpowder or proof that they had cannons? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.116.25.201 (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
Thanks for asking. Gee, maybe we'll get somewhere. My source is Needham, v.7. I have the book at my other job, I'll take a look at it tomorrow. I didn't give the realgar recipe, though, somebody else did. That was not the earliest recipe, either. The circa 1040 recipe involved about ten substances, which Needham, in his forulae, simply lumps together as "carbon matter." He qualifies it, however, as a "proto-gunpowder," because, for one thing, it's not a powder, but a "sticky mess," and for another, it wouldn't be much use in guns, at least not guns that shoot bullets at people with the intent of killing them. The 1040 recipe was specifically for a bomb, wrapped in pine sap, apparently intended to explode on impact. I'll look for the page number tomorrow. The cannons you mentioned, if the date is accurate (in the one case, it's based on an archaeological dating, and in the others, on inscriptions), show only that they had some kind of explosive-based ballistics. It doesn't tell us anything about the effectiveness of the propellent, or what kind of missile they used. Ocanter 20:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see you have read Needleham v. 7. Then you should know that Needleham in that book mentions that the Chinese eventually added more and more saltpetre into their gunpowder as they moved from weak cased grenades to hard cased grenades, though I forget the page number. But as for the cannons, what does that have to do with China not inventing gunpowder? What is the evidence that the Chinese gunpowder isn't true gunpowder? Where's the additional source? And how is Needleham's evidence a secondary source? In volume 7, I remember him showing a picture of the earliest cannon available to the Chinese, and archeological evidence is a primary source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.116.25.201 (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
Yes, we Anglophones are greatly indebted to Needham, a truly great scholar. If there were a Needham in every area of anthropology and history, the world would be a better place. Yes, I saw the cannons and handguns, and they are cool as all hell. The only issue I have with the article is a semantic one. We seem to be defining gunpowder very specifically to mean the modern propellent at the start of the article, then finagling the definition to mean "any saltpetre explosive" in the history section so that we can claim Chinese alchemists invented it. It's just a semantic difference, but I think we should be consistent. The "source" is the definition we gave at the start of the article. Personally, I think the early pine tar bombs and grenades are bad as hell. I think we should rewrite the history to explain the development of saltpetre explosives, culminating in modern gunpowder. "China invented it" is too simple. It's not wrong, it's just too simple. Ocanter 04:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you put it that way, it's not just simple, but unsolvable. The ancient Chinese never put a precise formula to the molecular level for the ingredients except the basic compounds, that's for sure. Thus, if you put it that way, we can't prove things either way. Both simple and unsolvable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.116.25.197 (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Rofl at above bickering

Chinese people invented gunpowder and a whole lot more besides. Many of the greatest inventions still used today came from China. Why waste time with delusional arguing over plain facts? Try being productive and read this instead:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/lostempires/china/age.html

Maybe you'll end up educating yourself.

[edit] disgrace

this article is a disgrace. gunpowder ushered in the gun and forever altered human history. The article (as is) is all about imperial chinese this and taoist monk that. It reads like a chinese travel guide. Let's get rid of all this POV garbage. Cwiki 00:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I myself am not a Chinese but I think that this article is fine. What. Do you want to make it some European invention article? China had it for the longest. It's Chinese invention. What I think is how people support these arguments that make the origin of the gunpowder so ambiguous. Additionally, gunpowder was not limited to the usage of gun. It was used in rockets. (Wikimachine 18:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC))


Yeah right. rockets. whoopee. Cwiki 22:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

And "eruptors" and firecrackers. Scares the shit out of horses, which seems to be sensible application of a not-so-great new technology when the main threat is a bunch of rancid steppe nomads. In Europe sieges were more important, hence the use of powder with artillery. Your criticism is based on the historian's fallacy in its technological form. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


Is that right. God I get sick of people on this site throwing around logical fallacy terms without explaining themselves. In what way is what I said a historian's fallacy. You think it's only in hindsight that people look back and consider that the gun was important? You think anyone would care less about firecrackers if they had a gun handy.Cwiki 06:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I am very sorry Cwiki, but this is about gunpowder, not about guns or cannons. The major reason why this article associate very much with firecrackers or fire arrows is because these were the earliest uses of the gunpowder during its pioneering age, and this article traces the development of gunpowder.
If you are concerned about cannons, or guns, please go to those articles and work on them. We don't intend to make this article a mess of variety of weapons that were used with the gunpowder. Good luck! (Wikimachine 17:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC))

Who is "we". Look up any history of gunpowder and it talks about the massive effect guns had on the world. To casually dismiss the impact of guns, and prefer to focus on Chinese firecrackers, is narrow minded. The article has improved, but still has a Chinese slant. I notice you are Korean yourself. The biggest impact of gunpowder was felt in the Western world. I didn't say that gunpowder was a European invention. The history of gunpowder revolves around its invention in the East, its spread along the Silk Road to the Persia, its use against the West during the Crusades, and the power the West derived from it once they got their hands on it. Firecrackers really weren't that important. Cwiki 06:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't know anything, buddy. I'm not sure of which nationality you are, but if you think that Europeans made better use of the gunpowder, you are dead wrong. Chinese and Koreans also made use of cannons. They made use of guns as well (including the Japanese, of course) (but Japanese couldn't make good cannons until the 1800s). Rather, for a long long time, Korean and Chinese cannons were much better in terms of destruction and range than European cannons (again, until the 1800s). If you think we are talking about firecrackers here, it's only a small element of what they did. Fire arrows that could travel up to around 1-2km. Have you ever seen a pre-modern European invention that had a range of 1-2km? No. Please, study some history yourself before posting these insulting remarks. (Wikimachine 13:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC))

Here are my sources.

  1. 6. 천자총통

조선시대의 총통 중 크기면에서나 화력면에서 가장 우수한 것은 천자총통이다. 총통은 화력과 크기에 따라 천, 지, 현, 황의 순서대로 이름을 붙였다. 천자총은 이름에서 알 수 있듯 총통 중 크기가 가장 크고 화력 역시 가공할 위력을 보인다. 천자총통 무게가 30kg에 사정거리가 960미터에 이르는 대장군전을 발사시키는 대포이다. 임진왜란때 거북선에 배치돼 왜선을 격침시킨 일등 공신으로 몸체에 새겨진 명문을 통해 명종때 만들어졌음을 짐작할 수 있다.

Korean cannon during the late 16th century had a range of 960m (approximately 1km). The English cannon during the late 16th century had a range of 760m. Who wins? (Wikimachine 14:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC))


Citing a reference written in Korean was enough to convince me that you do not have a POV problem. Cwiki 05:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Is something wrong with Korean sources? Is English language the univeresal code for all evidences? What is wrong with you. I got a data from an English source about an English cannon &, since I couldn't find an English website hosting about Korean cannons, I searched on a Korean website. (Wikimachine 18:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC))

If you want to cite a reference to bolster an argument you are having with someone in an English-language forum, then use English-language references. Also lighten up a bit. Cwiki 11:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh well. They deleted what I had fixed. Like you wanted I put a section about European usage of the section. Guys, that was a pretty neat section. Instead of deleting it with the excuse that it was badly organized, you guys should have added onto the info. So, I'll put what I put back on so that you guys can fix it -that is, if you agree. (Wikimachine 18:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC))
I'm sorry, but in my estimation, the only way to fix that section would be to rewrite it from scratch. Even explaining what's wrong with each sentence would take far more words than were in the section itself. It's my judgement that although the idea of a section like that is a good one, in practice the article is better off without it. KarlBunker 19:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


I agree. Who cares what the range of a Korean canon was in the 16th century. It's not a pissing contest. Comparing European and Eastern canons in an era where there was no confrontation or power struggle between the two is irrelevant. Comparing the range based on testing old weapons (which is what I gather from the reference you cited) is suspect and also irrelevant. I also think there's a limit to how many times the word Korean should appear in a history of gunpowder. Cwiki 07:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] White Powder

hi, I am just setting a footnote in a text written in 1687 [6] - people there are talking about shooting with white powder (i.e. saltpeter only) - question: will that go off? What will be the effect? Any help is welcome. --Olaf Simons 13:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] "Probably"

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

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

[edit] Picture

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

[edit] merge

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

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

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

[edit] Roger Bacon

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

   
“
 The story has long circulated that Bacon left behind a formula for gunpowder. It’s said that he recognized the danger of the invention and so recorded the information only as an anagram, a code that remained unbroken for centuries. This is the stuff of legend and that’s exactly what it turns out to be. The letter containing the alleged formula cannot be definitely attributed to Bacon, and the coded “formula” is open to any number of interpretations.

Bacon does hold the distinction of having set down the first written reference to gunpowder in Europe. It came in the works he prepared for the Pope around 1267 – and which Clement died without reading. Bacon wrote of “a child’s toy of sound and fire made in various parts of the world with powder of saltpeter, sulphur and charcoal of hazelwood.”
   
”

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

[edit] To clarify one thing

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

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

(goryo=Korea)

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

[edit] Potassium nitrate

   
“
 The Arabs are believed to be the first to purify gunpowder to contain almost no sodium nitrate (only potassium nitrate) and to have a high enough quality to use effectively as a combat explosive.
   
”

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

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

[edit] hey, what about the koreans?

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

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

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

[edit] Potassium nitrate, where?

Where can I find Potassium Nitrate?

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


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

[edit] Tea vs. firearms

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

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

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

[edit] Smokeless

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/u/n/Talk%7EGunpowder_76bf.html"