The Mexican gunpowder dilemma

fernando · 1st September 2019, 08:57 PM

Myself i gather Jim that, all the fun in these brainstorms is to explore what has happened back in the old days; surely the episodes occurred with the (mis) behavior of gunpowder or any other 'artifacts' in present modernity, with all the existing (un) charming technology, are no doubt rather interesting but ... refer to a distinct ambiance.
Going back to a question you posed the other day Jim, i wouldn't know how to approach the problematics of gunpowder in the Age of Sail being kept down the lower (est) deck of ships, passive of humidity deterioration. Certainly there were superior conveniences like keeping it distant from hazardous situations above water line, namely fire ... caused either by accidental fire aboard or by enemy's action, with the impact of cannonry or other firing attempts. Also surely measures were taken to keep it as much hermetic as possible, by means of proper containers, those well covered and inside purposely confined spaces, where light through from other compartments would dispense the use of life (burning) light; even when someone had to go down the lower deck, the light allowed was a candle enclosed in a tin with thin holes. I have read a passage in which wet blankets covered the gunpowder cauldrons, whatever that meant; although it is evident that, the risk of fire justified the involvement of all other potential liabilities. Also to consider that, only the gunpowder necessary for possible immediate action was carried in its whole condition; the remaining was carried with the three components not yet mixed, for opportune preparation. Also a part of gunpowder was kept not loose but in sacks and later in (paper ?) cannon dosed 'cartridges', an implement started by the Portuguese ... contrary to what some 'competition' authors pretend.

Concerning the use of alcohol as in Peter's link on corning powder, also Alpoim has a go at it, in one of the processes to recuperate bad gunpowder.
Sure there were guys well within the gunpowder secrets back in those days.
For your perusal and in order not to 'soak' again these pages with a mile long testament, this one will come in the form of a PDF.

.

Jim McDougall · 1st September 2019, 10:09 PM

An excellent link Ibrahiim, once again lending to the 'recipe' for gunpowder in perspective. It does seem that there must have been a lot of trial and error involved in early days with the varying character and properties of the components as derived either naturally or through processing.
When one realizes that 'chemistry' in these opening years of the 19th century was barely out of the 'alchemy' stage, and many elements were not yet properly identified, nor compounding of them. …..it is amazing that simply mixing achieved required effects.

Fernando, thank you for the additional perusal toward the subject of humidity and the profoundly contextual case for powder used at sea in the age of sail.
One of the references I found noted that the hold for powder was enclosed with 'curtains' which were kept damp to prevent accidental spark, as well as men covering feet with cloth or material to also prevent same.

I would think that storing the components separately to avoid detonation would be prudent, especially as intermittent remixing seems to have been required. However none of the sources thus far has suggested that means of storage. Surely there had to be a modicum of powder 'at the ready' in case of attack or battle as you suggest, but it seems the powder was always noted as in barrels, suggesting it being wholly combined.

I have not read descriptions of the detail on the 'cartridge' sacks of powder but it does seem familiar, as I say this is not an area I often study.

Thank you for the link to this process as well. These surely are pertinent, but as noted very long, detailed and scientific, and do indeed 'soak' the pages.
A LOT to learn, and I admire those who have knowledge and command of it all.
'

fernando · 2nd September 2019, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... One of the references I found noted that the hold for powder was enclosed with 'curtains' which were kept damp to prevent accidental spark, as well as men covering feet with cloth or material to also prevent same.

"Just as i previously said and, and having now found the specific words:

Sob a coberta, junto ao paiol estava o capitão de fogo a distribuir a pólvora que tirava às gamelas ou ensacada dos caldeirões defendidos do lume por colchas e cobertores molhados".
"Under the deck, next to the (powder) magazine, was the fire captain distributing the gunpowder he took from the troughs or bagged from the cauldrons defended from the fire by wet bedspreads and blankets".
(Dieter Dellinger, Portuguese Ex-Journalist, advisor for the Navy Magazine, ex-Law maker, etc)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... as well as men covering feet with cloth or material to also prevent same...

So true. In the Barcarena mill workers were required to wear shoes of calf skin over their own shoes, once these could have nails.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

...I would think that storing the components separately to avoid detonation would be prudent, especially as intermittent remixing seems to have been required. However none of the sources thus far has suggested that means of storage. Surely there had to be a modicum of powder 'at the ready' in case of attack or battle as you suggest, but it seems the powder was always noted as in barrels, suggesting it being wholly combined...

.
Yet so it happened according to my sources, whatever they are worth

. I don't recall where i have read my previously posted text, but i can locate the following one, from texts written about the early Barcarena Black powder factory. It is not the same thing, but will have to do

.

"Nos territorios conquistados, criaram-se fundições de artilharia e fábricas de pólvora.Os componentes eram frequentemente adicionados nas proprias fortalezas à medida das necessidades locais da polvora"
"In the conquered territories, artillery foundries and gunpowder factories were created. Components were frequently added in the fortresses according to local powder needs".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... I have not read descriptions of the detail on the 'cartridge' sacks of powder but it does seem familiar, as I say this is not an area I often study...

Then let me fill you in:

" O cartucho de pólvora foi uma ideia de Vicente Sodré, tio de Afonso de Albuquerque, que para aumentar a cadência da artilharia resolveu ensacar previamente a pólvora para ser colocada logo que a alma do canhão tivesse sido arrefecida e limpa de restos de pólvora com escovilhões adequados, em vez de a lançar a granel como se fazia então. Claro está que os ingleses e holandeses têm a mania que inventaram isso tudo, revelando a mais inconcebível ignorância e refiro-me a alguns historiadores de prestígio que são um exemplo de incompetência total, mesmo perante simples amadores de boa fé sempre que se trata da historiografia portuguesa ".

"The gunpowder cartridge was the brainchild of Vicente Sodré, the uncle of Afonso de Albuquerque who, in order to increase the rate of artillery, decided to pre-bag the gunpowder to be placed as soon as the cannon core had been cooled and cleaned of gunpowder remnants with suitable brushes, instead of throwing it in bulk as it used to be done. Of course the English and Dutch have the craze that invented it all, revealing the most inconceivable ignorance, and i refer to some prestigious historians who are an example of utter incompetence, even in the face of simple bona fide amateurs when it comes to Portuguese historiography".
(Dieter Dellinger )

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

...Thank you for the link to this process as well. These surely are pertinent, but as noted very long, detailed and scientific, and do indeed 'soak' the pages.
A LOT to learn, and I admire those who have knowledge and command of it all...

Dear Jim, you wanted to cross opinions about Mexican gunpowder; but you know this is an universal subject, and things tend to slide to the rest of the globe... perhaps also with your eventual complicity. However, let me assure you; no more soaking will take place from my side

.

.

Jim McDougall · 3rd September 2019, 10:38 PM

Fernando, again, thank you for the responsive notes reaffirming the items we have brought up from various references on this topic, which as you have astutely noted, is quite universal. The ancillary notes, digressions, and other looks into related circumstances are relevant, necessary and helpful and not at all distracting as far as I am concerned.
Actually I encourage and welcome all such information, and the links to key subject matter for the perusal of readers and researchers who view these pages are wonderfully placed and appreciated.

Persons who read these threads are following the subject matter from many different angles and perspectives, so all material included finds varying degree of usefulness depending on who is reading it. The 'soaking' jest actually is just acknowledging that this is the case, and 'one size does not always fit all'.
It is therefore, up to the reader.
For me, valuable information I can use later if need be.

Therefore, I thank you for all the great entries, links and well researched detail (NOT soaking but profoundly bolstering thread content). For now it seems we have reached a plateau with a new understanding of this topic,
so until later, when new evidence is found, Elvis may now leave the building.
Uh uh huh.....oh yeah!!!

yulzari · 7th September 2019, 12:30 PM

It may be instructive to note John Braddock's 'A Memoir on Gunpowder' of 1832 (https://books.google.fr/books?id=6if...6AEwBXoECAgQAQ) in which he reports upon the state of gun powder manuacturing in India for the Honourable East India Company. In this he is most rude about the quality of Bombay powder compared to that made in Allahabd. Reporting it as 'barbarous' and 'their best and highest ranges are only half the distance of the other Indian powders'.

This demonstrates the range of performance that can come from variations in the performance of gunpowder mills and in this case between those of a well funded Company with access to all the materials it could need and the capital to invest in machinery etc. and with the sole purpose of making military quality powders.

If Bombay powder was 'barbarous' in 1832 the Mexican powder was likely to be beyond Mr Braddock's vocabulary to describe it's weakness.

Jim McDougall · 7th September 2019, 08:10 PM

This is an excellent reference Yulzari! Thank you.

I feared we had expended the viability of our powder here, so I am grateful to see entry continuing. It seems this reference describes the dynamic of 'exposure' being an element of powder losing its potency, in the case mentioned after about 12 days. That would bring the earlier suggestion of keeping the ingredients of the powder kept separate until required, not only for safety, but clearly to ensure freshly mixed powder.

I am puzzled by the term 'barbarous' as describing a 'weak' powder. Such a term would seem more toward a potent, threatening condition rather than 'weak'. I wonder if the connotation (as used here in 1832) would mean rough, rugged or uncivilized in the way 'gothic' meant rude or contrary to refined in architectural parlance. Thus meaning the Bombay powder was rudely mixed and ineffective.

If the Mexicans were indeed getting powder from British sources, just as they obtained their firearms in 1821, perhaps the British were selling them the apparently miserable Bombay powder as opposed to the other more refined powder. This was often the case, obviously, with trade arms and resources and the practice continued well through the 19th c. Mediocre quality locks and complete weapons often brought ill repute to the places that produced them.

As earlier noted, it sounds as if the Mexicans were attempting to secure better quality powder through New Orleans merchants who probably carried the highly regarded Dupont....as revealed in the cargo of the Pelican.

yulzari · 7th September 2019, 08:45 PM

By 'barbarous' he just meant crude and primitive Jim. Just his way, as a man of his times, of saying that it was of appallingly bad quality. John Company (to use the period vernacular) was not in the business of making powder for public sale but for their own use. Though doubtless some made their way to private use informally. Certainly not in sales to the Mexican government.

What happened was that the Bombay Gunpowder Manufactory was brought up to standard and is better know later as the Kirkee arsenal and a major ordnance depot and manufacturer.

There is no connection between them and Mexico in any way but the reference is a period detailed examination of the varied qualities of gun powder manufacture. Remember British ARW gun powder was so bad the government bought the factories and made them raise their standards until they were the best. There was also no connection between the British Ordnance selling surplus arms to dealers who sold them to Mexico and the Indian government and it's powder production. They were different governments on different continents.

1st September 2019, 10:09 PM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,282	An excellent link Ibrahiim, once again lending to the 'recipe' for gunpowder in perspective. It does seem that there must have been a lot of trial and error involved in early days with the varying character and properties of the components as derived either naturally or through processing. When one realizes that 'chemistry' in these opening years of the 19th century was barely out of the 'alchemy' stage, and many elements were not yet properly identified, nor compounding of them. …..it is amazing that simply mixing achieved required effects. Fernando, thank you for the additional perusal toward the subject of humidity and the profoundly contextual case for powder used at sea in the age of sail. One of the references I found noted that the hold for powder was enclosed with 'curtains' which were kept damp to prevent accidental spark, as well as men covering feet with cloth or material to also prevent same. I would think that storing the components separately to avoid detonation would be prudent, especially as intermittent remixing seems to have been required. However none of the sources thus far has suggested that means of storage. Surely there had to be a modicum of powder 'at the ready' in case of attack or battle as you suggest, but it seems the powder was always noted as in barrels, suggesting it being wholly combined. I have not read descriptions of the detail on the 'cartridge' sacks of powder but it does seem familiar, as I say this is not an area I often study. Thank you for the link to this process as well. These surely are pertinent, but as noted very long, detailed and scientific, and do indeed 'soak' the pages. A LOT to learn, and I admire those who have knowledge and command of it all. '

3rd September 2019, 10:38 PM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,282	Fernando, again, thank you for the responsive notes reaffirming the items we have brought up from various references on this topic, which as you have astutely noted, is quite universal. The ancillary notes, digressions, and other looks into related circumstances are relevant, necessary and helpful and not at all distracting as far as I am concerned. Actually I encourage and welcome all such information, and the links to key subject matter for the perusal of readers and researchers who view these pages are wonderfully placed and appreciated. Persons who read these threads are following the subject matter from many different angles and perspectives, so all material included finds varying degree of usefulness depending on who is reading it. The 'soaking' jest actually is just acknowledging that this is the case, and 'one size does not always fit all'. It is therefore, up to the reader. For me, valuable information I can use later if need be. Therefore, I thank you for all the great entries, links and well researched detail (NOT soaking but profoundly bolstering thread content). For now it seems we have reached a plateau with a new understanding of this topic, so until later, when new evidence is found, Elvis may now leave the building. Uh uh huh.....oh yeah!!!

7th September 2019, 12:30 PM	#5
yulzari Member Join Date: Sep 2018 Location: Limousin France Posts: 19	It may be instructive to note John Braddock's 'A Memoir on Gunpowder' of 1832 (https://books.google.fr/books?id=6if...6AEwBXoECAgQAQ) in which he reports upon the state of gun powder manuacturing in India for the Honourable East India Company. In this he is most rude about the quality of Bombay powder compared to that made in Allahabd. Reporting it as 'barbarous' and 'their best and highest ranges are only half the distance of the other Indian powders'. This demonstrates the range of performance that can come from variations in the performance of gunpowder mills and in this case between those of a well funded Company with access to all the materials it could need and the capital to invest in machinery etc. and with the sole purpose of making military quality powders. If Bombay powder was 'barbarous' in 1832 the Mexican powder was likely to be beyond Mr Braddock's vocabulary to describe it's weakness.

7th September 2019, 08:10 PM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,282	This is an excellent reference Yulzari! Thank you. I feared we had expended the viability of our powder here, so I am grateful to see entry continuing. It seems this reference describes the dynamic of 'exposure' being an element of powder losing its potency, in the case mentioned after about 12 days. That would bring the earlier suggestion of keeping the ingredients of the powder kept separate until required, not only for safety, but clearly to ensure freshly mixed powder. I am puzzled by the term 'barbarous' as describing a 'weak' powder. Such a term would seem more toward a potent, threatening condition rather than 'weak'. I wonder if the connotation (as used here in 1832) would mean rough, rugged or uncivilized in the way 'gothic' meant rude or contrary to refined in architectural parlance. Thus meaning the Bombay powder was rudely mixed and ineffective. If the Mexicans were indeed getting powder from British sources, just as they obtained their firearms in 1821, perhaps the British were selling them the apparently miserable Bombay powder as opposed to the other more refined powder. This was often the case, obviously, with trade arms and resources and the practice continued well through the 19th c. Mediocre quality locks and complete weapons often brought ill repute to the places that produced them. As earlier noted, it sounds as if the Mexicans were attempting to secure better quality powder through New Orleans merchants who probably carried the highly regarded Dupont....as revealed in the cargo of the Pelican.

7th September 2019, 08:45 PM	#7
yulzari Member Join Date: Sep 2018 Location: Limousin France Posts: 19	By 'barbarous' he just meant crude and primitive Jim. Just his way, as a man of his times, of saying that it was of appallingly bad quality. John Company (to use the period vernacular) was not in the business of making powder for public sale but for their own use. Though doubtless some made their way to private use informally. Certainly not in sales to the Mexican government. What happened was that the Bombay Gunpowder Manufactory was brought up to standard and is better know later as the Kirkee arsenal and a major ordnance depot and manufacturer. There is no connection between them and Mexico in any way but the reference is a period detailed examination of the varied qualities of gun powder manufacture. Remember British ARW gun powder was so bad the government bought the factories and made them raise their standards until they were the best. There was also no connection between the British Ordnance selling surplus arms to dealers who sold them to Mexico and the Indian government and it's powder production. They were different governments on different continents.