The Periodic Table of Tools
periodictableoftools.com
periodictableoftools.com
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...
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..."
This has the cadence of a reference, but Google didn't help me. Am I missing something?
If it was a periodic table of all periodic tables except those that contain itself then it would only contain itself if it does not contain itself, I mean it would not contain itself if it does contain itself, I mean, goddam it Bertrand Russell, how did you find me here? I signed up to Hacker News hoping to escape you once and for all!
-Gottlob Frege
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.
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.
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
No doubt some of the issues you describe become apparent when you actually attempt the task, yet it's easy to propose a reasonable alternative.
Anyway, I love that we both have a rebuttal to the original as well as a firm defense from the OP.
> Plus concrete tools, for example, didn’t even make the cut
I must say I was surprised that hammers, fancy hammers, and mallets all got their own categories, while my noisy Husqvarna concrete demolition saw was bundled in the same category as regular circular saws. Now it makes sense!
Concrete tools are missing because I just don't do a lot of concrete work. Had I finished the book about a year later I might have put some in, because earlier this year I built a new studio that involved pouring a 3600sq ft slab with the help of my concrete foreman friend and his buddies. So messy! I don't like to write about categories of tools I have little or no experience with, so other things crowded out concrete and masonry tools, other than carbide drills and diamond saws (which are fascinating because of the steel/stone hardness ratio that determines which model blade you want, as described in the book).
Clearly you are optimizing a different set of constraints and loss function. It seems like you value sticking closer to overall shape and count, as well as certain allegories between the tool and the element of that slot.
But on the other hand, like, why not solder at 82 (Lead)? Why not collets at 24 (Chromium) (a pun on CR collets and also collets are frequently high-chromium steel). Make room for oxy cutter / thermic lance on 8?
This is some god-tier nerd sniping, I love it.
> By all means rag on me for that choice too.
Actually I thought that was a great touch. Also I am pretty sure even-sized wrenches (hex in particular) is a reference to 6-member carbon rings, very appropriate.
> But then I ran out of heat-related tools that made the cut to be categories
You could fill halogens exclusively with welding processes. Odd/even wrenches are separate, why aren't AC and DC welding, or stick/mig/tig? Absolutely this is one of those "engineering/design decision" tarpits.
But...
BUT...
Really, when I think about what the periodic table means to me, I don't think about it in terms of shape, count, or location even. Really, I think about it in terms of valence electrons. My orgo teacher always said "The electron is where it's at". If I need a soft +2, I could grab Mg or Ca, sure, but maybe Cu2+ will do the trick. I can make soap (or something soap-like) with basically anything reasonably willing to shed those first two electrons. I can reach in my chemical toolbox for one of a collection of similar atoms to pull off a certain task, because of that lovely electronic geometric dance of electrons. And it just feels like the "shape" of each group going down the line is just not as consistent as my, admittedly very neurotic, neurospicy brain would like. And that's a me thing. Fundamentally, this is all my opinion.
> In conclusion, please keep the hate flowing and buy my poster and book.
You definitely earned a purchase for me :) I was already eyeing it but your rebuttal definitely sealed the deal.
I'm sure you put countless hours of effort and emotion and decision into your table and I don't mean to detract from the art of it (and let this be a lesson to the audience of the perils of feeling pseudonymous on the internet). I really appreciate the work. But boy howdy does it nerd-snipe me!
Two reasons: (1) solder largely doesn't contain lead anymore. It's been completely banned from plumbing solder in most countries, and its use in electrical solder is rapidly declining. (2) As you say, I valued different things than you apparently would. Solder in that position would not connect meaningfully with other heat-related tools, which otherwise form a nice column. I did that for copper and copper alone because there are such a large and attractive variety of brass and bronze tools it was just too good of a category to pass up, and because having a skipped beat in the cutting tools seemed like a good idea. (Four sets of ten cutting tools in a row could get monotonous in the book, so each row is broken up a bit, for flow reasons).
> Also I am pretty sure even-sized wrenches (hex in particular) is a reference to 6-member carbon rings, very appropriate.
Oh My God. Believe it or not, the fact that even-sided wrenches are in the carbon space, and that the image prominently features the one wrench I have that looks most like a benzene ring, is completely accidental. I absolutely did not plan it that way. Thank you for pointing out how brilliant even my subconscious mind must be.
> You could fill halogens exclusively with welding processes.
It comes down to page counts. Choosing 118 categories isn't just to arbitrarily make it fit the periodic table, but also to very non-arbitrarily make it fit the page count my publisher aims for in all of my books (this being #6 in the same visual style). Sure, there could have been a few more or a few less, but 118 plus introduction/conclusion is a good fit, and so why not make it exactly fit the table format? Splitting up welding would have required dropping other things, and on balance I made the decision that all welding has to fit on one page.
> I don't think about it in terms of shape, count, or location even.
Here is where we get into fun vs. deep meaning. The iconic shape of the real periodic table is one of the most recognizable shapes in the world. It's like the Nike logo, the atom symbol, an apple with a bite out of it, etc. It's a shape billions of people recognize. When you take that specific shape, and none other, and repurpose it into a classification of something else, it creates the momentary dissonance that is the essence of humor. Periodic Table of Tools is of course not nearly as funny as the classic Periodic Table of Vegetables, but it's way funnier than the Well Organized and Sensible Classification Table of Tools. Fun sells.
I appreciate your appreciation of how hard this is. It is not until you start actually trying to create a real, specific arrangement of actual tools that you see all the subtle issues. Believe me, if you came up with your own periodic table of tools, you too would end up with compromises and inconsistencies that would get you sniped at on hackernews.
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.
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.
In America I could only get close with farm animals and guns.
Also the Was ist Was series had the best explanations of how real stuff (locomotives, printing press, sexual reproduction, etc) works. If you can’t find the books I’m sure some of the videos are on YouTube.
Ironically the picture of the chuck is a collet
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Engines-Inner-Workings-Machines-World...
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.
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.
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?
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.
Also, where are the CHANNEL LOCK style pliers?
It destroys everything on its path.
The presentation card of the no-good craftsman wannabe.
Banned in my garage.
The Arsenic of tools.
Extra legit because Nick Offerman's non-acting job is running a woodworking shop.
[0] https://www.nbcstore.com/products/parks-and-recreation-swans...
Come to think of it, I didn’t notice some of tools you’d need to work on an engine.
Some day I might create some new rows, because there are a lot of important categories that are completely absent.
I'm sure this is a personal preference thing but (to me) the columns should be thematically similar, off the top of my head (I am not skilled at manufacturing nor construction):
1. Things that pound things into other things (hammers)
2. Things that twist things into other things (screwdrivers)
3. Things that join things (staples, rivets, etc. -- yes, I get that this covers both nails and screws)
4. Things that shape things
5. Things that split things
6. Things that cut things
7. Things that break things down
8. Things that mix things
9. Things that contain things
10. Things that move single things
11. Things that move aggregate things
12. Things that etch things
13. Things that measure the size of things
14. Things that measure the mass of things
15. Things that measure force
16. Things that measure other attributes?
things that have just broken a flower vase, things that tremble as if they were mad, suckling pigs
All to say, thanks for making something interesting enough to disagree with/about, and thanks for the clarifications.
For those people who have little experience with the trades - this is an art project, and building up your understanding of tools from this resource probably isn't a great idea.
For those people who can't get the screwdriver bits image out of their mind - I'm with you.
[0] I think it actually unteaches things as it obfuscates the point of the shape of the periodic table.
One that changes color the longer you brush so that you know you've brushed sufficiently (and not just blood-red to indicate your gums are now bleeding).
One that changes color based on where the calculus on your teeth accumulated, so you can target you brushing.
One that does the brushing for you, just keep it in your mouth for 3 minutes and rinse.
Oh lord...
This exists, although for some reason I'm not aware that it's available as part of a toothpaste. (Maybe the toothpaste foam would create false positive indications by making it seem to accumulate in places that don't actually have plaque.)
> Granite flats can be used as mounting surfaces for machines that need to stay very accurately aligned. Dozens of these huge precision granite blocks were sold as scrap to a local stone dealer, and I happened to pull up in their lot just after they had unloaded them. Blocks were piled up everywhere, blocking the driveway and generally making a nuisance of themselves, so the owner offered to sell me a bunch cheap just to get them out of his hair. I was told that the two mounting surfaces on each block are flat and parallel within millionths of an inch. This could be true, and if it is you’re looking at some of the most expensive lawn furniture in the world. I rented a rough-terrain forklift to arranged them in my front yard. There they remain to this day, 25 years later. 25 million years from now they will probably still be there, buried under the debris of a thousand civilizations come and gone. [1]
Not to be a debbie downer but there's zero order to this "periodic" table. If there were, the granite plates would be somewhere in the first couple of rows as the foundation to the industrial revolution. We wouldn't have had precision manufacturing or 95% of the modern tools on that table without them. Building them was the first time humans figured out how to make perfect flat surfaces without which our world wouldn't be possible.
(Also, I would name gauge blocks over granite flats as fundamental to precision, but in any case, all measuring tools are in the same row because they are related, just as are the lanthanides and actinides.) They are at the bottom because that's where they fit most naturally. My logic they should be the noble gasses, because they don't change anything. But there were too many I wanted to include. It was anodizing having to move them to a larger space.
It's for grabbing a sprocket on a bike wheel.
This is someone's art project, it's pretty cool. Enjoy the thing if you like it! It's not meant to be an encyclopedia.
I can see perhaps not agreeing with their decisions, so maybe the groupings don't look correct to you, but they seem to have made some effort to be "periodic".