Talk:Black powder

message: I propose once again that we move the early history stuff to gunpowder. This article currently duplicates all that early history. If anything, it should duplicate the later history, dealing with black powder specifically. Eiorgiomugini seems to be the only one who objects to this, claiming that this article would serve no purpose without the early history material, which is duplicated in the gunpowder article. But that's obviously not true. This article contains information on the composition of black powder specifically, and more importantly for the history, a clarification of the terminology. Are there any other thoughts? All I'm saying is that this article should deal specifically with black powder, and that the gunpowder article should include all the "thorny fire balls," etc. Ocanter 19:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but I would like to go further and combine blackpowder and gunpowder because they are the same substance. The problem is that some countries consider gunpowder to include smokeless powder, but that subject is already covered by Smokeless powder, Cordite, Ballistite and Poudre B. Pyrotec 22:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some countries (China) also consider gunpowder to also include "thorny fire balls." That to me is the main reason to keep this page. Ocanter 04:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move early history? 

message: I've added a paragraph ascribing the first written recipe for gunpowder to be from a Chinese text dating to 1044, as given in Needham's Science and Civilization in China, Volume 5, Part 7, pages 120, 122, and 123:
: The second gunpowder formula (Fig. 10) is for ‘thorny fire-balls’ (chi li huo chhiu or huo chi li)… Here are the listed ingredients: Inner ball oz. Sulphur 20 Saltpetre 40 Coarse charcoal powder 5 Pitch (li chhing) 2.5 Dried lacquer, pounded to a powder 2.5 Bamboo shoots 1.1 Hemp roots, cut into shreds 1.1 Tung oil 2.5 Lesser oil (hsiao yu) 2.5 Wax 2.5
: Outer coating Paper 12.5 Hemp (fibre) 10 Minium (red lead) 1.1 Charcoal powder 8 Pitch 2.5 Yellow wax 2.5
: Although the nitrate-content is in this case so low, the name of true gunpowder cannot be withheld because a considerable quantity of charcoal was present; and it would be reasonable to compare the figures on the first line with those established just above for the incendiary bomb of proto-gunpowder.
:: I am moving all the early history to gunpowder, per Pyro's suggestion. Ocanter 18:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Modified your edit to be more reflective of history.  If your claim is the same tedious one that the 11th century Chinese powders contained other ingredients besides the three and therefore they were not gunpowders, then you need to definitively address why, since European gunpowders of the 13th century also had adulterants, Europe laid down the first gunpowder recipes rather than China.  You need to also show that the Chinese powders had UNINTENTIONAL adulterants rather than the structural and incendiary components which seem much more reasonable.  Try flinging a pile of sulfur, saltpeter, and charcoal a few hundred yards AFTER you lit the mixture on fire.  Meatwaggon 07:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First written recipe for black powder 

message: --Voltagedrop 21:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea, though my uneducated guess is that the finer the powder the better the results. -Hmib 05:27, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

text: There's a good explanation on Smokeless powder. --Brunnock 01:03, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
Larger grain, slower burn.  Large guns require slower combustion to overcome inertia of the ball and build pressure.  "Grains" two to three inches across were used in large artillery pieces.  Fine, fast-burning powder was used in muskets and shotguns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.51.25.96 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 14 June 2005
Larger guns require less of a violent, explosive shove, and more of a constant push. All grains take fire from the outside, so larger grains take more time because of larger surface area. AllStarZ 04:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How does grain size affect the rate of combustion? 

message: seems inappropriate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.18.3 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 20 November 2005
* It's wholly inappropriate, and I've reverted to a previous version. Squiddy 20:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  why is the word "nigger" used in this article? 

message: I think this article should be merged with [gunpowder]].  The terms are usually used interchangably.--Crucible Guardian 03:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: merge

message: I thought graphite coating was just to help with pouring and tamping.  Do we have a citation regarding it being used for electrostatic discharge purposes?
It should be noted that black powder is milled in rotary mills.  If it had a tendancy to ignite itself from some triboelectric effect, that would be problematic! Gigs 06:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  graphite 

message: Why is there no process listed for making gunpowder here?
It's already freely available elsewhere and it's omission seems odd as it is simple enough to do at home. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.146.187 (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recipie? 

message: Could someone make this clearer?:
[
It should be noted that after a major battle in 1268, accounts which based on Yuanshi, listed the events with the use of firearms to the end of Mongol's conquest, when it was last mentioned on a battle at Wuzhou in 1277.
]John Wheater 08:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed 

message: Would someone (not me!) take a view as to which is best here - petre/peter, sulphur/sulfur? John Wheater 09:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just following Needham, but I suppose saltpeter is more common now in the States. Ocanter 17:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   American / English spelling 

message: The mix is sometimes dampened with alcohol or water during grinding to prevent accidental ignition.
Black powder is also corned to change its burn rate. Corning is a process which first compresses the fine black powder meal into blocks with a fixed density (1.7 g/cm³). The blocks are then broken up into granules. These granules are then sorted by size to give the various grades of black powder. Standard grades of black powder run from the coarse Fg grade used in large bore rifles and small cannon though FFg (medium and smallbore rifles), FFFg (pistols), and FFFFg (smallbore, short pistols and priming flintlocks).  To reduce accidental ignition due to an electrostatic discharge, coarse black powder grains are sometimes coated with graphite dust, preventing charge build-up during handling.  Very coarse black powder was used in mining before the development of nitroglycerine and dynamite.
Black powder is classified as a low explosive, that is, it deflagrates (burns) rapidly. High explosives detonate at a rate approximately 10 times faster than the burning of black powder.
Although black powder is not a high explosive, the United States Department of Transportation classifies it as a "Class A High Explosive" for shipment because it is so easily ignited. Highly destructive explosions at fireworks manufacturing plants are rather common events, especially in Asia. Complete manufactured devices containing black powder are usually classified as "Class C Firework", "Class C Model Rocket Engine", etc. for shipment because they are harder to ignite than the loose powder.
The 15th through 17th century saw widespread development in gunpowder technology mainly in Europe. Advances in metallurgy led to portable weapons and the development of hand-held firearms such as muskets. Cannon technology in Europe gradually outpaced that of China and these technological improvements transferred back to China through Jesuit missionaries who were put in charge of cannon manufacture by the late Ming and early Qing emperors.  The latter half of the 19th Century saw the invention of nitroglycerin, nitrocellulose and smokeless powders, which soon replaced black powder in many applications.
Another reason for danger was the dense fumes given off and the risk of igniting flammable gas when used in coal mines.
Over 100 lives were lost during construction of the 3.3 km tunnel. The 12.9 km long Mont Cenis Tunnel was completed in 13 years starting in 1857, but even with black powder progress was only 25 cm a day until the invention of pneumatic drills sped up the work.
I had removed a huge junks of source from the article as these are unsourced, I had tired tagging , but none of those tags survived and had all been lifted/removed with no explanation given. Please do and welcome to bring those materials back, when you had searched your references and provided citations piece by piece without omit on the statements/claims. While those might be a sort of general knowledges for you, but since its without any citations, in any cases for a non-profession or laymen of the topic itself, it does seems to be skeptical for others including myself.
Read WP:REF and WP:ATT:
If a particular claim in an article lacks citation and is doubtful, consider placing  after the sentence or removing the claim. Consider the following in deciding which action to take:
# If it is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article, use the  tag to ask for source verification, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time. 
# If it is doubtful and harmful, you should remove it from the article; you may want to move it to the talk page and ask for a source, unless you regard it is as very harmful or absurd, in which case it shouldn't be posted to a talk page either. Use your common sense. Don't be inappropriately cautious about removing unsourced material; it is better for Wikipedia to say nothing on an issue than to present false or misleading material.
Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities, mainstream newspapers, and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is process and approval between document creation and publication. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published is generally not regarded as reliable, but see below for exceptions. Any unsourced material may be removed, and in biographies of living persons, unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material must be removed immediately.Eiorgiomugini 17:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it would be useful if you read the talk page that accompanies WP:REF; whilst this is only a subjective judgement on my part, what you appear to be doing could be regarded as disruptive tagging. Perhaps this is not what you intended. Unfortunately, for you, your repeated blocking for breaking the three revert rule does give the impression that you have little regard for Wikipedia practices. Pyrotec 18:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As far as I can ascertain, Eiorgiomugini made some editorial changes to some paragraphs (possibly those related to the history of gunpowder in China) and added tags to many of the paragraphs that he did not change. He also added a through-away comment along the lines lets be fair to the rest of the article. This to me appeared to be self promotion and did not provide adequate justification for the tagging. The paragraphs that Eiorgiomugini objects to are technically correct. I get the feeling that the user has little knowledge of gunpowder in Europe / USA - but that may be unfair. I have added references to some of these paragraphs that were tagged; I have also edited some these paragraphs because the words appeared to be a straight copy from references that were not quoted. All the other paragraphs that have been tagged by Eiorgiomugini and which he regards as unreliable, are technically correct. It is not my job to go and get references for Eiorgiomugini. I have provided a number of references at the end of the article; and Eiorgiomugini will find the information that he seeks in them. I would suggest that more effective use of his time would be made if he would to read the sources and add the references to the relevant paragraphs rather than adding disruptive tagging and block deleting text from the article. As I have said earlier, this article is not perfect; and some of the sentences appear to have been lifted whole from unacknowledged sources. Eiorgiomugini could make a positive contribution here; the changes that have been made in respect of the history of gunpowder in China appear to fall into the category of Positive Contribution. Pyrotec 17:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal