Medieval gunpowder recipes of potassium nitrate (KNO 3), charcoal (C), and sulfur (S 8) were investigated by bomb calorimetry to determine their enthalpies of combustion and by differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) to determine their preignition and propagative ignition enthalpies. Various sample preparation methods and several additional ingredients were also tested to determine any effects on the thermodynamic values. Gunpowder recipes were prepared and used in a replica cannon that was manufactured and operated according to medieval records. Post-firing residues were collected from the bomb calorimeter and the cannon in efforts to further characterize recipe energetics using DSC. In general, during the period of 1338−1400, the %KNO 3 increased, and heats of combustion decreased, while between 1400 and 1460, the %KNO 3 decreased, and heats of combustion increased. However, since KNO 3 was usually found in the post-bomb calorimetry and post-cannon firing residues, it was not the limiting reactant. The highest pre-ignition and propagative ignition energies occurred when the KNO 3 :S 8 ratio was 3:1 as determined by DSC, and the highest enthalpies of combustion were measured for recipes where the KNO 3 :C ratio was 1:1 as determined by bomb calorimetry.

Arguably the most important Western source on the early history of gunpowder technology is the late thirteenth century manuscript, Das Fuerwerkbuch. When it was translated into English in 2000, it contained a commentary on the chemistry of many of the formulations given. These were largely dismissed as useless alchemical nonsense which could not work. Although some mysteries remain, much of the formulation can be understood either as contemporary 'best practice' or by comparison with modern pyrotechnic and explosive knowledge. This paper re-examines the underlying chemistry and demonstrates some surprising innovations anticipating much later claims. Note An extended and peer reviewed copy of this paper was published in ICON Vol 21, 2015 available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/24721698?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Much has been written about the sources and properties of saltpetre and charcoal but the third component of gunpowder, sulphur, has received scant attention. Although the 'modern' spelling of saltpeter and sulfur 1 are becoming more widely used, saltpetre and sulphur are almost universal in contemporary literature. The sulphur spelling is still used by the city of Sulphur, Louisiana, US technical manuals, EU legislation, major producers and many place names. As this paper deals primarily with literature pre-twentyfirst century, the original spelling is used throughout. Although gunpowder can be made without sulphur, it has been considered an essential component from the earliest times. Of the theories propounded for the invention of gunpowder, none address the question of why the three ingredients were present in proportions that could result in a credible explosion. A previous paper 2 has posited the development of gunpowder as an evolutionary process following a logical progression involving no unique inventive step. This, incidentally, explains the difficulty in assigning a specific date to the invention of gunpowder. Briefly, the sequence of development could credibly have been ... Charcoal-A fire weapon (fire pot) Charcoal + Sulphur-A chemical weapon (stink pot) Charcoal + Sulphur + Saltpetre-An enhanced flame weapon (flame thrower) By increasing the saltpetre content as an obvious means of enhancing the flame effect, the explosive properties became evident and were exploited.

The paper takes up again, with additions and updatings, a work already presented in Italian at the XXXXIV Settimana di studi dell'Istituto internazionale di Storia economica "F. Datini" (Prato, Italy), April 15-19 2002).

I don't normally upload reviews here, but this is an important book, and I think my review says some useful things

In 2001 The Arms and Armour Society sponsored a translation of Das Feuerwerkbuch. (FWB) This manuscript contains the earliest (Western) references to gunpowder. The editorial comment of the translation contained the unsubstantiated assertion that, since certain processes were not specifically mentioned in the text, they were not carried out and that consequently the nitrate of medieval gunpowder was calcium based. This has been shown to be incorrect but the concept seems to have taken root among some historians unable to understand the clear technical evidence in the manuscript.ii Although the processes described in the FWB were evidently capable of delivering substantially pure potassium nitrate, there remains a possibility that some calcium (or magnesium) nitrate could remain as a minor impurity sufficient to affect the quality of the gunpowder. This present paper gives evidence that such contamination was sometimes (but not always) present but was neutralised during the manufacturing process.