6 ms·

As a former chemist and all-around maker, I love this and this bugs me all at once. I love the concept, but as others have pointed out, this is less a "periodic

by kortex 3y ago

As a former chemist and all-around maker, I love this and this bugs me all at once. I love the concept, but as others have pointed out, this is less a "periodic table" and more "grab bag of related things". You see these all over the place: foods, drinks, cars, etc. All table, no periodicity. Why are wrenches and drills strewn across three groups? Put the wrenches in one group, drills in the other. Impact drivers somewhere in between. There's some vague grouping, but it's pretty hodge podge. The way I would do it, is use electronegativity (tendency to give or remove electrons) as a proxy for additive/subtractive. Atomic weight is a proxy for actual weight/scale. Group I would be like clay forming (the OG additive process), concrete, FDM, SLS, injection molding, casting. Group II is a bit less additive, more bonding: hot glue, soldering, brazing, welding. Halogens hog out material: thermic lance, plasma cutter, laser, waterjet. Chalcogens: hand router, (power) router, lathe, mill. Metrology doesn't add or subtract, so obviously that's your Noble group. Transition metals are all the fasteners. Lanthanides/Actinides are all the weirdos. I'd also add a group for just the simple machines. I think it's more important to have groups, periodicity, and trends, than sticking to the exact shape/size of the periodic table of elements. This is Theodore Gray too! Author of a bunch of books and posters on chemistry. Well, you know what they say, if you want something done right...

hoosieree 3y ago
Inclined planes form a column. Unguided inclined planes: knives, axes. Guided: planes, scissors. Inclined planes wrapped around cylinders: drills, screws. Blunt objects form a column: Hammers, presses, brakes. I agree with your categorizations involving tools that rely on heat, but I guess the problem with any such taxonomy is the next person comes along and goes "well I would do this differently, and that..."
- kortex 3y ago
  Obviously everyone has their own classification. But TFA doesn't even distinct cutters from air pressure tools. I'd at least make a group for Fluid Workers: air compressor, water pump, hydraulic ram, hydraulic press.
  - theodoregray 3y ago
    Oh, yes, you found another place where I had to make an arbitrary placement. Air pressure tools just did not fit anywhere else, so I slapped them there in transition metals, which is unforgivable. See my longer comment for more whining about how it's not nearly as arbitrary as you make it out to be.
croisillon 3y ago
we definitely need a periodic table of periodic tables
- AareyBaba 3y ago
  but would it contain itself ?
  - kortex 3y ago
    Obviously. It'd be one of the tables known to Harvard. Just leave enough room for the ones to be discovered.
    - glompers 3y ago
      Every discovered table would contain items known to the state of California to be oncogenic.
    - nealabq 3y ago
      This'd make a nice lyric. If only "Harvard" rhymed with "discovered".
      - SAI_Peregrinus 3y ago
        With the right accent, they rhyme.
    - scubbo 3y ago
      > one of the tables known to Harvard This has the cadence of a reference, but Google didn't help me. Am I missing something?
      - hangsi 3y ago
        It's from The Elements, by Tom Lehrer (the final lyric of the song). https://youtu.be/qyNkrlwKs7c https://youtu.be/qyNkrlwKs7c
RagnarD 3y ago
Yes. Good thoughts but bottom line, it's trying to shoehorn something completely different into a form that makes it appear sophisticated. I think it just undercuts science. The periodic table is formed by important features of reality recognized in the elements, ultimately originating in quantum mechanics. Pretending that the structure applies to any capricious thing conveys an idea that the structure and reality is itself arbitrary.
- kortex 3y ago
  Valid. But so long as "periodic table of X" is a trope, I'm gonna complain about them. I could have sworn there was a subreddit or something for "bad periodic tables", where someone has laid out a collection in a table-shaped way, without any mind to organization or patterns. But all I find now is "breaking bad" related stuff. Maybe it was a fever dream. I agree that it's fairly arbitrary, but humans like order and structure and patterns. I think that's why the periodic table is captivating and magical.
  - RagnarD 3y ago
    Structure and patterns are great. I've love to see some structural classification of tools based on the nature of tools, not the quantum mechanical patterns of electron orbitals of atoms. :)
- ddingus 3y ago
  To me, the idea of grouping by basic, fundamental attributes to gain insight Has value. While I agree the analogy is pushing things, using it as a jump board to perhaps uncover something subtle by using a different shape may prove to be useful in a way similar to how the periodic table is useful.
theodoregray 3y ago
You complain that wrenches and drills are spread over several columns? Look at a periodic table please! The diagonal line splitting wrenches from drills is precisely the diagonal line splitting ordinary metals from non-metals. That’s one of the bits I’m most proud of! You have no idea how long I agonized over how to make this arrangement not be arbitrary, while at the same time dealing with some of the realities of how many tools of different kinds there are in different broad groupings. For example, as you say, wouldn't it make more sense for measuring tools to be the noble gases, since they don’t change anything, unlike basically all other tools? That’s one of the first things I decided to do, because it’s so obvious. But there are simply too many measuring tools I wanted to include: they had to go in the lanthanides and/or actinides, because those are bigger categories. Having a scale for additive vs. subtractive along an axis sounds great, but there are so many more subtractive tools than additive it would never work. Plus concrete tools, for example, didn’t even make the cut. They are literally not in there because, well, I just had too many other things to fit in that spark more joy for me (which is the ultimately the criterion for what I put in). In general, what I tried to preserve was (a) similar basic function within columns, (b) tools get bigger/heavier as you go down a column, (c) transition metals are all related despite being spread over 10 columns, (d) lanthanides/actinides being similar within rows instead of within columns (because it’s like they are actually all supposed to go in the third column, but that would just make the thing too wide), and (e) there’s a diagonal line between metals and non-metals. Beyond that I found a couple of small ways I could put in some analogies with actual chemical properties. For example, the halogens, which are hot, fiery elements, is where I put tools that use heat (soldering, welding, casting, 3D printing). But then I ran out of heat-related tools that made the cut to be categories, so I used the rest of that column for some categories that didn’t fit anywhere else: optical tools and toy tools. So sue me. Alkali earth metals (column 2) are not entirely dissimilar to alkali metals (column 1), so I put hammers in column 1 and things you might typically hit with a hammer in column 2. Imperfect, but there you go, and the counts worked out. The only individual element I could pay homage to was copper, element 29: that’s where I put all the brass and bronze non-sparking tools (which means they are otherwise in the wrong place, because all the other transition metals are cutting tools, but in space 29 I’ve got brass hammers and bronze wrenches. By all means rag on me for that choice too. I wanted to split single-edge cutting tools (knives, chisels, etc) and double-edge/edge-and-anvil cutting tools (nippers, shears, etc) into the early and late transition metals, but the counts just didn’t work out, so I tearfully gave up on that. I’m happy someone at least noticed enough to complain, and actually it’s nice that I’m getting pushback on something as erudite as the suitability of my element/tool analogies, as apposed to, for example, my risible opinions on titanium hammers (which are reflected only in the book, not the poster). As you say, I’m Theodore Gray and I should know better, right? Which is exactly why I just wrote an essay on why I’m right and this is not just an arbitrary jumble of tools! I spent months on this arrangement! OK, weeks, but it was a lot of time. I even wrote a Mathematica program that helped me pick 1- and 2-letter “element symbols” without ending up with any duplicates, even though that resulted in some weird and difficult-to-explain symbols (much as with actual atomic symbols). In conclusion, please keep the hate flowing and buy my poster and book. Thank you for coming to my TED talk, Theodore
danjc 3y ago
I've never heard anyone speak on this topic with such clarity. I'm sure you're well respected in the periodic table tooling configuration community.
- theodoregray 3y ago
  Judging from this thread it sounds like most people think I'm an idiot, and/or didn't even try to organize the tools.... Perhaps my organizational principles are just too subtle. What really surprised me, and speaks to the lack of a periodic table tooling configuration community, is that the domain periodictableoftools.com was unclaimed even late last year, well over 20 years into the era when someone surely would have thought of wanting it.
BizarroLand 3y ago
I would say that numeric should be weighted from "tools you practically can't do anything without", like screwdrivers or hammers, to "tools that are so specialized or expensive that almost no one has one or would ever need it, like electron microscopes or luthier specific tools like horse glue. Then vertically they should be sorted by type or tool focus, hand tool, electric tool, gear tool, glues and wedgers, focus on wood working, focus on automobile, focus on construction, and so on. Right now the current one is too higgledy-piggledy to make any sense of. It needs organization.

by kortex 3y ago

hoosieree 3y ago

Inclined planes form a column. Unguided inclined planes: knives, axes. Guided: planes, scissors. Inclined planes wrapped around cylinders: drills, screws. Blunt objects form a column: Hammers, presses, brakes. I agree with your categorizations involving tools that rely on heat, but I guess the problem with any such taxonomy is the next person comes along and goes "well I would do this differently, and that..."

kortex 3y ago
Obviously everyone has their own classification. But TFA doesn't even distinct cutters from air pressure tools. I'd at least make a group for Fluid Workers: air compressor, water pump, hydraulic ram, hydraulic press.
- theodoregray 3y ago
  Oh, yes, you found another place where I had to make an arbitrary placement. Air pressure tools just did not fit anywhere else, so I slapped them there in transition metals, which is unforgivable. See my longer comment for more whining about how it's not nearly as arbitrary as you make it out to be.

croisillon 3y ago

we definitely need a periodic table of periodic tables

AareyBaba 3y ago
but would it contain itself ?
- kortex 3y ago
  Obviously. It'd be one of the tables known to Harvard. Just leave enough room for the ones to be discovered.
  - glompers 3y ago
    Every discovered table would contain items known to the state of California to be oncogenic.
  - nealabq 3y ago
    This'd make a nice lyric. If only "Harvard" rhymed with "discovered".
    - SAI_Peregrinus 3y ago
      With the right accent, they rhyme.
  - scubbo 3y ago
    > one of the tables known to Harvard This has the cadence of a reference, but Google didn't help me. Am I missing something?
    - hangsi 3y ago
      It's from The Elements, by Tom Lehrer (the final lyric of the song). https://youtu.be/qyNkrlwKs7c https://youtu.be/qyNkrlwKs7c

RagnarD 3y ago

Yes. Good thoughts but bottom line, it's trying to shoehorn something completely different into a form that makes it appear sophisticated. I think it just undercuts science. The periodic table is formed by important features of reality recognized in the elements, ultimately originating in quantum mechanics. Pretending that the structure applies to any capricious thing conveys an idea that the structure and reality is itself arbitrary.

kortex 3y ago
Valid. But so long as "periodic table of X" is a trope, I'm gonna complain about them. I could have sworn there was a subreddit or something for "bad periodic tables", where someone has laid out a collection in a table-shaped way, without any mind to organization or patterns. But all I find now is "breaking bad" related stuff. Maybe it was a fever dream. I agree that it's fairly arbitrary, but humans like order and structure and patterns. I think that's why the periodic table is captivating and magical.
- RagnarD 3y ago
  Structure and patterns are great. I've love to see some structural classification of tools based on the nature of tools, not the quantum mechanical patterns of electron orbitals of atoms. :)
ddingus 3y ago
To me, the idea of grouping by basic, fundamental attributes to gain insight Has value. While I agree the analogy is pushing things, using it as a jump board to perhaps uncover something subtle by using a different shape may prove to be useful in a way similar to how the periodic table is useful.

theodoregray 3y ago

You complain that wrenches and drills are spread over several columns? Look at a periodic table please! The diagonal line splitting wrenches from drills is precisely the diagonal line splitting ordinary metals from non-metals. That’s one of the bits I’m most proud of! You have no idea how long I agonized over how to make this arrangement not be arbitrary, while at the same time dealing with some of the realities of how many tools of different kinds there are in different broad groupings. For example, as you say, wouldn't it make more sense for measuring tools to be the noble gases, since they don’t change anything, unlike basically all other tools? That’s one of the first things I decided to do, because it’s so obvious. But there are simply too many measuring tools I wanted to include: they had to go in the lanthanides and/or actinides, because those are bigger categories. Having a scale for additive vs. subtractive along an axis sounds great, but there are so many more subtractive tools than additive it would never work. Plus concrete tools, for example, didn’t even make the cut. They are literally not in there because, well, I just had too many other things to fit in that spark more joy for me (which is the ultimately the criterion for what I put in). In general, what I tried to preserve was (a) similar basic function within columns, (b) tools get bigger/heavier as you go down a column, (c) transition metals are all related despite being spread over 10 columns, (d) lanthanides/actinides being similar within rows instead of within columns (because it’s like they are actually all supposed to go in the third column, but that would just make the thing too wide), and (e) there’s a diagonal line between metals and non-metals. Beyond that I found a couple of small ways I could put in some analogies with actual chemical properties. For example, the halogens, which are hot, fiery elements, is where I put tools that use heat (soldering, welding, casting, 3D printing). But then I ran out of heat-related tools that made the cut to be categories, so I used the rest of that column for some categories that didn’t fit anywhere else: optical tools and toy tools. So sue me. Alkali earth metals (column 2) are not entirely dissimilar to alkali metals (column 1), so I put hammers in column 1 and things you might typically hit with a hammer in column 2. Imperfect, but there you go, and the counts worked out. The only individual element I could pay homage to was copper, element 29: that’s where I put all the brass and bronze non-sparking tools (which means they are otherwise in the wrong place, because all the other transition metals are cutting tools, but in space 29 I’ve got brass hammers and bronze wrenches. By all means rag on me for that choice too. I wanted to split single-edge cutting tools (knives, chisels, etc) and double-edge/edge-and-anvil cutting tools (nippers, shears, etc) into the early and late transition metals, but the counts just didn’t work out, so I tearfully gave up on that. I’m happy someone at least noticed enough to complain, and actually it’s nice that I’m getting pushback on something as erudite as the suitability of my element/tool analogies, as apposed to, for example, my risible opinions on titanium hammers (which are reflected only in the book, not the poster). As you say, I’m Theodore Gray and I should know better, right? Which is exactly why I just wrote an essay on why I’m right and this is not just an arbitrary jumble of tools! I spent months on this arrangement! OK, weeks, but it was a lot of time. I even wrote a Mathematica program that helped me pick 1- and 2-letter “element symbols” without ending up with any duplicates, even though that resulted in some weird and difficult-to-explain symbols (much as with actual atomic symbols). In conclusion, please keep the hate flowing and buy my poster and book. Thank you for coming to my TED talk, Theodore

danjc 3y ago

I've never heard anyone speak on this topic with such clarity. I'm sure you're well respected in the periodic table tooling configuration community.

theodoregray 3y ago
Judging from this thread it sounds like most people think I'm an idiot, and/or didn't even try to organize the tools.... Perhaps my organizational principles are just too subtle. What really surprised me, and speaks to the lack of a periodic table tooling configuration community, is that the domain periodictableoftools.com was unclaimed even late last year, well over 20 years into the era when someone surely would have thought of wanting it.

BizarroLand 3y ago

I would say that numeric should be weighted from "tools you practically can't do anything without", like screwdrivers or hammers, to "tools that are so specialized or expensive that almost no one has one or would ever need it, like electron microscopes or luthier specific tools like horse glue. Then vertically they should be sorted by type or tool focus, hand tool, electric tool, gear tool, glues and wedgers, focus on wood working, focus on automobile, focus on construction, and so on. Right now the current one is too higgledy-piggledy to make any sense of. It needs organization.