3 ms·

This displays what I would consider to be a fairly limited knowledge of tools. Saws, for instance, take a variety of forms, and lumping all of the large ones i

This displays what I would consider to be a fairly limited knowledge of tools. Saws, for instance, take a variety of forms, and lumping all of the large ones into "big saws" rather ignores the fact that their use is fundamentally dependent on what kind of saw they are. Not their size. And perplexingly, miniature table saws are lumped in with other big saws. I'd also submit that a bung hole auger (lumped in with antique augers) is a reaming tool, not a drilling tool. Though one of the ones shown is a combination tool. There's an auger at the front to drill the hole, followed by the reamer to ream the taper. The important bit is still the reamer though, meaning the tool could properly be called a bung hole reamer.

solomonb 3y ago
I 100% agree and I think the periodic table is an inappropriate abstraction for organizing tools.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
IshKebab 3y ago
Too pedantic. I don't think the categories are meant to imply that the tools are similar to each other.
- f1shy 3y ago
  Agree about pedantic. But “periodic table” for me implies some similarity.
  - spurgu 3y ago
    Yeah I was also expecting a more well-thought-out structure given the periodic table layout.
  - theodoregray 3y ago
    Please see my long rant on this subject. There is quite a lot of periodic table structure....
theodoregray 3y ago
OK, you've made the first criticism I actually agree with! Bung hole augers do belong with reamers, not with augers. In my defense, they are called bung hole augers, and all the ones I have are antique, so they naturally gravitated to the antique augers category, but I should have known better, and for that I am sorry. Some of them don't even have augers at the front! The criticism of saws I reject: I split them by material in columns (wood- v.s metal-cutting), and by size vertically (getting heavier/more powerful as you go down a column). Bow saws are under hacksaws kind of out of desperation, but there are at least as many metal-cutting bow saws as wood-cutting. In fact given the popularity of hacksaws, perhaps in modern times that is the more common application of this style of stretched blade.
- solomonb 3y ago
  This table seems heavily biased towards the home woodworker/DIYer with some random antique hand tools thrown into the mix. I also can't really make heads or tails of the organization. How can "saw teeth," "air pressure tools," and "crescent wrench" each occupy a square? Saw teeth are a part of a blade, air pressure tools is category of power source for any tool, and crescent wrench is a brand of adjustable spanner/wrench. This system makes no sense. I also cannot find shitloads of common tools even if we are sticking with home scale woodworking. Off the top of my head, where is the router table? The shaper? The jointer? The impact driver? The drum sander? The wide belt sander? The spindle sander?
- solomonb 3y ago
  > The criticism of saws I reject: I split them by material in columns (wood- v.s metal-cutting), and by size vertically (getting heavier/more powerful as you go down a column). You have a single square for Bandsaws regardless of size or materials. Beneath band saw is a square called "other tools" which is on the same row as "big saws" but has an image of WD-40 and Duct Tape.

solomonb 3y ago

I 100% agree and I think the periodic table is an inappropriate abstraction for organizing tools.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

IshKebab 3y ago

Too pedantic. I don't think the categories are meant to imply that the tools are similar to each other.

f1shy 3y ago
Agree about pedantic. But “periodic table” for me implies some similarity.
- spurgu 3y ago
  Yeah I was also expecting a more well-thought-out structure given the periodic table layout.
- theodoregray 3y ago
  Please see my long rant on this subject. There is quite a lot of periodic table structure....

theodoregray 3y ago

OK, you've made the first criticism I actually agree with! Bung hole augers do belong with reamers, not with augers. In my defense, they are called bung hole augers, and all the ones I have are antique, so they naturally gravitated to the antique augers category, but I should have known better, and for that I am sorry. Some of them don't even have augers at the front! The criticism of saws I reject: I split them by material in columns (wood- v.s metal-cutting), and by size vertically (getting heavier/more powerful as you go down a column). Bow saws are under hacksaws kind of out of desperation, but there are at least as many metal-cutting bow saws as wood-cutting. In fact given the popularity of hacksaws, perhaps in modern times that is the more common application of this style of stretched blade.

solomonb 3y ago
This table seems heavily biased towards the home woodworker/DIYer with some random antique hand tools thrown into the mix. I also can't really make heads or tails of the organization. How can "saw teeth," "air pressure tools," and "crescent wrench" each occupy a square? Saw teeth are a part of a blade, air pressure tools is category of power source for any tool, and crescent wrench is a brand of adjustable spanner/wrench. This system makes no sense. I also cannot find shitloads of common tools even if we are sticking with home scale woodworking. Off the top of my head, where is the router table? The shaper? The jointer? The impact driver? The drum sander? The wide belt sander? The spindle sander?
solomonb 3y ago
> The criticism of saws I reject: I split them by material in columns (wood- v.s metal-cutting), and by size vertically (getting heavier/more powerful as you go down a column). You have a single square for Bandsaws regardless of size or materials. Beneath band saw is a square called "other tools" which is on the same row as "big saws" but has an image of WD-40 and Duct Tape.