Talk:Gunpowder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article...
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.
Gunpowder is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

Contents

[edit] Encyclopedia. Saltpeter explosive --> gunpowder

Someone took a quote from dictionary.com's enyclopedia and changed the words gunpowder to "saltpeter explosive."


Here is the original quote from the encyclopedia:

"The Chinese used gunpowder explosives in warfare in 904 A.D., as incendiary projectiles called "flying fires." (These were invented during the Tang Dynasty and were originally used for fireworks.) The use of gunpowder explosives was soon expanded to explosive grenades hurled from catapults. The third step was to use these mixtures as propellants. The first such use was recorded in 1132 in experiments with mortars consisting of bamboo tubes. Mortars with metal tubes (made of iron or bronze) first appeared in the wars (1268-1279) between the Mongols and the Song Dynasty.[5]"

I changed words "saltpeter explosives" back into "gunpowder". Now it's the way it was stated originally.

User:intranetusa 21:39, 10 May 2007 (EST)intranetusa

I changed it. I did that because those early recipes are actually not gunpowder. They include a million ingredients other than the three identified above. They were not as powerful or as explosive as gunpowder. I explained all this below, but I'll explain it again. We defined, on this page, gunpowder to be a certain mixture. That is in fact the way that term is used. However, historians such as Joseph Needham commonly extend the definition to include mixtures that were not gunpowder, according to our definition. Needham did this in part because he was translating Chinese terms which originally applied to low-power saltpetre incendiaries, but later became applied to gunpowder, but also in part because of his desire, which he admitted quite openly, to show that Chinese people were not intellectually inferior to Europeans. Dictionary.com is following simply Needham's terminology. It is merely semantic distinction, but it an important one that needs to be made, so that readers will understand the different between gunpowder and "a big sticky mess," which is what Needham himself calls the first bomb recipes. Look at the recipes in the Needham volume I cited. If you can find one that matches the definition we gave at the start of this article, please feel free to call it gunpowder. Ocanter 17:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
BTW, that "dictionary.com encyclodpedia" article is a cached version of this page! You're citing yourself. Ocanter 17:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added this. deleted some portions, edited the one with Roger Bacon

"There is no direct record of how gunpowder itself was invented, or how it came to be known in Europe and Asia." "Quote by Roger Bacon"

There are numerous documents recording the recipes of gunpowder, along with "early blackpowder/basic salt peter explosives" packed into rockets from as early as Han dynasty (approx. 220 BCE~200 CE). True gunpowder was invented in the 9th century Tang-China. Furthermore, the earliest cannon dates back to the 13th century Song dynasty.

Regarding the quote by Bacon - he never claimed credit for its invention. Its recipe was already known in Europe by his time.

I added this quote from an encyclopedia: "In Europe, the first written mention of the composition of gunpowder in express terms was in Roger Bacon's "De nullitate magiæ" at Oxford in 1234. In Bacon's "De Secretis Operibus Artis et Naturae" in 1248, he states: We can, with saltpeter and other substances, compose artificially a fire that can be launched over long distances... By only using a very small quantity of this material much light can be created accompanied by a horrible fracas. It is possible with it to destroy a town or an army ... In order to produce this artificial lightning and thunder it is necessary to take saltpeter, sulfur, and Luru Vopo Vir Can Utriet. "

This is the first document of gunpowder in Europe - this was not the first document of gunpowder in the world.


Added this portion, from dictionary.com's encyclopedia: http://www.reference.com/search?q=gunpowder

"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. Roger Bacon was long credited with inventing it because a formula for making it is given in a work attributed to him, and some German scholars have credited its invention to the alchemist-monk Berthold Schwarz. However, it is now generally agreed that gunpowder was introduced and not invented in Europe in the 14th century.

It is the oldest known explosive, a mixture of sulphur, charcoal and saltpetre (nitre, potassium nitrate). Invented in China in the 9th-c, the Chinese had guns by 900, rockets and grenades by 1042, and cannon by 1259. Gunpowder was first used in Europe in 1325. Gunpowder mixtures have a range of properties, depending on formulation and granulation. It was the principal military explosive until late in the 19th-c, and is still valuable in primers, fuses, and pyrotechnics."

User:intranetusa 21:25, 10 May 2007 (EST)intranetusa

Actually, it is the first recorded recipe for gunpowder, as we defined it above, from anywhere in the world. If you are claiming there was an earlier one, please produce it for the world. Needham surveyed 25 centuries of Chinese literature, and he could not find one. He presents a view that all the previous recipes for protogunpowder were merely experiments with different forms of "carbon content," an appelation under which he lumps honey, realgar, ammonia (which has no carbon) and a million other things that Chinese alchemists put in their "gunpowder." But his first recorded Chinese recipe for actual gunpowder (again, following the definition we already gave) is from the 17th Century. Bacon's recipe is from the 13th Century.
I might be alright with rewriting the definition, but we should make clear what the early Chinese recipes were, not just call them all "gunpowder." I'll change Bacon's recipe to specify "black powder." Ocanter 17:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I reverted early Chinese "gunpowder" to "saltpetre explosives," but I also changed European gunpowder to "black powder." That way we make the actual technology clear and let the reader decide if he wants to call it "gunpowder."

[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) UE News 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] Not exactly "Discovered" in Europe

It was not "discovered" in Europe. The Arabs transmitted technology from the east to the west. The same applies to printing and paper making technologies.

-intranetusa

[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)

The Chinese used gunpowder to make firelances and to shoot projectiles from bambee tubes before the date mentioned in the article. The Mongols and the Jurchen Jin dynasty in China used bombs and rockets during the 1200s.CHSGHSF 22:58, 12 January 2007 (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

wikipedia: cannons "Fire lances", gunpowder-propelled arrows, were used in China from at least 1132. The first documented record of artillery with gunpowder propellent used on the battlefield is on January 28, 1132 when General Han Shizhong of the Song Dynasty used escalade and Huochong to capture a city in Fujian. In 1221, cast iron bombs thrown by hand, sling, and catapult are mentioned. Somewhere around 1249, the Chinese of the Song Dynasty began to load early gunpowder in the middle of thick bamboo as a projection firearm, firing clay pellets like a shotgun.

Around the time of the wars between the Mongols and the Song Dynasty (1268-1279), mortars with bronze tubes or bronze first appeared.[3] (However, the earliest certain example is dated 1332). Additionally, the Chinese and Mongols took up the use of "true" gunpowder instead of the slower-burning older mixture - which made this early cannon, known as the Huochong, more reliable and powerful. During wartime, the Chinese used the early gunpowder weapons in defence against the Mongols, mounting more than 3,000 bronze and iron casted cannons on the Great Wall of China. The weapon was taken up by the Mongol conquerors later, and was also used in Korea. Many of the earliest weapons seem to primarily have functioned as psychological weapons, a trait gunpowder..."

-intranetusa

[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).
I modified the terminology in a way that I think makes the history of the development of gunpowder more clear. I changed the language of the history section to make it consistent with our own definitions. I'm sure some Sinophiles will object that I am not applying, as Needham does, the name "gunpowder" to even the most accidental combination of saltpetre and anything. But we must ask ourselves whether our aim is to glorify the history of China or to provide users an understanding of the development of saltpetre explosives. My terminology is consistent with the definition and use of the term gunpowder everywhere else in the article. We only changed the definition in the history section so that we could claim it was invented in China, even though there is no Chinese recipe for actual gunpowder before Roger Bacon. By actual gunpowder, I mean exactly what we said at the top of the article, black powder or smokeless powder. The Chinese recipes given in the 1044 Wu Ching Tsung Yao are certainly not gunpowder. They fall under the "big sticky mess" category. The Huo Lung Ching recipes from c. 1350 are a little better, but still not Bacon's black powder. The first Chinese recipe cited by Needham for black powder is from 1628 (Needham v.7, p. 345). We need to make this clear to our users. Ocanter 00:58, 27 February 2007 (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)

In regards to eastern vs. western cannons, I think west surpassed china/korea/japan by 16th century. the korean cannons that wikimachine refers to were used by koreans during the japanese invasion of korea in late 16th century, and was quite good at the time and used effectively against mostly cannonless japanese troops. But, korean records show that the cannon's that chinese allies deployed were superior to korean's. And these chinese cannon's were chinese copies of dutch and portugese breech-loading cannons as its names were "red foreigner's cannon" and "portugese cannon" referring to Dutch and Portugese. After the war, koreans also copied the dutch and portugese cannons and equipped its military. Anyway, who care who invented exact formula for black powder, the biggest contribution of gunpowder discovery is clearly the chinese, so they deserve the credit. Clearly the development of gunpowder was evolutionary process, but the origin along with bulk of evolutionary steps belong to the Chinese. -DK

You ask, "Who care (sic) who invented the exact formula for black powder?" Well, I would think anyone looking up an article on the history of gunpowder would care. The discovery of the black powder formula was a crucial step, perhaps as crucial as the discovery of saltpetre aided combustion itself, and unfortunately, the sources we've mentioned so far do not cover this crucial period. More primary sources on Islamic saltpetre explosives would be helpful. Ocanter 12:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
It is clear that the modern formula for black powder arrived at the current state through evolutionary process. The formula originally quoted by Bacon is no longer the optimal formula, and exact composition has been changing throughout history even after discovery of smokeless gunpowder. If that is the case, Bacon's formula should be looked at as a chain in an evolution of gunpowder formula. It is an important link in the chain, and an important evidence, but it shouldn't be used to discredit chinese's dominance in the origin of gunpowder. We will never know who discovered black powder, but we know which civilization had the most profound influence on original development of gunpowder. Europeans dominant contribution to the gunpowder technology in the latter half of the millenium is unquestioned, but it is origin of the technology that shows overwhelming evidence in favor of chinese not to mention commonly held belief.
I'm not exactly sure what you're saying. I think you just agreed with everything I said, but I can't tell. The precise meaning of your conclusion isn't clear to me, becauase the English grammar is confused. You said, "It is origin of the technology that shows overwhelming evidence in favor of chinese not to mention commonly held belief." I assume you mean, "There is overwhelming evidence in favor of the view that Chinese originally invented the technology, and this is the commonly held belief." I agree with that statement, except I think we need to be clear what we mean by "the technology." I think it is clear from my recent edits exactly what role those early Chinese engineers played and what the state of the technology was at the time of Bacon's reference (the earliest extant reference) to black powder. Ocanter 19:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure what YOU're saying. Because I wasn't agreeing with you. You're saying "discovery of the black powder formula was a crucial step, perhaps as crucial as the discovery of saltpetre aided combustion itself", and I'm saying "no, it isn't, it's just a link in a long chain of the gun powder evolutionary step". Anyway, thank you for taking time to repeat what I wrote in correct grammar. I wish I had the time you have to correct everyone else's grammar. Most people who are proficient in English will not have a problem understanding, however, I understand some people are sticklers for grammar. Anyway, I was stating relative unimportance of Bacon's formula, and that Chinese influence on the gunpowder technology shouldn't be understated just because no one knows who wrote down the first black powder formula. Your writing feels more like, "Yes, chinese invented early gunpowder technology, but oldest black powder formula in written form was produced in west, and no one knows who first found the formula, so every one should be credited." Yes, my statement exaggerates and simplifies your view, but it is your article's underlying thesis, which I don't agree with. I see where you're coming from, but I just have different opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.148.10.43 (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
That is very close to my "thesis," if you wish to call it that, but it is different in one critical way. I am not saying:
"Yes, Chinese invented early gunpowder technology, but oldest black powder formula in written form was produced in West, and no one knows who first found the formula, so every one should be credited."
I am saying:
"Yes, Chinese invented early saltpetre explosives, but the oldest black powder formula in written form was produced in the West, and the fact is that no one knows who first invented black powder."
I am not saying who "should be credited." I'm leaving that to the reader. The question of who invented gunpowder is essentially a semantic question: "What does the word 'gunpowder' mean?" The semantic issue has caused tremendous confusion. This is a very common problem in the historicity of technology. As long as we keep the terminology clear, I think the reader can decide for himself.
Joseph Needham takes essentially your approach. He views all Chinese saltpetre technology as steps toward refining black powder. He further conjectures (without offering any evidence) that Chinese firecrackers containing black powder were imported into Europe at that time, and that Bacon somehow learned or figured out their composition and wrote it down. However, this approach is based on Needham's quite openly stated aim of showing that Chinese people are not intellectually inferior to Europeans. Perhaps when Needham began his work, in that time and place, that was a necessary thing for a historian of China to show. Anyway, you have to take that into account when you look at his analysis of Chinese "gunpowder." He lists centuries of accumulated recipes, the lists the percentages in three columns, "KNO3 %, S %, C %," lumping all the honey, animal parts, and all that other crap together as "carbonaceous material." This implies (quite falsely) that those alchemists knew what the element carbon was (they didn't), that they were trying to isolate carbon from those various ingredients (they weren't), and that they somehow didn't figure out that more saltpetre makes a bigger boom (I have a hard time believing they were that stupid). So Needham's view (which seems to also be your view) of the "evolution of gunpowder" has a chauvinistic objective, about which Needham is quite honest, and it relies on concepts that as far as the sources show, were not present in Chinese science at that time.
I think your criticism is valid, and if you have any actual information on the development of black powder (especially some Islamic sources) or on the early Chinese propellants (which might properly be called "gunpowder" simply because of their application), it would be very helpful to the article if you would add them. I didn't write the article; I just made a few recent edits to make the terminology more clear. I also added the caveat that Bacon himself didn't invent black powder based on your criticism (I assume it was yours). But regarding the early Chinese propellants, we really need primary sources or really good archaeology if we're going to try to say what they were composed of or how powerful they were. And I think we should keep the terminology as clear as possible. I don't really mind if another editor wants to call the early Chinese propellants "early gunpowder," but we should be clear about the composition of these mixtures, their application, and their potency.
By the way, I think that the old Chinese military technology (the treatises, at least, and presumably the actual weapons) were cool as all hell. I am not trying to downplay their accomplishments at all. Rather, I'm trying to present all the information in an unbiased way. Ocanter 18:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


Yes, Needham's view is how I feel about the topic mostly. I really can't comment on whether Needham had bias in favor of chinese, but I can see how that is possible. Thanks for the useful background information on schools of thought on this issue. I wasn't the person who raised the issue regarding Bacon's formula originally, but he/she probably had similar feelings towards the article. I think "early gunpowder" is easier to understand than saltpetre powder for most readers out there and would appease people who feel that somehow the article has a disconnect between gunpowder and saltpetre mixture. I feel more comfortable with the article after reading where you're coming from though. Appreciate your comments. Also, there is another article for "black powder" which takes more sino-centric view of this. I think it'd be better if the two articles merge or at least sing the same tune, or we can define gunpowder loosely in this article and include history of smokeless powder and other similar mixtures. That way gunpowder is more generic and black powder is more specific. -DK —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.148.92.42 (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
I agree they should be merged. Most of the stuff in the black powder article belongs here, since it mostly deals with pre-black powder Chinese explosives. The black powder article should just talk about black powder, IMO. I see what you're saying about the disconnect. Perhaps it should be smoother. Ocanter 23:55, 26 March 2007 (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)

Uh, that formula you just quoted is a recipe for gunpowder, dude. Mix some up if you don't believe me, but do it outside, and be careful. It's also the earliest written formula for gunpowder that I have found. The Chinese recipes are not for gunpowder, at least not as we defined that term, and as it is generally used. If you can show me one before Bacon's, I would love to see it--Arab, Chinese, German, whatever. Ocanter 17:37, 27 February 2007 (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)

First, Korea wasn't the second civilization to inherit black powder as we don't know who really discovered it, I guess we do know that Korea wasn't the country that first discovered the black powder, since Choi apparently spy'd off the technology from china. second, efficient is a relative term and it's meaningless, unless Choi mu sun had knowledge of how west and other nations produced gunpowder. We know production of gunpowder was still very expensive and arduous process in Korea (as well as every other nations) as late as 1590's. So, I really don't see how koreans were relevant to the gunpowder history. This article would be a big mess if we include histories of how each nation gained access to gunpowder technology. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.148.10.43 (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

[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.


Well I made gunpowder a couple of times but used potassium chloride instead, got it from a pharmacy (I think it's for sore throats lol). Anyway they replaced the pharmacy with a bank and I haven't gotten any potassium chloride since ) : . Slartibartfast1992 21:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yo dude, those things are two entirely different substances- u can kill yurself- Odst 05:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude, I know what I'm talking about. Both these chemicals barely make a difference, and if they do (since i've only tried it with potassium chloride) I suppose potassium nitrate is more dangerous, since I figure it's a more powerful oxidizing agent. They're both oxidizing agents, so I don't think there's much of a difference there. Trust me, when it comes to chemistry and combustion, I know. Besides, they're compounds -the word substances seems imprecise-. Slartibartfast1992 16:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

GaaaaaaaaaaaaaHHH!! whats the differense between substance and compound? Odst 03:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Compound: chemical substance containing more than one element with these elements bonded chemically. Substance: physical matter or material. Lol really not much of a difference but I like to be precise (: Slartibartfast1992 22:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[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)

Isn't there a smokeless powder article ? --Svartalf 12:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

See Smokeless powder - might be a recent spin-off from this article. --CliffC 14:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is almost entirely about Black powder, I'm thinking the two should be merged, with a link to smokeless in the lead to clarify. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that something should be done about the organization of these articles; there are currently three articles about two closely related subjects. One option would be to make "Gunpowder" into a disambiguation article with links to black powder and smokeless powder (and I guess gunpowder tea). Another, as Night Gyr suggests, would be to have "Gunpowder" redirect to Black powder, and give that article a prominent link to Smokeless powder. I'm inclined to think the first option is best. KarlBunker 20:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Food adulterant

I've had several allusions in western movies and books to gunpowder being used (presumably as a noxious adulterant used for expediency) in alcohol (whiskey/moonshine) manufacture. Would anybody have sources on this or on the origin of the legend? --Svartalf 12:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This site claims gunpowder was used to "proof" whiskey. Nothing about drinking it as a mixture, but I'm guessing the saltpeter content might have an undesirable effect. --CliffC
I have heard of this also. Recently there was a boy who was popular in the news who was forced to use marijuanna and drink gunpowder and was given a gun to shoot "rebels" or something. He wrote a book about his childhood. I also read a bit about people mixing a bit with rum. I have heard claims about it acting like a stimulant, but that very well could be placebo.
When doing searches about it I only pull up stuff about using it to "proof" alcohol. I only found one source after somewhat extensive searching to a message board where one person claimed to have put some in rum during his hard biking/drinking days at a particular bar. I'm also very interested in the effects of consuming this. Partially because finding info about it seems so elusive. If anybody knows anything please say it, and maybe a part of it can appear on the main page.Rjkd12 14:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It is a fact that gunpowder was used to proof alcohol in the UK. I need to find a source, but in effect the alcohol was diluted with water in stages until gunpowder wetted with this water/alcohol mixture would not burn. It also means that some strong alcohols can be more than 100% proof. It is a laboratory test: the alcohol/water/gunpowder mixture is not drunk.Pyrotec 17:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pink powder and Smoke powder/Smokeless powder and Black powder

regarding this revision : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gunpowder&diff=109607783&oldid=109429068 The first line of this article refers to two kinds of gunpowder - it used to say Smokeless powder and Black powder, but someone's changed it to Pink powder and Smoke powder, and those links don't point anywhere. I don't know anything about gunpowder, so I don't know which of these names is better. If it's an issue, maybe it's worth throwing some redirects up, but I don't know. I'm just gonna switch it back. --Tocky 06:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

Is there a reason saltpeter is spelled saltpetre? SpicyDragonZ 20:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's the more common British spellling. I was just following Needham, but I don't care if you change it. Ocanter 12:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Blackpowder

Both myself and Eiorgiomugini have identified various good points in the Blackpowder 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 that article. Today I was intending to layout a new framework with the aim of doubling, or more, the size of that 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, Gunpowder, this article, already covers the same topic area. My proposal is to merge the two articles into Gunpowder and make the Blackpowder article a redirect page. I would like, also, to aim to double the size of the combined article. Pyrotec 11:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Note of clarification. My knowledge only extends to a western view point; both articles include the prehistory of gunpowder and add information from Arab and Chinese sources. These should also be expanded article, but it is something that I am not able to do myself.Pyrotec 11:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/u/n/Talk%7EGunpowder_76bf.html"