Talk:Gunpowder/Archive 6

Europe

Guys, The information regarding Europe is minimal in the article and it reads like the early advances were the be-all-end-all of gunpowder. It would be nice to have the Italian and the German schools mentioned and the the advances made by the Europeans in the 17th century.

My personal sentiments are one of those who opposed the Satsuma Rebellion and favoured the incorporation of western military and it's techniques into Japan. The contributions of the west are sorely missing and the article is based almost completely on initial mentions. The British development, in particular, is also missing.

Any opinions?

Moerou toukon 15:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I would like to at least double the length of the article and include a lot of the recent manufacturing technology. In the UK we have over 300 years of recorded manufacture, sometimes on the same site. The Tower of London is reported to have made it in 1346. The UK stopped making gunpowder in the 1960s and the USA (well at least du Pont) stopped in the 1970's. Within that time, we went from manual power, to water power, steam power and electricity. Raw materials were often purified on the same site. So there are all the different charcoals; potassium nitrate, first made from basically urine through to imported potassium nitrate. Production of gunpowder was set up like a modern assembly line, so there is preparation of raw materials, mixing, pressing, glazing, packing, proofing, etc. There are the different grades (grain size) of powder; and the military had a sulphur-less version. Possibly we could include some uses of gunpowder, like quick match, primed cambric, etc.

The problem, as I see it, is that the USA's definition of gunpowder includes blackpowder and smokeless powder; and we already have a gunpowder, a blackpowder and a smokeless powder article. Whilst I would like to considerable expand the gunpowder (and the black powder) article, I cannot see what the difference between the blackpowder and the gunpowder articles is meant to be. It does not make sense to expand Gunpowder to include both black powder and smokeless powder, because the definitions are different, the raw materials are different and the manufacturing processes and technology is different. To me the next step is to (I would suggest and so have others) combine black powder and gunpowder. Pyrotec 17:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The mention of recent manufacturing technology sounds very good, would raise the value of information exponentially. I can provide some material for the European schools and I'll try to find a citation for the Tower of London as well. I can certainly promise Italian and German schools within the next 24 hours though as they were the first citations I procured before initiating this discussion. As for the problem, we can wait for the merge regarding the more contentious points. I also stumbled across more theories of the purported spread of gunpowder but lost them. I believe you should write on the British historical uses of gunpowder and expand the history section as you seem well versed in it; I'll try to contribute and bring some sources and quotes about that subject as well. Regards, Moerou toukon 22:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've had to format a system and perform exhaustive maintainence so a minor expansion will have to do for now. Will add more details about France, Italy, Germany and Dutch use later preferably with their own smaller subsections. Will also add more to the England section. Moerou toukon 10:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Pyrotec, I think I agree with what you're saying about the terminology. What would you think about basically making this article's history section contain a detailed discussion of everything through black powder (merging the black powder history into this article), then a general discussion of the later propellants, with links to those pages?

I also agree that our definition, "either black powder or smokeless powder," is a bit weird. That is apparently a technical definition, and honestly, I cannot find it in print anywhere. I don't think it's simply "the USA definition." I think it's somebody's technical terminology, which I cannot find in print anywhere but here.

I think our definition should basically be OED's, but we should also mention Needham's terminology and POV, as well as the most general definition of the term, which is what is found in American Heritage: "Any of various explosive powders used to propel projectiles from guns, especially a black mixture of potassium nitrate, charcoal, and sulfur." Then the history will make more sense as well. It will explain why we are following the OED definition, but covering the more general class of propellants in the history section. Let me know what you guys think. Ocanter 18:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The new information on Europe is helpful, but we should be careful about finding primary sources, and especially careful about not plagiarizing secondary sources. The initial paragraph about Europe was lifted from Encarta (in which context it sort of made sense). We should either paraphrase it or present it as a direct quote. Encarta doesn't cite any primary sources for any of that information. We should be able to do better. Also, it should all go under history. What about moving "Europe" to a subheading of "history," and creating subheadings for India, China, Islam, etc.?

Encarta's theory about the Mongol invasion of Europe was interesting, but the author's confidence that "scholars generally agree" about that is puzzling. Ocanter 18:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I find that some mistakes are generally present in most extant accounts. I'm sorry my edits conflicted with your; I was not expecting anyone to edit since I was preparing the text in the Sandbox. This article's history section is bound to cross 30kbs on it's own and we have yet to elaborate on Turkey, middle east and Dutch use. Should we create a History of Gunpowder section? The present state is almost completely occupied by that section. Regards, Moerou toukon 18:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no, go ahead. I will wait until you're done, then take a look at it. I like the restructuring, but I thought some of the history POV was a little heavy-handed. more soon. Ocanter 19:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've edited enough for today and don't have the courage to search into university books anymore. I have been under health issues in real life and I guess it's begining to show on my work ethic. I'll expand sections later. I respect your judgement. If you feel that any violation of the core WP:NPOV has been done then please go ahead and fix it as you deem fit. Moerou toukon 19:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hope you feel better soon. Ocanter 20:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I moved around some of the text. I think the new order makes sense. I left most of Meatwagon's contributions, except that I clarified the terminology in certain places. The Wu Ching Tsung Yao contains a recipe for an early form of saltpetre explosives. Needham calls it gunpowder. That's his POV. Ocanter 17:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The phrase gunpowder doesnt deserve an article.

Disambiguation Smokeless modern propellents Black powder Black powder subsistutes —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.60.202.157 (talk) 03:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Moerou toukon

Checkuser has identified Moerou toukon as a likely sockpuppet of the Indian nationalist editor Freedom skies, who has a history of POV-pushing, suspect citations, edit-warring, personal attacks, and now sockpuppetry. JFD 07:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Moerou toukon has been permanently blocked as a sockpuppet. JFD 00:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Renaissance gunpowder

Doesn't have anything about gunpowder during the Renaissance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.100.10.57 (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

FYI

If anyone was wondering, I added the info and quote on 14th century Chinese gunpowder-packed explosive cannonballs. I believe more info needs to be said on the European and Islamic world front, however.--PericlesofAthens 13:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

India

So does this Professor Wilson have a given name or is he like Doctor Who? JFD 00:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I was not the editor, but it is a direct quote from Buchanan (2006), page 43. See Reference 38. Pyrotec 16:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I read the Bhattacharya chapter in Buchanan (2006), both the quotation on page 43 and its associated reference on page 50. Neither provides Professor Wilson's full name. It's just Bhattacharya's lone reference to "Professor Wilson" on page 43.

We know his last name is Wilson and we know that, as of 1848, he was Director of the Asiatic Society at Calcutta. That should be sufficient information to track him down. JFD 16:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Page 50 refers to Elliott, Volume VI, (1875). I have a copy, but it has no index. I will try and find the Wilson reference in Elliott and that means reading through Appendix A, which was copied from Volume I; but that will not happen before 22 May, as I have other priorities. Pyrotec 16:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, Moerou toukon/Freedom skies originally referred to Wilson as "Director of the Royal Asiatic Society," which is a total misrepresentation of Bhattacharya, who said that Wilson was "Director of the Asiatic Society at Calcutta". JFD 16:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If you follow the link to Asiatic Society it was formerly known as the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal. Perhaps you are being somewhat harsh on what could be a minor error, but I have no wish to participate in what appears to be an ongoing China - India war of words.Pyrotec 17:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

But there is a distinction between the two, one which Moerou toukon/Freedom skies attempts to hide by wikilinking to Royal Asiatic Society. And Bhattacharya himself refers to Wilson as, and I quote, "Director of the Asiatic Society at Calcutta," not the "Director of the Royal Asiatic Society".

I have known Freedom skies for too long to attribute this to error. Just this past week he tried something similar by claiming that Michael Witzel suggested that the Atharvaveda mentions the use of the water clock in India in the 2nd millennium BCE.[1] But when you go and verify the source he cited it's actually written by someone else.

You have access to the Buchanan and now the Elliot and can draw your own conclusions.

I understand your desire not to get involved in an apparent conflict.

Moerou toukon has been blocked permanently and Freedom skies placed on revert parole for the next 12 months.

For my part, I hope I can assure you by promising that, on the subject of gunpowder and related issues, I will not cite any source that is not published by a university press or in a peer-reviewed academic journal. And I will endeavor to cite the most up-to-date sources that I can.

JFD 17:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

To return to the issue of due weight, the Islamic world looms much larger in the history of gunpowder than India does. Heck, Berthold Schwarz looms larger in the history of gunpowder than India does. JFD 17:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It is my intention to considerable expand the United Kingdom section, as there is information on the last 150 years, possibly the last 300 years. As no one else has added much about the USA I was going to add more info on du Pont de Nemours; and the two sides in the War of Independence each sought their own production capability - but the USA is not my area of knowledge. I would also like to fill on stub on technology of gunpowder production over the last 300 years, or so. None of this will happen before June; at the moment I'm only looking at recent changes. Eventually this expansion should resolve any issue of due weight. Pyrotec 20:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind taking a look at the sources Freedom skies cites for references 39 through 42 and letting me know what you think? Also, I'm pretty sure "Professor Wilson" refers to H.H. Wilson and have edited the article accordingly. JFD 22:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I notice that most of the early Indian speculation has simply been deleted. There should be at least some explanation of the theory, if we are going to represent it. I thought the block quote from Wilson was worth reproducing, if it is accurate. Did you look it up? If you can't verify that it is falsified, I think it should be in there. Somebody should be able to research the proponents of that theory. Perhaps the Vedic references were rather more detailed than they needed to be, but if they are correct references, they should at least be mentioned. Did you look up that book? Most of the citations of Moerou's you've disputed have actually been close to correct. I honestly don't know the difference between the Asiatic Society of Calcutta and the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, and I don't really care. It was useful information, if the guy actually said it, whatever Asiatic society he was the director of. You started this dialogue by poisoning the well against Moerou, and you've ended it by essentially erasing all the information on early India. I'm not saying I buy the theory, but it should be represented, so people can research it if they want to. Ocanter 22:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Didn't Pyro give that reference above? "H.M. Elliott, The history of India . . ." It would be great if you could look these citations up before simply deleting them. If they're valid citations, they should be there, even if you don't agree with the theory. Ocanter 22:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked everything up.

I went so far as to check Moerou toukon's sources' sources, which is how I knew that Butalia's "some scholars" who interpret a mention in the Mahabharata of a "flying ball emitting the sound of a thundercloud" as artillery (Butalia 1998:19) was, in fact, a single scholar: Elliott (Butalia 1998:340).

Ocanter, you seem to be skeptical of multiculturalist POV-pushing, so I'll simply ask you not to lower your standards for Moerou toukon and his sources.

As for "Moerou toukon", if he wants to pretend to be a Japanese teen...well, he probably wouldn't be the first person on the Internet.

But if he's going to abuse sockpuppets—especially while an Arbitration over his conduct is going on—then any damage to his reputation is his own responsibility.

I don't see how my knowledge of his behavior obliges me to withhold his misconduct from other editors, especially when it's pertinent. JFD 02:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The most recent edit is better than what I was referring to above. I see that the quote from Wilson has been restored, so at least now it makes sense to criticize the theory. However, I'm confused by the last quote, "despite the presence of the ingredients required." Are we now implying that there is evidence that Hindus did in fact have saltpeter in Vedic times? If there is any such evidence, it certainly deserves some more attention. If not, the last quote is misleading. 171.64.141.148 19:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The last quote refers only to the "presence" in "early" times of the ingredients required for gunpowder including, I presume, saltpeter. It says nothing about Hindus "having" (i.e. possessing and presumably using) saltpeter in "Vedic" times, though it's not like that's ever stopped those determined to draw such conclusions. JFD 23:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, so it sounds like Wilson and Elliot are the grandfathers of this theory, and you said you have Elliot's book. The Vedic references were the main evidence given by Moerou, and they seem to be the main evidence we are still referring to in our discussion of Elliot, so I assumed that's what Wilson and Elliot were arguing from. The Vedas were written in "Vedic" times. Did you read Wilson and Elliot's argument, or did you just look up the quote? We should at least say from what evidence they are arguing. I can't believe Buchanan was referring to some unexploited nitre deposits somewhere, or that "early" should mean anything later than the Mongol conquests. Can you at least find what evidence Buchanan is referring to, regarding saltpeter in ancient India? If they really had saltpetre, we should say so. Much thanks, 171.64.136.161 22:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Buchanan's words justify no inference stronger than the naturally occurring presence of the ingredients required for gunpowder, including saltpeter, on the Indian subcontinent, an uncontroversial proposition.

And while the Vedas were doubtless written in "Vedic" times, neither Wilson nor Elliot argue from the Vedas.
And I know that because I read the argument. JFD 02:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Then why does it say, "Elliot (1875) suggested that saltpetre was possibly present in the explosives used in the fiery devices mentioned in the Mahabharata and Ramayana[44]"? 75.36.230.142 10:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The Mahabharata and Ramayana are not Vedas. JFD 10:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, "epic" times, whatever--at any rate, far earlier than ninth century AD Chinese alchemy. Ocanter 12:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Can I call complete BS?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder#Islam

In the Islam section, it mentions how Turks levelled the outer walls of Constantinople with several 90cm cannon firing 320kg projectiles over 1.6 km. Someone added a citation needed tag, but that's what I would call science-fiction, myself. For comparison, the main guns of the USS Iowa were 40cm bore, firing aerodynamic projectiles only four times that mass, up to ranges of 38km with a 300kg powder charge. This is using modern gunpowder, modern forging techniques, and a bore that's over 20 metres in length. I would imagine there would be no way to fire a 320kg projectile up to 1.6 km using slow-burning pre-modern gunpowder without having a bore too big to transport or a powder charge so large that it would blow apart the cannon when fired. --Jtgibson 22:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

NO, you should not call BS, see WP:Profanity, but you could express doubts about the statement. Gun design is not my speciality, so I run a risk of getting shot down.

The modern 20 metre barrel is to provide accuracy of shot; so if it is just a case of hitting a wall, a 20 metre barrel is unnecessary. I'm not sure what you mean by modern gunpowder, perhaps you mean smokeless powder. That operates at typically a chamber pressure of 18 to 20 ton per square inch, but could be nearly twice that, hence the need for modern forgings. Gunpowder chamber pressures could be as low as 2 to 4 tons per square inch; and a projectile that needs to be fired 1 mile (1.6 km) does not need to be as aerodynamic as one that is designed to go 38 km. Mons Meg could fire 180 kg shot up to 2 miles and that is 1450s technology; but could only fire 8 shots per day. So perhaps it was feasible, a ballistics expert might be able to do these calculations. Pyrotec 20:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The Great Turkish Bombard, also of 1450s vintage, is claimed to be able to fire a 300 kg ball 1.6 km. Pyrotec 20:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I can say "BS" all I want as long as I leave it in acronym form, and I obviously can't put it into an article since there's a certain standard of writing anyone has to conform to. There's a point when decency gets to the point of puritanism, and I think that statement crossed it; I mean, seriously, what kid aged 8 or up hasn't heard the acronym "BS" in grade school? When I was in grades two through four in the early 90's, I heard that acronym -- and even the full expression -- several times.

Bore length is actually very important to provide acceleration to a projectile. While the gasses are expanding behind the projectile, they continue to provide acceleration, and this acceleration continues for quite some time. It's why a rifle is more powerful than a pistol, and why a long-barrelled pistol is more powerful than a shorter-barreled one. Granted, naval cannons don't have rifling, so length is a factor in the shell's MOA, but I would wager the acceleration of the projectile -- to obtain flatter trajectory and thus directly improve accuracy -- is considerably more important.

Also, it's tacitly obvious I mean smokeless powder... I shouldn't have to be explicit when all gunpowder used in cannons and firearms is smokeless gunpowder these days. They only tend to use black powder for Hollywood. =P --Jtgibson 00:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

(Forgot to mention; your facts do seem to stand for themselves, so you're in the right. I'm just responding to the other points. ;-)) --Jtgibson 00:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, I probably was being a bit harsh in my response. Having done a bit more digging around, for heavy ordnance a barrel bore length of 40 to 50 calibres is recommended as the optimum size. HMS Inflexible (1888) had 16 inch calibre guns which fired a 1684 lb projectile; and HMS Benbow had 16.25 inch calibre guns that fired a 1800 lb shell using 960 lb of powder (blackpowder). USS Iowa (obviously) fired lighter shells because they are explosive-filled. I've just started reading Gilmartin (1974), Gunpowder and Galleys: Changing Technology and Mediterranean warfare at sea in the sixteen century. What you say about bore length and acceleration is certainly correct for smokeless powder. From the little that I have read so far of Gilmartin. He makes reference to statements that gunpowder's (blackpowder) burning rate is essentially independent of temperature and independent of pressure above a threshold of 350 psi and concludes that (over) extending the length of a blackpowder gun can reduce the muzzle velocity and range. It is also suggested that for 16th century bronze cannon, long barrel length was more to do with strength rather than ballistics. However, I might temper these remarks when I've read the book from start to finish.Pyrotec 23:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

China again

I just added some info on Jiao Yu, a very impressive figure in Chinese history in terms of gunpowder weapons.--PericlesofAthens 18:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I also just added that valuable quote about the enormous, catastrophic explosion of the Wei-yang arsenal in the year 1280. It is definitely worth the look, and helps one understand the large amount of gunpowder placed in Chinese arsenals during the 13th century.--PericlesofAthens 20:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Earlier I added the info on the increasing amount of nitrate levels in Chinese gunpowder over a process of a few centuries.--PericlesofAthens 03:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I just added info on the first Chinese battle to employ the use of gunpowder, a battle of 932 AD that employed the use of a gunpowder-impregnated fuse to ignite flamethrowers.--PericlesofAthens 13:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a problem? (Wikimachine 17:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

A problem? No...no problem. Should there be?--PericlesofAthens 02:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope not. No offense. (Wikimachine 02:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC))

None taken. Lol.--PericlesofAthens 17:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I just expanded the sections on Islam and Europe, in terms of antagonism towards early riflemen in the infantry by those in the time period who preferred honorable traditional warfare.--PericlesofAthens 23:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I also added info about the enrichment of Chinese sulfur during the medieval period.--PericlesofAthens 23:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I just expanded the end part of the India section.--PericlesofAthens 00:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I expanded the definition section earlier today.--PericlesofAthens 03:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)