Talk:Gunpowder
From Academic Kids
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.
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)
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. User:Brockert/sig 00:21, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
- There are plenty, but here are two:
- [1] (http://www.geology.ucdavis.edu/~cowen/~GEL115/115CH16fertilizer.html), [2] (http://www.usgennet.org/usa/topic/preservation/science/inventions/chpt22.htm)
- 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
Merge ??
I'm in the middle of reading the same book used as a source in the black powder (which is how I wandered over to this article), and after reading all three articles I think gunpowder, black powder and smokeless powder should all be merged into one article, with gunpowder being the main heading. Any strong opinions on this ?? I'll wait a week or so to see if I hear from anyone. Soundguy99 05:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Makes sense to me. :) — Helpful Dave 10:19, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think smokeless powder and black powder should be merged. They're very different beasts, although, for the largest part, they are used for same functionality (moving bullets). Which is why gunpowder links them up.
- It's possible you could put them both under gunpowder, and section the different technologies off...
- Is this a real need? People can follow links, if they're interested. I think we lose edit history as well. Count me as minorly opposed. Tell me why it should be merged.
- ~ender 2005-04-22 22:00:MST
- Well, the idea was that this article is labeled as a stub, but I don't know if it can really be expanded without duplicating info in either of the other two articles (which I think are excellent, by the way.) So the other two articles would be merged pretty much "as is" as the two main sections of the Gunpowder article, and the existing text of the Gunpowder article would serve as a fine intro. I haven't really investigated merging much yet, but I think if done correctly using redirects no edit history is lost. This is a "minor cleanup" kind of thing; no big rush to do it or strong feelings about it. Obviously I've waited more than a week to do a merge - distracted with other things. Soundguy99 05:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, I'm convinced. Of course, now we need a Gunpowder_(disambiguation) page (for the tea) as well. :) I'd like the linkage paragraphs worked on some. But, figure out the merging saving edit-histories, and do it, and then we can work on massaging the text into shape later.
- ~ender 2005-05-02 17:53:MST
- Actually, your disambiguation addition pretty much solved any organizational quibbles I might have had. Now "Gentle Reader" can look up "Gunpowder" here, and quickly be directed to two good articles about the different types of gunpowder. So even though this article is kind of short, you have now "unconvinced" me of a need for a merge. (chuckle) . Soundguy99 16:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
