DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> History buffs...a riddle for you
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 35, (reverse)
AuthorThread
07/05/2014 06:49:57 PM · #1
Hey all

Here's a kindasorta locked, or at least heavily fortified, room mystery for you to solve. And no, there is no solution, but I thought here would be a good idea to put the puzzle forth.

Today I visited a historic fort, Fort Wellington, located near Prescott, just across the river from Upper New York State. Built rather hastily during the War of 1812-1814 to keep the Americans at bay, the fort has many fascinating features and some puzzles which can't easily be explained.

The object of my fascination is the powder room. As in where black powder was stored, not a loo and vanity on the main floor of your house :-) Black powder is highly volatile, so no live flames (ie candles, lanterns of any sort) could have been used inside the powder room. The inside is painted white, the room itself is quite small (12-15 ft by 20-25 ft approx) and arched, which would have helped contain any explosions. But this room never got blown up, so no live flame was ever used in it.

There are very small ventilation ducts in the wall, but spaced so far apart and so tiny that even if they could have let in light, it would have been barely enough to see by. Other forts had small annex rooms built onto their powder rooms, where a small, thickly glassed window was inset so that you could enter this annex, safely put in a lit lantern/candle, then close the door behind you. Then enter the powder room, close two very thick iron-clad doors behind you, and...go about getting powder kegs out. Safely.

However Fort Wellington's powder room has no such annex, and the well-kept records of the fort say nothing at all about special measures taken re the powder room, no special attendants etc. When things were going well they weren't recorded; it was when things went snafu that the record-keepers took note.

So. How, in the age before stuff like glowsticks, LEDs, and twisty lightbulbs (like the two used to illuminate the room), how did they manage to handle black powder safely? There are no records of special powder-room attendants or protocol, so presumably it was something most or all soldiers knew how to do safely.

Did they rely on simple touch and feel, familiarity with where the kegs were, in a pitch-black room? Did they use a jar full of lightning bugs, or natural luminescence from the nearby water, which would have worked in summertime and so long as there was no ice...but how about winter?

Thoughts?
07/05/2014 06:56:31 PM · #2
Very astute question!...I have no answer haha
07/05/2014 07:05:19 PM · #3
Blind people learn how to function without sight, I would guess with enough time working in a room like that people may be able to learn to function. I am guessing not many people lined up for that kind of duty.
07/05/2014 08:23:33 PM · #4
One of the docents also put forward the blind person theory. But how would a blind person get admitted to military service? They simply didn't have the space/resources to support someone who basically had only one task.

And there were also several different grades of black powder; the fort had everything from muskets to rifles, grapeshot, cannonballs weighing from 6 to 60lbs...and you needed to know where to find the right powder for each. The wrong grade would have resulted in damage and injury, which would have been noted in the daily reports.
07/06/2014 12:22:57 PM · #5
I have seen in the past where they would place mirrors in small openings in the ceilings and have these openings offset to minimize the possibility of something reaching sensitive areas.

It would be almost akin to say a periscope.

Ray
07/06/2014 04:51:06 PM · #6
Originally posted by RayEthier:

I have seen in the past where they would place mirrors in small openings in the ceilings and have these openings offset to minimize the possibility of something reaching sensitive areas.

It would be almost akin to say a periscope.

Ray


This, and similar ideas regarding using mirrors and polished bits of metal, also fall flat in this case. Absolutely no signs of holes of any sort except for thin little ventilation slots, and they are fashioned to let in as little light as possible.

You can see for yourself, Unca Raymee, it's in Prescott and admission is $3.90. Maybe less for crusty ol geezers ;-)
07/06/2014 06:25:12 PM · #7
Originally posted by snaffles:



You can see for yourself, Unca Raymee, it's in Prescott and admission is $3.90. Maybe less for crusty ol geezers ;-)


...you got in for FREE... allright. :O)

Ray
07/06/2014 07:30:13 PM · #8
It is entirely possible they used something like a coal miner's safety lamp.

The time frame would be perfect as well, given that around 1813 or so serious developments started to appear, and it was the British who were developing it. It's plausible that the military may well have had some early prototypes for this purpose.

Message edited by author 2014-07-06 19:46:13.
07/06/2014 08:44:15 PM · #9
Originally posted by Cory:

It is entirely possible they used something like a coal miner's safety lamp.

The time frame would be perfect as well, given that around 1813 or so serious developments started to appear, and it was the British who were developing it. It's plausible that the military may well have had some early prototypes for this purpose.


Thanks Cory, it looks like you're on the right track. Though it still looks a little dicey, there is still a live flame involved, and the powder room is quite small. Coal mines are kinda big.

Interestingly when I read the wiki page, I saw this: Both on the continent of Europe and in the UK dried fish skins were used. From them a faint bioluminescence (often called phosphorescence) occurs. Access to fish wouldn't have been a problem as the St Lawrence Seaway is right there on the fort's front doorstep, as it were. And no doubt the soldiers and their families would have been desperate to vary their diet of salted beef, morning, noon and night...yuck! x-p

It also mentioned that whoever entered the powder room had to remove their clothing (which was mostly cotton and wool) and change into a special suit (did they use asbestos back then?), so as to avoid any kind of static charge.

@ Unca Raymee...oh harhar, you so funny!! Now go for your own free tour, you old fart! :-)
07/07/2014 12:22:39 PM · #10
Originally posted by snaffles:



Thanks Cory, it looks like you're on the right track. Though it still looks a little dicey, there is still a live flame involved, and the powder room is quite small. Coal mines are kinda big.



It probably seems that way, but in reality a mine is much more dangerous. Gasses are invisible and fill the entire space, powder just sits in it's kegs. In order to make a powder room as dangerous as a coal mine, you'd need to literally bury the lamp in the powder.

Message edited by author 2014-07-07 15:48:08.
07/07/2014 12:32:06 PM · #11
there's also the possibility of two men: one outside the door with a lamp, one carrying the keg.
and the white walls would help the light to travel more, even from the doorway; as for winter time lighting, the snow and moon provide a LOT of luminescence, to the point that when looking out my back yard onto the park in summer/winter (with no lights around) you can plainly see everything in the winter from the reflected light from the moon, and in the summer i can hardly see to my own fence without the porch light on.
07/07/2014 12:46:25 PM · #12
baghdad battery?
07/07/2014 01:02:20 PM · #13
My guess was they simply left the door open, and used light from the outside to retrieve the needed powder. Before you go jumping on the "but what about night?" - night fighting was typically avoided except in recent history. Only the very brave, foolhardy, or desperate would fight in the dark. This was one of the reasons Genl. Washington's attack on the Germans at Trenton, NJ was successful - it was unexpected, because night fighting simply wasn't done.
07/07/2014 03:08:10 PM · #14
Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by snaffles:



Thanks Cory, it looks like you're on the right track. Though it still looks a little dicey, there is still a live flame involved, and the powder room is quite small. Coal mines are kinda big.



It probably seems that way, but in reality a mine is much more dangerous. Gasses are invisible and fill the entire space, power just sits in it's kegs. In order to make a powder room as dangerous as a coal mine, you'd need to literally bury the lamp in the powder.


Probably very true for black powder, but weeping sticks of dynamite could be a totally different story.

I well recall inspecting magazines and made certain that I took every conceivable security precautions. Mind you, growing up in a mining community and having powdermen in the family helped a great deal.

Ray

Message edited by author 2014-07-07 15:09:10.
07/07/2014 03:49:57 PM · #15
Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by snaffles:



Thanks Cory, it looks like you're on the right track. Though it still looks a little dicey, there is still a live flame involved, and the powder room is quite small. Coal mines are kinda big.



It probably seems that way, but in reality a mine is much more dangerous. Gasses are invisible and fill the entire space, power just sits in it's kegs. In order to make a powder room as dangerous as a coal mine, you'd need to literally bury the lamp in the powder.


Probably very true for black powder, but weeping sticks of dynamite could be a totally different story.

I well recall inspecting magazines and made certain that I took every conceivable security precautions. Mind you, growing up in a mining community and having powdermen in the family helped a great deal.

Ray


Weeping dynamite is just spooky stuff, just way too much potential for shock-sensitive compounds to have formed.
07/07/2014 03:52:59 PM · #16
Originally posted by Cory:

Weeping dynamite is just spooky stuff . . .

So are the Weeping Angels in Doctor Who!
07/07/2014 05:25:24 PM · #17
Originally posted by dtremain:

My guess was they simply left the door open, and used light from the outside to retrieve the needed powder. Before you go jumping on the "but what about night?" - night fighting was typically avoided except in recent history. Only the very brave, foolhardy, or desperate would fight in the dark. This was one of the reasons Genl. Washington's attack on the Germans at Trenton, NJ was successful - it was unexpected, because night fighting simply wasn't done.


Sorry, dtremain and RyanW, but they most emphatically didn't leave the doors open. They couldn't afford to, There are two doors, it looks to me like they would have had to let themselves into the anteroom between the doors, put down the keg, close the door closest to the room behind them and secure it before opening the door to the main part of the fort. The whole reason for the design of the arched room and its secluded location in a corner of the fort, the wearing of a special anti-static suit, and double doors...they're not going to null and void all those safety measures by leaving a door open for light!

As for night fighting...*scratching head*...I never said anything about that at all. I already knew they didn't fight at night in those times unless it was unavoidable. I know I can go off in different directions, but the issue of night having to do with the powder room is irreleevant.

@ Unca Raymee and Cory... even if black powder isn't as volatile as say weeping dynamite...well, they weren't using dynamite. They were using black powder, kept in wooden casks, and I'm betting that those kegs would have been prone to leaking every so often.


Message edited by author 2014-07-07 17:31:33.
07/07/2014 05:32:46 PM · #18
Originally posted by PapaBob:

Blind people learn how to function without sight, I would guess with enough time working in a room like that people may be able to learn to function. I am guessing not many people lined up for that kind of duty.


I'm going with this answer, which seems like the simplest. I think you grossly misunderstood it.
07/07/2014 05:39:03 PM · #19
Originally posted by LanndonKane:

Originally posted by PapaBob:

Blind people learn how to function without sight, I would guess with enough time working in a room like that people may be able to learn to function. I am guessing not many people lined up for that kind of duty.


I'm going with this answer, which seems like the simplest. I think you grossly misunderstood it.


Uhhhh...you're responding to who, moi? Or PapaBob? I know a blind person would have been great in this role, I just don't know if the army would be willing to have just one person on for specialized service like this.

Furthermore, as this fort and its very detailed records have survived, there is no mention anywhere of any one person being given the task of getting powder from the room. I would think that it would be a task that all the soldiers, or most of them, would have had to be able to do without blowing the place up.

Message edited by author 2014-07-07 17:41:54.
07/07/2014 05:43:14 PM · #20
Originally posted by snaffles:

Originally posted by LanndonKane:

Originally posted by PapaBob:

Blind people learn how to function without sight, I would guess with enough time working in a room like that people may be able to learn to function. I am guessing not many people lined up for that kind of duty.


I'm going with this answer, which seems like the simplest. I think you grossly misunderstood it.


Uhhhh...you're responding to who, moi? Or PapaBob? I know a blind person would have been great in this role, I just don't know if the army would be willing to have just one person on for specialized service like this.

Furthermore, as this fort and its very detailed records have survived, there is no mention anywhere of any one person being given the task of getting powder from the room. I would think that it would be a task that all the soldiers, or most of them, would have had to be able to do without blowing the place up.


What I meant to say is, PapaBob's answer seems like the simplest, most obvious one, and I think you misinterpreted it. PapaBob never said anything about blind people signing up for the army.

Message edited by author 2014-07-07 17:43:49.
07/07/2014 06:13:27 PM · #21
What I meant to say is, PapaBob's answer seems like the simplest, most obvious one, and I think you misinterpreted it. PapaBob never said anything about blind people signing up for the army. [/quote]

But I'm not misinterpreting anything! Fort Wellington was a working military fort in a very key position on the St Lawrence Seaway, during a very critical two-year period. The military, as I know any military person will attest, loves keeping records.

The plain and simple fact exists that nowhere, in any records kept at Fort Wellington, is there any mention whatsoever of just one person - blind or sighted, soldier or civilian - being given sole access to the powder room. Surely such a person's presence would have been noted.

And I fully agree that a blind person would be perfect for the job. But it's also been suggested over the years, several times, by other historians, visitors, staffers, etc.

Nobody's saying that there wasn't a blind person who did have that job.

Thing is, there are no records saying that a blind person did have that job.

Message edited by author 2014-07-07 18:17:14.
07/07/2014 06:15:23 PM · #22
Originally posted by snaffles:

What I meant to say is, PapaBob's answer seems like the simplest, most obvious one, and I think you misinterpreted it. PapaBob never said anything about blind people signing up for the army.


Again, I agree, I see no reason why a blind person wouldn't be the most obvious answer. But it's also been suggested over the years, several times, by other historians, visitors, staffers, etc.

And again, this was a working military fort in a very key position on the St Lawrence Seaway. The military, as I know any military person will attest, loves keeping records.

The plain and simple fact exists that nowhere, in any records kept at Fort Wellington, is there any mention whatsoever of just one person - blind or sighted, soldier or civilian - being given sole access to the powder room. Surely such a person's presence would have been noted. [/quote]

I think Lanndon meant that there was no proposition that a blind person was the one working in the room, only that since a blind person could learn to operate without sight, any person could theoretically be capable of such.

..

I still prefer my explosion proof lantern theory. :D
07/07/2014 06:21:47 PM · #23
Originally posted by snaffles:


@ Unca Raymee and Cory... even if black powder isn't as volatile as say weeping dynamite...well, they weren't using dynamite. They were using black powder, kept in wooden casks, and I'm betting that those kegs would have been prone to leaking every so often.


The difference is massive though, as nitroglycerin is one of the most common explosives used in dynamite, with clay or sawdust as a stabilizer (in early dynamite, modern sticks use entirely different compounds and stabilizers). The reason for this stabilizer is that nitroglycerin is dangerously sensitive to impact, heat, friction and dirty looks. Making this an even more serious situation is the formation of tertiary compounds which are even more shock/heat sensitive, and can literally go off from nothing more than moving the sticks (because crystallized explosives may be attached to other nearby surfaces and the act of removal causes these to fracture and can set them off)..

Black powder is nowhere near as sensitive, doesn't change into other compounds, and is overall a relatively safe product. (also, it doesn't detonate, it deflagrates, but that's a whole other conversation.)

..

In other news, my shipment of 10lbs of binary explosives should arrive this week. :D
07/07/2014 06:31:23 PM · #24
I still prefer my explosion proof lantern theory. :D

Yeah, and I agree it looks pretty good, but it still involves a live flame. Maybe a really weak one? The inside of the room is white, it's arched - actually it would make a fantastic studio, just take out all those dumb powderkegs ;-) And even if black powder isn't as unstable and volatile as I've heard (they may have played it up a little for the sake of visitors) you still could hardly to blow up the fort's magazine by being careless. They probably did perform overkill on all the safety measures, and drilled it into the soldiers on how careful they had to be. The soldiers back then wouldn't have had much education under their belts, and probably black powder was more unstable and volatile back then. There is still charcoal underneath the floor to absorb moisture and keep the powder as dry as possible.

However if you've thoroughly read this thread, and the wiki page you linked me to, Cory, you may see what I had already been thinking of - in one small key sentence.

Message edited by author 2014-07-07 18:35:10.
07/07/2014 06:31:29 PM · #25
Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by snaffles:

What I meant to say is, PapaBob's answer seems like the simplest, most obvious one, and I think you misinterpreted it. PapaBob never said anything about blind people signing up for the army.


I think Lanndon meant that there was no proposition that a blind person was the one working in the room, only that since a blind person could learn to operate without sight, any person could theoretically be capable of such.

I still prefer my explosion proof lantern theory. :D


correct
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 05:33:16 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 05:33:16 AM EDT.