Talk:Gunpowder/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Other Uses?

Gunpowder has been used as a rocket propellant for centuries, mostly for fireworks, but more recently by model rocket hobbyists. I've read that rocket propellant uses a different mixture, but there's no mention of this in the article. The article focuses almost exclusively on gunpowder's role in firearms (which, granted, was once its major use), but makes little mention of other uses, and no mention of modern use of gunpowder. This shouldn't be an article about "gunpowder for firearms," it should be about gunpowder. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The "gunpowder" that this article talks about has essentially been obsolete since the Second World War (or 1960s) depending on your point of view; but it is still used by enactment societies recreating old battles and in display fireworks. What is (erroneously) called gunpowder for modern firearms is described in Smokeless powder (and also Cordite, Ballistite and, historically, Poudre B). There is also an article on modern gunpowder (old definition) substitutes here - Black powder substitute.Pyrotec (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I believe that's wrong. Black powder is still used as a rocket propellant by model rocket hobbyists. (I can tell by the sulfur smell.) The smoke trail helps track the rocket. Second, it's irrelevant. Black powder was used as a propellant for rockets and fireworks for a long time. My point is not that it has other uses today. It has always had other uses. It's not just used for guns. I'm curious about how the mixture varies when using it as a propellant, and this article doesn't provide a clue. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 04:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I misunderstood the question. It's obsolete for military rockets, but yes it is still used for fireworks and in some countries it may be used by model rocket hobbyists. I don't think the proportions of the ingredients are different; it think it is a case of selecting a suitable grain size or a blend of grain sizes, and a suitable packing density, to provide the correct burning characteristics, and for the weight of the "payload". I guess the answer is that the people with that type of knowledge have not added it to the article. If you have a reference(s), by all means add it (them) to the article, or add it (them) to this talkpage.Pyrotec (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

For propellant use, grain size isn't an issue, because it's all one big grain. Cracks in the block of fuel are a problem because they cause the propellant to burn too fast. I read somewhere that a different mixture works better for rocket fuel, because you want it to burn much more slowly. If I find a good reference, I'll add something. Also, if it used to be used for military rockets, that's also worth mentioning, even if that was hundreds of years ago. I don't know anything about that. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Image

The image in this "gunpowder" article shows smokeless powder (grey). Shouldn't that image be used in the "black powder substitutes" page, and an image of actual black traditional gunpowder be used in this article? Why bother showing the smokeless powder image at all, when there is a separate article for that topic? 98.218.179.239 (talk) 03:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I fully agree with you.Pyrotec (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom

There was no United Kingdom in the 13th century, so how could gunpowder have been produced in it? Furthermore the substitution of the term "British Isles" with "Britain" conflicts with the fact that the other places listed are geographical regions. I would also suggest replacing "The Crown" with "the English Crown", since a Scottish Crown also existed at the time, which is not the one intended. ðarkuncoll 21:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The section is a "work in progress". You are correct that there was no United Kingdom in the 13th century, so the 13th century references refer to the respective Kingdoms of England and Scotland. However, gunpowder was made in Ireland (near Cork) upto the early 20th Century (1920s), in Wales upto (possibly) the early 1930s, in England upto the the mid 1940s and in Scotland upto about 1976. It is lunacy have seperate sections covering the Kingdom of England, the Kingdom of Scotland, the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It makes for more sense to have a single section called the "United Kingdom", but to make it clear, that at the begining we are refering to the separate Kingdoms of England and Scotland; and that prior to the formation of the Irish Republic, what we now know as southern Ireland was part of the United Kingdom (of Great Britian and Ireland). Pyrotec (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"British Isles" covers all that precisely and succinctly, yet an editor recently removed it. ðarkuncoll 21:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"United Kingdom" also covers it, and more accurately, since Ireland was part of the UK at that time. --HighKing (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I had to read the British Isles article to verify that it included Ireland (north & south) - it does. Apparently, "the term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland". I intend to include a discussion in this section, sometime, of Ballincollig Royal Gunpowder Mills; which at the time were in United Kingdom of Great Britian and Ireland / British Isles. I don't have any strong views as to whether "UK" or British Isles be used as the section title. No doubt that will start further edit wars. Pyrotec (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The UK was established in 1801, and most of Ireland left in 1922. To use the term when discussing anything prior to 1801, or to southern Ireland after 1922, is simply wrong. British Isles, as a geographical term, avoids all such political considerations. ðarkuncoll 22:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

British Isles also covers the Isle of Man, and the Channel Islands. Was gunpowder produced there too? If not, then "Great Britain and Ireland" would be far more accurate. --HighKing (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That's complete rubbish, HK, and you know it. Was it produced in Co. Kerry (for example)? If not, then to say "Ireland" is wrong too by your logic. ðarkuncoll 22:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the more clear open close cases. There is every reason to say British isles, and NO justification for its removal at all. Complete rubbish is what came to my mind too. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears that this discussion has no relevance whatsoever to gunpowder, merely "PC" gone made. Pyrotec (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree totally, and this is just one of a very large number of articles that the editor in question has disrupted by forcing a discussion completely irrelevant to the subject matter. ðarkuncoll 22:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Well ive changed the title back to British Isles, putting the UK there just makes no sense at all. Not sure if its best to say England where it does now or if that should be changed back to British Isles, i dont have strong feelings on that change, but the title change highking made was clearly incorrect. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The disruption caused by the desire of HK to eliminate British Isles is preposterous. Yes, it is PC gone mad. Who ever heard of the UK being used in the context of the 1300s. Has this article been changed back? If not, I'll do so now. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine. It's been changed. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It has been stated above the prior to 1801, the separate kingdoms should be used. Initially I'm only talking about the Kingdom of England in the 13th Century, I've not researched the Kingdom of Scotland yet. In the 19th century County Cork only had gunpowder mills because the UK was concerned about fighting the Napoleonic Wars and more domestic capacity was needed - and that needed water power. Pyrotec (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Woops sorry, whilst the change i made (changing UK title back to British Isles) as it was originally put, i though that was the edit HighKing made, thats who i meant when i put about POV in the edit summary, not you Pyrotec, sorry. Title should stay British Isles, it makes clear and logical sense to use and Highkings attempts to change it to Britain were totally unacceptable. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is this a separate section?

What isn't obvious to me is why this should be a separate section at all, rather than being subsumed into an overall Europe section. Development of the the technology in different parts of Europe did not proceed asynchronously (as for example it did in China v-a-v Europe). Separating out UK development from the rest of Europe is just silly nationalism to the disadvantage of treatment of the topic. --Red King (talk) 10:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Not all gunpowders are equal. UK development of methods of making gunpowder was separate from that in other nations. In the 19th century, British Express gunpowders developed for dangerous game hunting were more refined and and gave more power per weight than formulae and methods used for standard gunpowder. In a similar manner today the Swiss gunpowders are esteemed for more consistent performance and higher power levels than other makes of gunpowder. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 11:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Gunpowder article contradicting

This gunpowder article is contradicting with history of gunpowder article. This says that Europeans or Germanic people invented gun powder and the history article says that gunpowder was invented in China and transported to Europe. There is no evidence of gunpowder in other countries except China. Read the article and please stop inserting pro-Western, European bias into the article without any source. It looks childish. 97.124.252.51 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC).

Gunpowder article contradicting

This gunpowder article is contradicting with history of gunpowder article. This says that Europeans or Germanic people invented gun powder and the history article says that gunpowder was invented in China and transported to Europe. There is no evidence of gunpowder in other countries except China. Read the article and please stop inserting pro-Western, European bias into the article without any source. It looks childish. 97.124.252.51 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC).

The history is that Roger Bacon and others were the first to document, record, and publish gunpowder formulae and the results of experiments with proportions of ingredients and methods of making. They learned about gunpowder in a round about way because such knowledge had usually been treated as military secret by the Chinese then the Arabs as the knowledge came westward to the Europeans. Somehow as time passed the published documentarians were credited as the inventors of what they were studying, due in part to European nationalism (particularly the British and Germans) and due in part to the Scientific Method (he who documents and publishes first gets the credit of discovery). Firearms historian WHB Smith "Small Arms of the World" 1966 chapter "Origins of Gunpowder and Firearms" cites chemist J.K. Partington who traced gunpowder records back to 1000 A.D. China. Of the European writings about gunpowder by Marcus Graecus, Roger Bacon, and Albertus Magnus, only Bacon's work could be reliably dated (1248 and 1268). -- Naaman Brown (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Lord of War reference

The “Other uses” section says:

The film Lord of War alludes to African civil wars of the twentieth-century, such as the Angola War and its cheap drug mixture of cocaine and gunpowder, taken by snorting like a snuff.

But from the time period depicted in the period (and from the weapons shown in the film), it seems highly unlikely that the gunpowder used there would be the black powder described in the rest of the article. The example should be deleted or at least amended with a note of this fact. bogdanb (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Manufacturing procedure

I happen to have a book from the 1800's that gives a detailed, step-by-step process on the manufacturing on gunpowder. I wanted to check to see if this was ok to post in the article, or whether it would be too much. Can anyone tell me? Thanks. Watersoftheoasis (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

If no one responds, I'll just assume that this is a yes... Watersoftheoasis (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be a great addition as a section with a good summary. What's the name of the book? --HighKing (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The book is "Ordinance and Gunnery" by Captain James G. Benton of the Ordinance Department of West Point. The book was first printed in 1859. There is a whole chapter on gunpowder, and within the chapter, the process of manufacturing gunpowder is described in detail. Considering this is an older book, how detailed should I describe the process based from the book? Watersoftheoasis (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Gunpowder → Black powder — "Gunpowder" is an ambiguous term that can refer both to historical potassium nitrate gunpowder ("black powder") and modern nitrocellulose gunpowder ("smokeless powder"). In practice, it is probably most often used in modern English to refer to the modern formulation, but in any case, reserving this title for the historical formulation is not correct. It's better to have a version of the disambiguation page here at "Gunpowder" instead, bearing in mind that the dabpage can be rewritten to emphasize the current first listed item over the others. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Gunpowder (disambiguation) → Gunpowder

• Oppose WP:COMMONNAME and current WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is the traditional form of black powder, smokeless powder is smokeless powder or nitrocellulose. If you're going for generalities, cordite is also called gunpowder. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 04:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment if you search for a gunpowder formula, it's almost always the traditional black powder, so obviously not smokeless. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Gunpowder is the mixture of saltpetre, sulphur, and charcoal (as per the OED's definition) and I've always assumed that any other propellants and explosives would be "smokeless powder" or "cordite" or whatever, never gunpowder. But apparently in some fields (forensics for example) "gunpowder" is used as a general term to cover all propellants, though even then the others are usually called "smokeless gunpowder". So it may strictly be ambiguous, but in common usage it's a synonym for "black powder" and thus a WP:Hatnote would be all that is required here? –Syncategoremata (talk) 04:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment a hatnote should suffice to provide some disambiguation. --HighKing (talk) 09:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Cordite is not gunpowder and in British-English gunpowder does not refer to modern nitrocelluse propellants - its mostly American-English where this ambiguity arises. Pyrotec (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose In special effects and display fireworks, we differentiate between gunpowder (typically used as a lifting charge) and smokeless powder (typically used as a effect). Gunpowder ALWAYS refers to black powder, not nitrocellulose to the technicians I've dealt with. A WP:Hatnote does make sense though. DJSparky ^huh? 22:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose For the reasons given by everyone else. Have never even heard of black powder. Gunpowder is the common name. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Besides

In modern scientific works the catchall phrase for both black and smokeless powders used in firearms is gun propellant not gunpowder, as a Google Books or Scholar search will show. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Chemistry of Gunpowder

There's a lot of literature on this, and the two formulas given in the article don't correspond at all to the real ratios of components in gunpowder. In the 1882 Proceedings of the Royal Society, there is an excellent paper by Prof H. Debus. It emphasizes the highly complex and variable nature of the reaction, but he finds a very good fit to empirical data by a two stage reaction. First an exothermic "explosive" reaction:

16KNO3 + 13C + 5S = 3K2CO3 + 5K2SO4 + 9CO2 + CO + 8N2

And secondary endothermic reactions that consume excess carbon and sulphur, yielding extra gas volume:

4K2SO4 + 7C = 2K2CO3 + 2K2S2 + 5CO2

4K2CO3 + 7S = 3K2S2 + 4CO2

He found that the typical formula for gunpowder was very close to ratios that he determined would result in maximum work. Mine blasting powder often has more carbon, which was cheaper and produced even more gas volume. DonPMitchell (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The article also says that water is a product which is clearly nonsense.194.72.120.131 (talk) 09:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

(To the IP user) No, you appear to be mis-reading it. The words state "55.91% solid products: potassium carbonate, potassium sulfate, potassium sulfide, sulfur, potassium nitrate, potassium thiocyanate, carbon, ammonium carbonate. 42.98% gaseous products: carbon dioxide, nitrogen, carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen, methane, 1.11% water.". The combustion is likely to have been carried out in a sealed vessel and the "fact" that ammonium carbonate, hydrogen sulphide, hydrogen, methane and water was produced, all of which contain hydrogen atoms, suggests several possibilities: the gunpowder was fired in the vessel in air containing moisture (source of hydrogen for the hydrogen sulphide, the ammonium carbonate, the hydrogen, the methane and the moisture), the charcoal was not fully carbonised and contained some residual hydrocarbons (or, more more likely, contained moisture). The description is undoubtedly describing the combustion products that were found by experiment; not what is written in the equation(s) above. Unfortunately that statement has no citation, so it is not possible (at the moment) to find out how those results were obtained. Pyrotec (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The article also claims that charcoal's empirical formula is C7H4O. Is this correct? When I search for the empirical formula of charcoal, I generally come up with C. The only time I've seen C7H4O is in Yahoo Answers etc., where they clearly cite this article for their source. The exact formula would have a large effect on the balanced reaction, and help to explain where the product of water comes from. 2 Jul 2013

Something I noticed

Ok, so a bunch of people are arguing on here as to whether or not smokeless powder belongs on this page. As of now, the name of this article is "Gunpowder", a term which encompasses both black and smokeless. The requested move to "Black Powder" received no consensus. If this is indeed supposed to be about Black Powder, then the move should be re-requested, and something should be done about it. Until then, please stop bickering because, as it stands, the name of the article says that this is about gunpowder in general. Thank you,Hawkrawkr (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

No it does not. Smokeless powders are not gunpowder, but they are used in guns. The term "blackpowder" was introduced in the late 1880s for gunpowder when smokeless powders began to be used, to distinguish gunpowder from smokeless powders. As stated above, some people have not heard of the term black powder, so it makes sense to continue to use the title Gunpowder. Pyrotec (talk) 11:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the dictionary, gunpowder is "an explosive mixture, used in shells and cartridges, in fireworks, for blasting, etc. " By definition, smokeless powder is gunpowder. As someone who is an avid gun enthusiast and historical scholar, I happen to know the difference between the two. Both are gunpowder, given the names "black" and "smokeless" to distinguish between them, the reason being that smokeless powder would have (and did) exploded the barrels of guns built for use with black powder. Both are gunpowder, they are merely different formulas that produce similar results.-Hawkrawkr (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you obviously do not know the difference. According to the dictionary (Concise Oxford Dictionary, 10th edition, 1999), gunpowder: (1) an explosive mixture consisting of a powdered mixture of saltpetre, sulphur and charcoal; (2) a fine green tea (I fully accept that this is not an explosive, I've drunk it). Nowadays, sulphur would be spelt sulfur, but saltpeter and saltpetre are valid terms depending on origin of the editor/reader. I would also direct your attention to the U.S. Department of Transportation; US Federal Explosives Law and a Firearms Newsletter published by Attorney Jessie C. Cohen for the Massachusetts gun owner (http://www.attorneycohen.com/Jan%2008%20Firearms%20Newsletter.pdf copy here). There is a clear legal distinction between black powder/gun powder and smokeless propellants (and ammunition); and they have different UN numbers/transportation categories/storage requirements. That also applies across Europe, via European and national laws. Gunpowder/black powder and smokeless powders have very different combustion characteristics: the burning rates, peak pressures, vivacity, and rate of change of pressure with temperature of black powders/gunpowders are very different from that of smokeless powders, and that required a redesign of guns - large as well as small. It also lead to different "family" of smokeless powders, single base, double base and triple base (not all of which found use in the US), plus hexagonal powders for ships' guns - now obsolete. That distinction between gunpowder/black powder and smokeless powders is well documented in respect of the US, particularly Dupont/Du Pont (the family name and the company name are written differently). Gunpowder/black powder is effectly obsolete, but is used in fireworks and by firearms reinactment societies, but smokeless powders are not, in general, obsolete. Pyrotec (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Most, if not all, smokeless powders are/were proprietary, in the US for example Hercules Powder Company and Atlas Powder Company, in the UK Nobel Neonites, Cordite, etc; so a smokeless powder would be specified by its name (and possibly ballistic size), not its grain size (F, FF, etc for the US, sieve mesh size for the UK). The manufacturing processes for black powder/gunpowder and smokeless powders are entirely different, as is their combustion chemistry, most of the testing and quality control (apart from ballistic testing - using the laboratory and/or live firings) and their degradation (stability) is different, so I see little advantage in merging smokeless powders into this article on gunpowder, which is what you appear to be suggesting in your first comment - but its not entirely clear what you are asking for other than a "stop to bickering". It would considerably help if you could clarify the point of your first comment. Pyrotec (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

MY POINT? 1.) This bickering is a pointless waste of time, as, BY DEFINITION, smokeless powder is a form of gunpowder. The following is a direct quote from Dictionary.com. "Gunpowder: an explosive mixture, as of potassium nitrate, sulfur, and charcoal, used in shells and cartridges, in fireworks, for blasting, etc.". In case you are not very familiar with the English language, AS OF means FOR EXAMPLE, the English equivalent of the Latin Exempli Gratia.
2.) You are arguing for the sake of arguing, as you are contesting what I just said while trying to say the exact same thing. (i.e. that guns had to be redesigned to accommodate smokeless gunpowder(as the New Book of Knowledge equates it, copyright 1979, Grolier International), as it could burst the barrel of a black powder weapon.
3.) This argument is not currently worth my time, as I currently have much more pressing matters on my plate. With all due respect, Hawkrawkr (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that your point was only about bickering. Pyrotec (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Delay-train

My attempts to find a reference for the use in the delay-trains of grande only found WWII-era grenades. Unless someone knows of more recent designs using that, I'll change the text. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject

This tag has been up since 2008, can someone reiterate which sources are of concern? Perhaps it should be moved to the appropriate section(s), if any. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)