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