The Periodic Table of Tools

> 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.

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!

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. :)

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.

> 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.