VMs: RE: Roger Bacon "gunpowder cipher"...?

["GC" <glenclaston@xxxxxxxxx>]

Speaking as one who has done his share of gunpowder making (back
before terrorism was headlines and 'cause us rednecks don't know
no better - ), mixing s*, ch* and s.p. together in almost any
combination yields a burnable powder, so all that is necessary is
to know the primary ingredients.  A little experimentation yields
of course, a relatively reliable formula, the best being a slow
burning powder with little residue.  Too hot and fast can turn a
damascus barrel into a pretzel in short order.  Fuses on the other
hand, are a bit more tricky :-)

Something else that is proving to be quite tricky is Microsoft's
WEFT program, and bringing my webpages up to par with the
Imbeddable Fonts Standard.  I've noticed the EVA Hand 1 Font is
not set to be imbeddable, but mine will be, if I can ever get this
program to work properly without erasing my pages in the process.
Anybody ever tried Font Imbedding on their website, and if so, can
you give me any helpful pointers?  Please!!!!!

GC



> Hi everyone,
>
> One other quick thing: while looking into Robert Steele
> (who donated the
> positive rotograph of the VMS to the British
> Museum/Library in 1931), I
> found this in Jim Reeds' bibliography:
>
> 	Steele, Robert. ``Luru Vopo Vir Can Utriet.'' Nature 121
> 	(11 Feb. 1928), pp.208-9.
> 	[About [Roger] Bacon ``gunpowder cipher,'' not VMS.]
>
> For those that don't know about this, it is believed
> that Roger Bacon hid
> the recipe for gunpowder using an anagrammatic cipher:
> the anagram
> supposedly transforms...
>
> 	luru vopo vir can utriet
>
> ...into...
>
> 	R. VII PART. V NOV. CORUL. V ET
>
> ...which is allegedly short for...
>
> 	recipe VII partes, V novellae coruli, V et
>
> ...the central part of his recipe for gunpowder. This
> is certainly
> plausible from the words in the immediate context,
> though how any decoder
> would be certain to get the numbers (V and VII) in the
> right order escapes
> me (as well as VI and VI). Perhaps Bacon expected them
> to try all three and
> see which gave the biggest bang? :-/
>
> Can anyone please tell me if there are more recent
> articles on this (or
> other similar anagrammatic ciphers) than Steele's 1928
> article in Nature? I
> do know about Galileo & Huygens' use of these same kind
> of thing, but am
> hoping for rather earlier (medieval or very early
> modern) occurrences. :-)
>
> Thanks, .....Nick Pelling.....
>
>