[theodoregray]

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

[kuchenbecker]

This is a classic "we should refactor" without understanding the original architecture/decision making.

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.

[kortex]

Oof. Well I feel like an internet twat now :p However this is also one of my most heavily accoladed HN posts (in terms of imaginary internet points) so clearly this struck a chord with a lot of readers.

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!

[theodoregray]

> But on the other hand, like, why not solder at 82 (Lead)?

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.

[paulstovell]

My hobby is tool collecting and occasionally, my wife makes me do work around the house to justify the tool collecting. So, I really enjoyed your creation here! I was going through it today and ticking off all the categories I own tools for (I got 96) and discovered a bunch of opportunities to expand the collection. Thank you!

> 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!

[theodoregray]

The beautiful thing about art vs. science is that you get to be arbitrary if you like... The main reason there is a separate category for fancy hammers is that I needed a page in the book to rant about how stupid it is to put a titanium head on a hammer. (Every square in the poster represents a 2-page spread in my Tools book.)

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).

[vinceguidry]

What are pliers doing in the actinides??

[theodoregray]

The entire row of actinides is "grabbing and squeezing" tools, except at the end where I have "unsqueezing" tools (spreaders and jacks, which are spreaders to separate things from the earth). Similarly the lanthanides are measuring tools.