On little shiny magnets, and the end of human freedom

A commenter on this post pointed to this new ban, in the Australian State of Victoria, on bundles of little rare-earth magnets...

Neocube magnet toy

...sold as constuction toys.

Neocube magnet sculpture

A few years ago, when these branded collections of spherical (and now also cubic) magnets were first gaining popularity, one of the sellers of such things noticed I'd written this, this, and this (and possibly they also noticed this), or just that I'm pretty high in the results for a Google search for rare-earth magnets. They offered to send me some of their "jewellery magnets", from which you can make bracelets and rings and uncomfortable earrings and so on, for review.

I said it looked as if the more complex shapes would be fiendishly difficult to create without all the magnets clicking together into a blob all the time, and asked if this was a problem.

They didn't reply. Or send me a free infuriating blob of magnets.

(Years ago, Mark picked up my Amazing Magnets ball and squished it into a coagulated impossible lump. I left it that way. It took Alan, whose lot in life it is to protect the world from the entropic influence of people like me and Mark, ages to reconstruct it.)

That constitutes the entirety of my professional involvement in the little-toy-magnets world. Perhaps I was wrong; it's demonstrably possible to make all sorts of nifty things with them:

Buckyballs magnet sculpture
(Image source: Flickr user IslesPunkFan)

Buckyballs magnet sculpture
(Image source: Flickr user IslesPunkFan)

Buckyballs magnet sculpture
(Image source: Flickr user l0b0)

Buckyballs magnet sculpture
(Image source: Flickr user Happy Monkey)

Until now.

Toy magnets like these are now banned, in the process of being banned, or at least temporarily withdrawn from sale, in various jurisdictions both here in Australia and elsewhere.

All this excitement has happened because rare-earth magnets are dangerous to swallow.

They're not a poisoning hazard. An alternative name for the ceramic these magnets are made from is "NIB", for neodymium, iron and boron, and those elements are not particularly toxic to mammals individually or in combination. (Calling these things "neodymium magnets" is actually pushing it a bit; it's the neodymium in the formula that allows it to be magnetised so strongly, but the molecule is mostly iron, Nd2Fe14B.) The fragile black ceramic of the magnets themseves is almost always covered with a protective material, usually a plating of shiny nickel, but that's pretty harmless, too.

Swallowing one or more rare-earth magnets in one go is unlikely to do any harm at all. They'll just click together in your mouth or stomach, and probably pass through your gut without complications; even the block-shaped ones have rounded corners.

But if you swallow one or more magnets, then wait for them to move down your gut a bit, then swallow another magnet or three, the separate magnets or masses thereof can stick together with some of your tissue in between. This is likely to be Bad News.

(You can probably do something similar if you inhale one magnet after another, too. The above-linked medical literature also notes that a kid who's swallowed only one rare-earth magnet, and then goes in for magnetic resonance imaging, can find himself in a world of pain.)

These problems are not actually a new thing. As the New York Times points out, previous rare-earth-magnet construction toys have also been withdrawn, for the same reason.

Geomag sculpture
(Image source: Flickr user Karl Horton)

These toys first hit the big time with "Geomag"...

Geomag sculpture
(Image source: Flickr user aldoaldoz)

...which is based around plastic pieces with small rare-earth magnets on their ends and corners. And Geomag wasn't an original idea, either; people had been making sculptures out of rare-earth magnets and steel balls for years (q.v. that Amazing Magnets ball, which I reviewed in 2002).

"Roger's Connection"...

Roger's Connection sculpture
(Image source: Flickr user IslesPunkFan)

...came out a couple of years before Geomag. It has much longer rods, and larger magnets recessed into the ends of the rods for a less wobbly connection. I bought a couple of sets years ago, and they're still on sale today, though perhaps not for much longer.

Geomag was the first really popular rare-earth-magnet construction toy, though, and it spawned umpteen cut-price competitors.

You can lever or chew the magnets out of the ends of Geomag-type components (or, for advanced experimenters...

Dissolving magnet toys in acetone
(Image source: Flickr user Windell Oskay, one of the Evil Mad Scientists)

...dissolve the rods in acetone), and the magnets will just fall out of some of the really cheap and nasty Geomag knockoffs. And a child that eats one, waits a while and then eats another, may end up grievously injured.

"Magnetix" was the biggest Geomag knockoff brand and far from the worst-made, and it was withdrawn from sale in the USA after loose magnets killed one kid and put a few others in surgery.

Over the same period of time, bicycles killed, maimed and paralysed far, far more children, of course. But that doesn't make it OK to sell toys with small parts that fall off, even if those small parts don't have the ability to give you bowel ischemia via quantum physics.

The people who sell little round-or-square magnets under brands like...

Buckyballs magnets

...Buckyballs or Zen Magnets don't contest any of this. They've also previously cooperated with regulatory bodies by improving their safety warnings and complying with the usual bureaucratic labelling-law friction, like when Buckyballs said their toy magnets were suitable for children aged 13 and up, when existing local law said they only actually meet the requirements for 14 and up.

But now the magnet-sellers are being sued by the US Consumer Product Safety Commission, and have responded with...

...a "Save Our Balls!" campaign, and a petition, and so on.

Their argument is pretty straightforward: There are many things which, when left unattended, and found and eaten or otherwise interacted with by a toddler, can gravely harm said toddler. Few of these things are banned, because even if humans abandoned civilisation and returned to the trees, there would still be rocks and sharp sticks all over the place.

The CSPC's purpose is to "protect the public from unreasonable risks of injury or death". Their full complaint (PDF here) contends that these magnets do constitute such an unreasonable risk, because no warning on the box or in the instructions can prevent these little magnets from being left stuck to the fridge or on the floor or in some other place where small kids can find them. The CSPC also contends that older children, if they do things like simulating mouth and tongue piercings by putting a magnet on each side, can swallow or inhale the magnets and end up very ill. This has actually happened at least once. (Given the popularity of tongue studs and of these magnet toys, I bet older children have swallowed one or more magnets quite a lot of times. It's only likely to be a problem if they wait a while and do it again.)

I think the most important part of the CSPC complaint, though, and the part which raises it above mere Think Of The Children busybody nonsense, is that consumers demonstrably do not recognise the risk posed by toy-magnet products.

The CSPC are not complaining about knives, and saucepans full of boiling water, and automobiles, all of which harm and kill far more children per year than little magnets do, because it is generally recognised that children need to be protected from these things. Most people with toddlers, or even without, would not leave a straight razor taped to the fridge two feet off the ground.

But people haven't gotten a similar message about little magnets.

And it's not a theoretical problem; kids keep eating the damn things.

The CSPC complaint mentions only Buckyball- and Buckycube-branded magnets, but if it's upheld, I think you can can reasonably expect all such magnets to be banned in the USA.

I'm not certain, though. It could just end up banning such magnets when they're sold as novelties or toys.

This seems to be the way it's working out here in Australia. The Western Australian ban does not apply to "magnets used for industrial or scientific purposes"; similar exceptions are made in a 2010 Tasmanian interim ban (PDF here), and in the recent New South Wales interim ban (PDF here).

I'm actually quite heartened by the NSW ban, because it specifically says it only covers magnets "that are intended or marketed by the manufacturer primarily as a manipulative or construction desk toy or as jewellery".

This is still bad news for sellers of brightly-coloured marked-up magnet packs, and still means many ordinary consumers will miss out on being able to pay the premium to buy such items in ordinary consumer outlets, and probably won't be able to find them anywhere else.

But this ban says nothing about people selling un-marked-up magnets, without any statements about their purpose, for rather better prices on eBay and elsewhere.

Spherical magnets seem to be a little thin on the ground on eBay right now. Craft yourself a round-magnet-finding search string and all you'll see are disks and cylinders. I wouldn't be at all surprised if many sellers (overwhelmingly in China, which is where I think all cheap NIB magnets are made) decided to stop listing spherical magnets for a while, in case their products all get seized by Customs wherever they send them, and they then get lots of negative feedback.

If you cease to discriminate by shape, though, it's not hard to find inexpensive "Buckycube"-type cubic magnets.

"Buckycubes" are 4mm NIB cubes in a selection of colours. The cheapest no-name eBay cubes are all plated with silvery nickel, and may have thinner plating (or may not), but very small NIB magnets like these are generally hard-wearing; even the tiny contact points on spherical ones don't wear out that fast. And if they're way cheaper you probably won't care if the nickel flakes off a couple of them.

A 216-piece pack of Buckycubes will set you back $US39.95 + $US5.95 for shipping; 21.25 US cents per cube. To be fair, it'll probably cost you a bit less, since the Buckyballs people are for some reason currently having something of a fire sale, with coupon codes and such. 20% off your whole order seems to be easy to get; if that applies to shipping as well as the item price, then you'll be paying 18.4 cents per cube.

Restrict your eBay search to 4mm cubes, and as I write this you'll find the cheapest 216-piece pack for $US26.39 delivered; that's 12.2 cents per magnet. (Make sure you do a "world" search; local-currency prices in Australia, at least, are a bit higher. It seems that even China can't believe how crappy the US dollar is these days.)

This seems to be about the floor price. If you want a thousand-piece pack, it's $US119.99 delivered, a molecule less than 12 US cents per magnet.

UPDATE: I just noticed that well-known online cheapie-shop DealExtreme is shamelessly selling a set of 216 golden 3mm sphere magnets for $US15.40 delivered to anywhere, 216 5mm black spheres for $US17.10 delivered, and 125 4mm silver cubes for $US16 delivered. These are excellent prices to start with, and there are bulk discounts if you want to buy three or more units. Just don't try to re-sell them, if you live somewhere with these anti-toy-magnet laws!

UPDATE 2: More DealExtreme tiny-magnet sets. If you're a real penny-pincher they'll sell you a hundred minuscule 3-by-1mm discs for only $US4.10, and they have a nicely-packaged 216-3mm-sphere pack for $US15.60. 216 "silver white" 5mm spheres (which really do look silvery rather than just polished-steel-ish) are $US20.30, as are 216 golden 5mm spheres. 216 silver 4mm cubes will set you back $US18.70; 216 5mm cubes in the same finish are $US20.80.
Oh, and here are 216 red 5mm spheres for $US17 delivered!

(And then there's this kit, which only gives you 27 spheres and 36 long rods for $US15.90. But it comes in a nice little metal box! And here are yet more cubic ones in nice little tins. And here's a balls-and-bars set at DealExtreme that actually comes in Buckyballs packaging, which would normally mean it's a knockoff. Now, though, it may be the real thing, being sold where the product ban cannot reach.)

Again, these prices are all excellent, and you can get the usual bulk discounts; if you decided to buy a thousand of the super-cheap tiny discs, for instance, you'd pay $US33.90 delivered for the lot - three point four cents per magnet!

When I started writing this piece, I was all fired up to mention yet again that Kinder Surprise chocolate eggs with a toy inside are banned in the USA, and they're not banned in most other places, and the confectionery aisles of Australian supermarkets are not, so far as I have been able to determine, littered with the corpses of asphyxiated children, and presumably that's because all Australian shelf-stackers know how to administer the Heimlich maneuver. I also contemplated using the term "natural selection", with regard to children over the age of ten who eat their toys.

And as I've written before, I'm not crazy about preventing grown-ups from having things that could hurt children, or other adults, if used irresponsibly. Things keep being banned if they're possibly hazardous and, in the opinion of busybodies, more fun than they are useful. This is, to use the technical term, bullshit; it's the sort of Puritan worldview that bans recreational drugs for no reason other than that they are recreational drugs.

Most sane people accept, however, that it is difficult to make a case for private ownership of land mines in the civilised world.

Or, to pick a more realistic scenario, it is fair to prohibit the construction of booby traps on your own private land to catch trespassers, because even if it is your private land, you're living in a society here, and bear-trapping firemen, punji-staking tourists who wish to ask for directions, or SM-70-ing anyone who investigates the smell after you die in your house, has been decided by the rest of us to be unacceptable.

Less theatrically again, this is why the civilised world generally requires people building and maintaining structures to do so to something approaching local code standards, because you're not the only person who's going to have to deal with the place, even if nobody else busts in there until after you've died. If you want to have deathtrap electrical wiring, giant piles of fermenting garbage and guard dogs driven insane by mistreatment, get the hell out of the First World, because we've decided we won't put up with that. There's a limit to the risk to others that you're allowed to create in the name of individualism.

And so, after yet another reduction of the drama involved, we get to little shiny toy magnets.

On the one hand, they're fun, and the number of serious medical incidents they've caused is trivially small compared with those caused by skateboards, netball or hiking.

But on the other hand, they have been demonstrated to pose a real hazard, and there's no good way to mitigate it. No amount of "keep away from ALL children" warnings will make these small shiny lose-able objects actually inaccessible or unattractive to small children, and people don't seem to take the warnings seriously anyway. And even if you've no kids and no intention to have them, the little bastards are still likely to find their way into your house at some point.

And the danger isn't just of cuts and bruises. A perforated bowel will very probably kill you if you don't get serious medical treatment, whether you're four or forty.

One way to mitigate the danger of products and activities is to require licensing or other legal paperwork before someone can buy or do whatever it is. But this is for guns and cars and SCUBA and skydiving; it's ridiculous for executive-toy novelties.

We live in a world of imperfect solutions, and upon reflection, I think bans on small magnetic novelties aren't even the least perfect solution I've seen today. Especially if it's not a Ban On All Magnets.

As long as you can still buy 10,000 round NIB magnets with the same specs as the ones sold under special brand names on eBay, or wherever, or similarly buy tons of even cheaper disc magnets for the thousand and one things they turn out to be useful for, then I don't count destruction of the market for marked-up novelty-shop (or even worse) versions of the same things to be a great injustice.

I accept that the current magnet bans are much more likely to lead to truly onerous and irrational magnet bans than, say, the acceptance of gay marriage is to lead to people marrying farm animals. If and when someone tries to ban strong magnets in general, even huge ones that pose a serious danger to grown-ups, I will stand up and be counted in opposition.

But even as a quite serious appreciator of weird and wonderful toys and gizmoes, I see no strong grounds for complaint in bans on little magnets sold as toys.

You're never too young for thermite

In the comments of this post about chemistry sets and science education, gwdonnelly asked:

As a kid I loved playing with tools, fire, magnifying glasses, etc, etc. Along with some mates I made thermite and even had a go at some very small touch powder (could do with more practice at growing crystals there!)...

Anyway, I would like to get my kids into doing experiments in a slightly more controlled, and safe, way - any recommendations on what to get a 4-5 year old started with?

I've made this a new post so that other commenters can chime in with ideas. Here's what I managed to think of:

1: As mentioned in that post, growing crystals, including sugar crystals so you end up with rock candy:

Rock candy
(source: Flickr user futileboy)

2: A chemical garden, a quite different kind of crystal experiment often sold as "Magic Rocks".

3: While you're at it, the cheap-'n'-lazy version of a chemical garden, those little cardboard trees that grow fuzzy crystals:

Crystal tree
(Source: Flickr user drewish)

Crystal tree

(Source: Flickr user watz)

4: Go for a wander and collect and identify rocks, plants and other people's unattended property. (Strike out whichever does not apply.) You can build a collection of a wide variety of rocks you can't find in your own neighbourhood quite cheaply via eBay, too. Just bear in mind that if a mineral sample seems too good to be true, it's eminently possible that it is.

5: Tumbling your own rocks has been a popular hobby for ages, too; all sorts of ordinary-looking rocks come up lovely when highly polished:

Tumbled rocks
(Source: Flickr user vpickering)

You can make your own tumbler (or "ball mill", which is only a ball mill if you... put balls in it) from a plastic container and a scrounged-up motor. All you're likely to have to buy, besides perhaps a grab bag or two of guaranteed-impressive un-tumbled minerals, is some "tumbling media", so you can have fast abrading of rough stones and fine polishing later on without just hoping a handful of sand will do both jobs. (There are some other inexpensive tumbling-media options, too.)

6: Five years might be a bit young for soldering or an actual microcontroller (look how cheap!), but you can still play with electronics - wires, motors, batteries (and/or a jimmied PC PSU), switches (you've obviously got to have at least one knife switch)...

Breadboard wire-tangle
(Source: Flickr user LenP17)

...breadboards and jumpers and, as I've mentioned before...

LED throwie production line
(image source Flickr user c3o)

...a ton of super-cheap LEDs and other components, and surprisingly young kids can build all sorts of things.

7: Make your own thumb piano:

Thumb piano
(Source: Flickr user Trocaire)

8: Growing mustard/cress/bean sprouts on a wet paper towel...

Sprouting spud
(Source: Flickr user kidicarus222)

...or the classic toothpicked spud.

9: Magnets.

Rare-earth magnets

Rare-earth magnets are very cheap these days, and small ones make great toys for any kid old enough not to swallow them.

(And even then it's no big deal, unless they swallow more than one. This has recently turned into a problem for people who sell small rare-earth magnets as toys in the USA, because apparently you can't trust an American child under the age of 14 not to eat everything they touch. See also the American Kinder Surprise ban. Apparently something magical happens between the ages of 14 and 18, which transforms American children from Lego-eating lackwits into citizens responsible enough to be trusted with a firearm. But not a beer until they're 21, of course!)

[UPDATE: A less snarky version of the above can be found here. On reflection, I found that the tiny-toy-magnet bans now spreading across the globe are actually quite defensible.]

Do make sure you stick with small rare-earth magnets for toys. Obviously really big rare-earth magnets can crush your hand, but much smaller ones can snap together hard enough that they break. Don't get any very thin ones, and don't get anything with a diameter much more than a centimetre (half an inch, say), and their field is small enough and their momentum low enough that they'll last a long time.

If you want safe big magnets, get simple and cheap black ferrite ones instead; they're much weaker than rare-earth magnets. (It's theoretically possible to lever the big ferrite ring magnet off the back of a speaker driver, but only once have I managed to do that with a magnet of any size without cracking it.)

10: Looking at stuff under a microscope. A proper lab microscope would be best but those sell for pretty large prices, and the cheap small ones for kids are, I think, usually pretty crappy quality. Instead, you could go for one that plugs into a TV:

Eyeclops output
(Source: Flickr user Neven Mrgan)

Everybody seems to like the Eyeclops camera-microscope.

A cheap alternative is, of course, your basic magnifying glass, or a "loupe", which is either a small high-powered magnifying glass, or a monocle-style mad-scientist magnifier.

Or you could buy or make your own Leeuwenhoek glass-bead microscope:

Glass-bead microscope
(Source: Flickr user rouwkema)

(One of van Leeuwenhoek's greatest, but least helpful, achievements was concealing how easy it is to make his microscopes' tiny lenses. Everybody thought he ground them with fantastic accuracy, when all he actually did was melt the end of a glass rod and allow surface tension to pull it into a sphere.)

Leeuwenhoek microscopes aren't the easiest to look through, but can effortlessly resolve the tiny beasties in pond water.

Oh, and then there's the quickest microscope ever, provided you have a digital camera with a very small lens, like the camera in a phone: Just put a drop of water on the lens, turn the phone over carefully...

Water-drop phone-camera microscope
(Source: Flickr user ipasha)

...and bingo, one microscope!


OK, folks; what have I missed?

More knives and stabbing weapons

A reader writes:

I have little background knowledge of knives and even less experience with sharpening. I recently did some googling of your older articles to learn a bit more about these topics.

[Except for the Miyabi 613 review I put up the other day...

Big eff-off shiny knife

...and this piece, I haven't actually written much about knives and sharpening. These three reviews don't really talk about it. -Dan]

I'm in the market for some solid kitchen knives. It looks like buying some used Global knives on eBay might be a good way to get some high quality steel. I would likely purchase the CRKT Slide Sharp (based on your recommendation) and attempt to learn to sharpen. The other possibility is a ceramic knife, since these kitchen knives shouldn't ever be prone to "abuse". Which would you recommend?

More interestingly, though, I'm looking to purchase an every-day-carry foldable knife for my Dad. He has a long history of buying $20 pocket knives and shortly destroying them. He uses them to pry, chisel, stab, cut, and occasionally as a makeshift screwdriver. I've done some brief research on the topic and heard some names like "Strider" tossed around. I'm OK with spending some decent money to get a knife that will withstand this sort of abuse (and ideally have a warranty of some type). What would you recommend in this situation?

Kendell

Yes, used famous-brand kitchen knives are a good idea, provided they haven't already been sharpened down to nothing, or hideously abused. (See also, old cast-iron pots and pans. Very tough, and quite non-stick too, when properly seasoned.)

If you're going to be using the knives a lot then you might want to try a few different types, though. Not only are there umpteen blade styles, but some people prefer Global's unusual seamless ovoid handles, some like traditional Western handles that're a riveted sandwich with a full tang in the middle, and some people prefer the circular traditional Japanese handles.

If you're buying used knives that you're probably going to have to sharpen before you use them, though, you should practice on a cheap knife or three before assaulting a nice one. Yes, it is possible for a complete amateur to to screw up even when using a guide jig, and the faster a given sharpening system works, the faster you can screw up.

The Slide Sharp jig is pretty close to foolproof, but because it's based on ceramic "crock sticks", it's no good for sharpening a really blunt blade. It'll do it eventually, but it's much better to start with a cheap coarse stone to put something approximating an edge on the blade.

So go to the dollar store and get yourself a cheap coarse stone or some suspiciously cheap alleged diamond cards, and the cheapest knives they've got that are actually physically functional. This mainly just means the knives need to have a a proper tang - steel extending from the blade - down the middle of the handle, not just some dinky glue joint; I don't know what the cheapie-stores are like where you live, but the one in my town doesn't have any really worthless knives. You'll probably find Western-style kitchen knives in a discount store, and quite often also small knives and cleavers using the single-sided Japanese chisel grind.

The only thing really wrong with super-cheap knives, provided they have a proper tang, is that they'll go blunt faster than a fancy knife. But that means they're faster to sharpen, too, and it also means you can just chuck them in the dishwasher and not worry about them maybe bouncing against a glass and denting the edge. "Oh no, my two-dollar knife is dented."

(Update: To make sure the above claims remain true of, at least, my local Go-Lo, I just bought a boning knife with a six-inch blade there, for $AU2.49. Full tang, good handle, and a good factory edge everywhere but on the tip, which is a common problem for cheap knives and easily remedied. All in all a perfectly satisfactory piece of cutlery even without touching up the tip, for marginally more than the price of a McDonald's cheeseburger.

Update 2: After about a year of use and numerous trips through the dishwasher, it's become apparent that the "rivets" holding the handle onto this super-cheap knife are just disks of metal glued onto the side of the handle. One has fallen off. So there's glue holding the handle and blade together, instead of real rivets, but it's still holding on fine. It'd be easy to re-attach the handle "scales" to the sides of the blade if they ever do come loose. Here's an illustrated article about the handle of a knife with real rivets, in case you're wondering what I'm talking about.

There were four-knife sets there too, including a full-sized carving knife, for less than $AU10. If I were a penniless student kitting out the share-house kitchen, I'd just get those knives and one cheap sharpening stone; job done, for a third of the price of one Wüsthof paring knife.)

You can get off-brand knives of decent quality quite cheaply, too. I like the ones Aldi supermarkets sometimes sell along with their other limited-time loss-leader products; their santoku-type knives have a good thin profile and those little hollows in the sides of the blade to stop sliced food sticking to the knife, and you can get a small one and a medium one for less than $US10. You may be able to find similar bargains in kitchen-gear or department stores, if the salespeople don't manage to steer you towards higher-margin European brands.

If you sprinkle a few carefully-chosen search terms on eBay, you can find quite a few decent-looking and cheap kitchen knives there, too.

Ceramic knives can now be had cheaply from the usual crapvendors (and Aldi!). I don't know how good the edge is on the off-brand ones, though, and they're basically unsharpenable even with diamond abrasive (you have to send the brand-name ones back to the factory for re-sharpening). So if you get a bad one it's going to stay bad forever. But if you get a decent one and don't use it to pry the lids off paint cans, in domestic use it'll probably last you many years. (I wouldn't be surprised if advanced materials, over the next decade or three, made knife-sharpening a thing of the past.)

I actively enjoy keeping steel knives sharp, so I haven't bothered to buy any ceramic ones. The only ceramic blade in this house is the one on my Kyocera scraper, which is an interesting tool; the ultra-hard blade hasn't visibly worn in years of use, and you can use it to scrape just about anything off just about anything else. If I were buying ceramic knives, I'd just start with the best-reviewed ones on DealExtreme or whereever. There are some pretty cheap ones on Amazon, too. (Note that the brightly-coloured super-cheap Komachi knives are actually steel with a low-friction plastic coating, not ceramic.)

The one other piece of advice I have for the kitchen-knife novice - not that I'm very far above novice status myself - is that you should never use a sharp knife on a glass cutting board, ceramic plate or stone tabletop. Cutting on a metal surface isn't a great idea, either. Glass cutting boards are wonderfully hygienic, and they're fine for cutting cheese on with a blunt knife, and they're also OK for the average domestic chef, because the average domestic chef has nothing but blunt knives anyway. Glass cutting boards might even be all right with ceramic knives, though I doubt it. They'll definitely instantly fold over the edge of a sharp steel knife, though. Use wooden or plastic cutting boards instead; plastic is the more hygienic.

On to the subject of your knife-torturing father.

No folding knife can be anything like as strong as a fixed-blade knife for levering and prying and such. Some fancy folders are a lot stronger than you'd expect, but it's just not possible to make a hinge that's as tough as a piece of solid metal.

(If you're in an emergency situation and have to pry something with a folding knife, then you'll often be successful; usually the blade will break before the pivot does. There's a good chance you'll ruin the pivot before anything actually breaks, though, so your folder won't fold any more.)

That said, there are indeed quite a few surprisingly tough folders. Kershaw's "Zero Tolerance" line, for instance, pretty much won't break unless you're really actively trying to break them:

The street price for the knives in that video is pretty high, though. Alleged "Zero Tolerance" knives go quite cheaply on eBay; I suspect most of them are knockoffs.

That's not necessarily a disaster, though. Just because the steel's cheaper and the machining's less precise doesn't mean a knife will be easy to break. The only knockoff knives I'm really leery about are liner-locks and their relatives the frame locks. These must be made precisely, with hard steel in the right places, or they may close on your hand during a push-cut.

(If in doubt, open the knife, turn it over and, with your fingers out of the closing path of the blade, smack the back of the blade sharply on the edge of a table. A lousy liner- or frame-lock knife, or a good one that's old and badly worn, will close when you do this.)

The "Strider" brand you mention is known for making very beefy knives that're probably about as strong...

...as a folder that fits in a pocket can possibly be (you name it, and someone on YouTube will be obsessing over it!), but I don't know anything more about them than that. Strider also make fixed-blades, which is really what you've got to get if you want to get as close as possible to indestructibility. Umpteen companies make different versions of the single-edged fixed-blade "combat knife"; a small one of those would suit your dad, if he doesn't have to have a folder.

If he must have a folder, I'm torn between suggesting some expensive chunky US-made "tactical" folder that preferably didn't hit too many branches when it fell out of the Mall Ninja tree, or just a hatful of cheap Chinese folders. Abuse will kill any folding knife eventually; if it only cost eight dollars in the first place, though, who cares?

You can also get cheap Chinese knockoffs of every oddball folding-knife innovation, which is a cheap way to make a fun little collection of things that'll make you bleed when you play with them while drunk.

(A gold-medal example of this is knockoffs of the Kershaw External Toggle, most of which copy the entertaining mechanism very well, but are smaller than the real thing. Here's one that isn't too tiny. There's a simple, safe way to open and close this sort of knife, and a flashy, dangerous way involving flicking the protruding lever with your thumb. The smaller the E.T. clone, the more it hungers to bisect your thumbnail.)

Columbia River Knife and Tool, makers of the abovementioned Slide Sharp kit, are known for their range of folding knives that open and close in peculiar ways. My own everyday pocket knife is a CRKT Rollock (now discontinued). Like many novelty folders, the Rollock doesn't really work any better than a normal folding knife - actually, it's slightly prone to close unexpectedly, or try to open in your pocket, and it's definitely not going to win any abuse-tolerance prizes. But it's cool, with no mall-ninja ballistic carbon-fibre tactical BS.

If you find something on eBay that's described as a CRKT or Spyderco or Strider or some other big-brand knife, and looks just like it, but costs a fifth as much, it's a knockoff. Some knockoffs are crap, many - often the ones that don't try to look exactly like a given big-brand knife - look and feel fine, and some are almost indistinguishable from the real thing.

I review an excellent example from the obviously-a-knockoff category, here; it shares only its general shape with the Boker original, and is an excellent tool for the money. I also once bought a couple of knockoff CRKT Glide Locks on eBay. They look exactly like the real thing, but one of them fell apart in a week.

It also occurs to me that a person who keeps abusing a knife by using it as some other kind of tool could, perhaps, be in the market for a multi-tool. I think the toughest of the Leatherman/Gerber-type plier-multitools is the SOG PowerLock, and there are of course many others. SOG also just released the PowerDuo, a plier-type tool with a full-size knife blade.

If you want the knife to be the main tool with other stuff less important, then a hollow-handled fixed-blade "survival knife" could be a good idea. The hollow handle doesn't have to have matches and tinder and fishing line in it, after all; you can pack other tools, like a real screwdriver for instance, in there.

The overwhelming majority of hollow-handle knives are garbage, because they have no tang to speak of and just glue connecting the blade to the handle. Until recently the only good options in this field were expensive models forged out of one piece of steel, but now the overgrown teenagers at Cold Steel have made the Survival Edge, which is big enough to be useful without being so large that it's a ridiculous Rambo knife, and whose plastic handle is moulded around the short tang of the knife.

The plastic-handle idea still sounds as if it'd be breakable, but...

...that does not seem to be the case. It's the thick end of fifty US bucks delivered, but comes with a polymer sheath and sharpening doodad, and if the above video can be believed, will probably last approximately forever.

The Survival Edge is also new enough that none of the ones on eBay should be knockoffs.

Yet.

Count The Errors, chemistry edition

There's a BBC News piece called "Whatever happened to kids' chemistry sets?", which makes the same point that many people have before, that zero-tolerance for any possible risk to children does not actually do those children any favours. It's hard to gain anything without at least exposing yourself to the possibility of pain; kids should be able to learn and have fun in ways that are at least a little dangerous.

You know the drill, though. Playgrounds, unsupervised play in general, chemistry sets; all neutered in the name of safety. For some reason many kids are still allowed to ride a bicycle, but heaven forfend you give your ten-year-old a pocket knife.

The video at the top of the BBC piece...


Get Adobe Flash player

...shows some experiments you can't do with modern kits. These experiments are as un-dangerous as they look.

The classic potassium-permanganate-plus-glycerol fire reaction (with some glucose added to provide additional fuel) does not have to be done in a fume hood. Just doing it outdoors and not deliberately inhaling the smoke will do.

You can still get the ingredients for that one quite easily, too. Glycerine and glucose powder are in many supermarkets, and potassium permanganate is still used as a disinfectant and general-purpose purifier of anything that benefits from being exposed to a moderately strong (by sane people's standards) oxidiser. So it's probably not illegal to send it through the post where you live (though there may be some ridiculous restriction having to do with drugs), and there are plenty of people selling it on eBay. (Check the Readily Available Chemicals lists, if you find yourself unable to locate some reagent or other. )

The only other old-chemistry-set "experiment" in the above video is even less alarming, simple flame tests. Again, salts that create brightly coloured flames or sparks aren't very hard to find; the one stop shop for them is a firework-supplies place, and you shouldn't need any fancy licenses or expensive special shipping to get them, since they're just the stuff that colours the fireworks, not the stuff that makes fireworks go bang. (And, again, Readily Available Chemicals can help.)

Oh, and that bit at the very end of the video with the squeaky test-tube sounds just like lighting hydrogen, which you can easily make electrolytically. But the tube seemed to be mouth-upwards, so it may have been some other flammable gas.

So the video's a bit boring, but OK. The actual BBC article, though, contains several mistakes.

The author says, for instance, "some chemistry sets of bygone ages even offered instructions and materials to be able to blow glass at high temperatures".

Well, yeah, of course they did. Making your own simple glassware - which pretty much only means bending and stretching tubes, not much in the way of actual "blowing" - is not particularly dangerous. You can do it on a kitchen gas stove if a proper burner is not available. Just stretching a glass tube lets you make very fine dropper nozzles; add some commercial flasks and beakers, some stoppers and a cork borer, and you can make a reasonably effective condenser, with a wet cloth and a fan standing in for the proper water jacket.

"Rosie Cook, assistant curator at the Chemical Heritage Foundation", is quoted as saying "You are letting a 12-year-old blow glass, there was uranium dust with a stereoscope where you could see the radiation waves..."

Bending glass tubes is not a task for toddlers, but any 12-year-old who cannot be trusted to do this is a 12-year-old who should also not be allowed to make themselves a sandwich. OK, the dangerous part of a bread knife is easier to tell from the safe part than is the case with glass (the First Law of the Laboratory: Hot glass looks exactly the same as cold glass), but this is no reason to presume that a 12-year-old has no more sense than a toddler.

And as for the "uranium dust" part... oh, man.

First, if any chemistry set ever came with actual uranium dust, I'll eat a whole shop full of hats. What chemistry sets came with was some bits of uranium ore or, at the very most, yellowcake.

And they didn't come with a "stereoscope"; you can't view ionising radiation with a View-Master. They came with a spinthariscope. (Perhaps the original piece as written had this right, but a sub-editor helpfully "corrected" it.)

That's a simulation, via Theo Gray, of what a spinthariscope looks like to a dark-adapted eye. (Actual video of the very dim twinkly lights tends to look rather underwhelming.)

And the "radiation waves" thing is a mess, too. I think you can see wave/particle gamma photons with some kinds of spinthariscope, but I'm pretty sure the chemistry-set ones - which you can still buy today - only respond to the alpha and maybe beta particles that decaying uranium and its daughter products emit on their way down the line to lead.

And then there's a neat-o little table at the middle of the BBC article, listing the interesting ingredients chemistry sets used to have and why they don't have them any more:

Chemistry sets of old

Chemical Why was it included? Dangers
Uranium dust It was "unofficially encouraged by the government", said chemistry set creator AC Gilbert, to help public understanding of
atomic energy
Radiation exposure is today strictly controlled due to wide range of
damaging health effects including risk of cancer
Potassium nitrate Combined with sulphur and charcoal to create gunpowder Can be used to make a fertiliser bomb
Lead acetate Used as a dyeing agent Toxic when eaten, as are many other lead compounds. Blamed for death of Pope Clement II in 1047
Ammonium carbonate Used in coloured fountain experiment where solution turned from red to blue The main component of some smelling salts, it can be dangerous if used in high doses regularly
Sodium hydroxide Used in colour-changing experiment Burns skin on contact

It says the intended purpose for potassium nitrate in chemistry sets was to make gunpowder, but it's not there any more because you can also use it to make a "fertiliser bomb":

Well, yeah, I suppose potassium nitrate could technically count as a fertiliser-bomb component, but I think they've actually confused it with ammonium nitrate. "Can be used to make gunpowder" would be a perfectly good thing to put in both the "original purpose" and "why it's no longer available" columns.

(I also love how the table lists one of the "dangers" of lead acetate as "Blamed for death of Pope Clement II in 1047". I don't think that fact actually played a major role in the thought process that led to the removal of lead salts from chemistry sets.)

And the only "why was it included" reason for sodium hydroxide was "used in colour-changing experiment".

That was it, huh? That's all it's good for? That's the sole purpose for a strong base? Makes you wonder why it was in there in the first place, doesn't it?!

It really does look as if nobody who had anything to do with the creation of the BBC article knew what they were talking about.

I found the BBC piece via this Boing Boing post by Maggie Koerth-Baker, which discusses the BBC article but does not dissect it. I suppose this proves the point; even Maggie, excited about science even by Boing Boing's standards, didn't notice the glaring errors. Perhaps I wouldn't have, either, if I hadn't spent a lot of childhood hours in the little workshop/laundry melting, boiling, reacting and distilling things.

And, of course, setting stuff on fire, more than once with the permanganate/glycerol reaction.

Among other things, I discovered that zinc burns with a pretty blue flame, and produces copious white fly-ash:

I never burned enough of it to get sick, though.

Making "plastic sulfur", a rubbery polymeric pseudo-allotrope that's the initial form of quenched molten sulfur, was also fun:

But smelly.

And yes, a kid can do this, in the kitchen, with very little chance of winding up dead:

(I'd also like to rehabilitate mercury's image. It seems almost nobody these days knows the difference between organomercury compounds - which are very very poisonous - and metallic mercury, which isn't good for you, but which is not actually very dangerous.)

I did the iron-and-sulfur reaction, too:

You can even get away with making nitrogen triiodide...

...if you make a respectfully minuscule amount, and wear eye protection. Which should be your habit when doing anything with chemicals or power tools, for the same reason that it's sensible to train yourself to use your indicators, by reflex, while driving. Yes, that does mean you'll occasionally feel silly because you indicated for, say, a turn in a road that isn't actually any kind of intersection. But it's better to indicate when you don't need to, and wear eye protection when reacting vinegar and baking soda, than to forget to indicate when it does matter or leave the goggles off when playing with explosives.

I didn't make thermite...

...until I was a grown-up, but I now champion that as an excellent experiment for kids, too.

Actually setting the thermite off definitely requires adult or responsible-teenager supervision, but the components of standard iron-oxide/aluminium thermite are quite inert and non-toxic (again, the kids should wear eye protection while mixing the ingredients, even though it isn't really needed), and the mixture won't light without a high-temperature fuse - a sparkler or magnesium ribbon. So small children can mix up thermite all by themselves, quite safely. And they should.

(One caveat: If they mix anything else into the thermite, especially water, then it will flash to vapour when the thermite burns and throw blazing thermite all over the place. This shouldn't matter unless you're setting the thermite off in an unsuitable location - q.v. - or standing unwisely close, though. You also don't need to panic about one drop of water or a couple of hairs in the thermite; it's not that touchy.)

If chemistry sets and, increasingly, schools no longer provide any real hands-on experience with chemistry, parents and kids themselves need to step up and do it, even if all you do is grow some crystals.

There's a lot of fun, and entertainment, to be had in the wide area between the kindergarten-science of dumbed-down chemistry sets and the truly hazardous experiments that, for instance, produce copious amounts of highly poisonous fumes, or have reaction products that are illegal to throw away.

Teaching kids that "chemicals" are dangerous is as stupid as teaching them that all drugs are equally, and enormously, bad. You let 'em ride a bike; you should also let 'em make some stinks and bangs.

On hobbies, and countries

A while ago, I figured out why it is that Top Gear hate caravans.

It's not just because being stuck in a four-mile tail-back behind a Morris Oxford towing a 1986 Chateau La Car is even more frustrating when you're attempting to review a 900-horsepower quad-turbo Lamborghini Testicoli Enormi. It's also because Top Gear are in the UK, and I think caravanning in the UK is like metal-detector-ing in Australia.

There are few places in the UK that are worth dragging a little mobile house to. Cornwall's nice enough, but it has hotels, as do the other parts of the UK that try with varying plausibility to present themselves as holiday destinations.

OK, maybe you enjoy being able to have a fry-up breakfast out of the rain and then tramp around a different soggy piece of Scotland every couple of days. But this is stretching it.

Here in Australia, on the other hand, we have large amounts of beach and forest and low-but-wide mountain ranges that are not within convenient distance of a motel. You can easily spend a year driving around this place and still have failed to come within a hundred kilometres of enough land area to make up what most people call a country. OK, a signficant amount of that area is one of our many great expanses of nothing much...

Gunbarrel Highway

...but there's still a lot of Australia out there.

The whole area of the United Kingdom, plus southern Ireland, is about 314,000 square kilometres. That's a little less than the two smallest Australian States, Victoria and Tasmania, put together.

The whole of Australia has an area of more than 7.6 million square kilometres. But Australia's population is less than 23 million, versus 62 million and change for the UK. (Australia's population is about 15% more than that of New York state.) And most of the Australian population is crammed into little strips on the coast.

Result: An awful lot of wilderness where you could play with a howitzer for weeks without hitting anyone. If you're crossing those distances, a little towed house can be convenient.

If you make a hobby out of metal-detecting in Australia, though, you're not likely to find anything very interesting. Humans have been here for tens of thousands of years, but until Europeans showed up and commenced doing what they usually do, the indigenous Australians didn't have any metal at all.

You can find plenty of stuff if you swing a metal detector around in any vaguely habitable part of Australia, but the most antiquitous items you're likely to locate are ring-pulls.

Oh, and you're not going to find any gold, either. There are still plenty of places in Australia where you can pan for gold successfully - which is to say, at the end of the day you'll have a clearly visible collection of gold-specks in a little vial, which may be worth as much as fifty cents. But our most recent gold rush was well over a century ago. You're more likely to find a fist-sized meteorite than you are to find a gold nugget, and you are not likely to find a fist-sized meteorite.

If you live in the UK, on the other hand, then just going into your back garden and digging a hole will very probably find you some Roman pottery, or even coins. The pottery will probably be worthless broken shards and the coins will probably be equally worthless lumps of corroded bronze, but they'll still be more than a thousand years old.

If Tony Robinson et al came to Australia to dig places up, they might be able to find something a couple of hundred years old in Sydney, or perhaps an interesting geological specimen out in the sticks, but that's about it.

Am I missing something, here? I invite comments from any Britons who gain deep fulfilment from caravanning the Grampians, or Australians who metal-detected a gold bar on Coogee Beach.

Posted in Cars, Toys. 14 Comments »

"Small boy on bridge, this is Ghost Rider requesting a flyby..."

Some more of my friend Mark's FPV quadcopter, this time buzzing around Brisbane, where he lives.

(The funny-looking tower is the Skyneedle.)

Green in, red out

A reader writes:

why do some things glow brightly in colours OTHER THAN BLUE when illuminated by a blue LED flashlight? Is it fluorescence? But doesn't that only happen under ultraviolet light?

Does this mean my blue LED flashlight has UV output? it's incredibly bright, but is it actually even brighter and more dangerous than it looks?

Ant

First up: I highly recommend coloured LED flashlights. They let you do this!

LED-flashlight fluorescence demonstration

The above animation accurately reproduces what it was like for me selecting the images to use to illustrate this post, except I was doing it fullscreen on a 30-inch monitor, and so almost neutralised my neurons.

(If you're using Chrome and are now hammering away on the escape key in a desperate attempt to make this brain-slapping animation stop, allow me to suggest the GIF Stopper extension.)

In the olden days, the only coloured portable lights normal humans could afford used an incandescent bulb, with a coloured filter over it. This was incredibly inefficient, and usually didn't even give you one tightly-defined wavelength of light. Your green-filtered flashlight probably still emitted some red and blue.

Today, you can get high-intensity coloured LEDs with a very tight band of output frequencies; no blue in your green, no green in your red. I think the best-value options are the coloured variants of the Ultrafire 501B lights.

Ultrafire flashlight

I reviewed a white 501B years ago here, but this line of lights still sells well today, because they're basically just SureFire knockoffs with standardised lamps and battery compartments. So you can today buy a white 501B that's quite a bit brighter than the one I reviewed, or upgrade your old 501B with a newer interchangeable lamp, or stick a cheap coloured Ultrafire lamp in your old SureFire incandescent flashlight, et cetera. As long as you stick with a single 18650 lithium rechargeable or two rechargeable or non-rechargeable 123-size cells. Any cheap LED module that's meant to fit in a a flashlight like this should work.

(As Fallingwater points out in the comments, there are also lamps this same shape that want a very different input voltage, and the dirt-cheap lamps may not work very well for various reasons. I think all of the cheap coloured lamps are for one or two lithium cells, though, and they're low-powered by "tactical flashlight" standards so don't have heat problems either. These lamps work from one or two cells because they have a multi-voltage driver. Incandescent bulbs are not this tolerant. Standard small two-123-cell SureFire-type lights with incandescent bulbs will produce a dim orange light from a single 18650. If you somehow manage to drive an incandescent bulb from twice as many cells as it expects, it will die immediately.)

Here's an eBay search that finds a bunch of coloured Ultrafire flashlights and lamps. The lamps start at $US9.99 delivered, but a whole flashlight (without batteries) is under $US15 delivered.

A red, a green and a blue Ultrafire 501B, plus three 18650s and a charger from eBay will only cost you about $US50 all told. The cheapest dealers all have free shipping, too, so you can buy the lights one at a time and not lose any money.

I'd really get all of them, though, and I don't even go to raves. It's just so much fun chucking large amounts of coloured light around. And yes, you do get a pretty decent white-ish light if you shine them all at the same thing.

(See also the positively antiquated Technology Associates "Rave'n 2", which I reviewed more than ten years ago and which I think they still sell. It's still fun, too.)

So. Where was I? Oh yes, fluorescence.

Fluorescence happens when a substance absorbs some kind of radiation, usually light, and then emits light of its own.

It happens when the incoming energy, usually a photon, "excites" an electron to a higher quantum state. When the electron then "relaxes" back to its ground state, it loses some energy to heat and emits the rest as a new photon.

Since the energy and frequency of a photon are directly related, and the outgoing photon is less energetic than the incoming one was, one-photon fluorescence like this only works "downward" in the ROYGBIV spectrum. You'll only see visible-light fluorescence when you're illuminating a fluorescent object with light closer to the blue end of the spectrum than the colour the object fluoresces.

("Upwards" fluorescence is actually possible, when two photons are absorbed but only one emitted. I think this is pretty much unknown in everyday, visible-light fluorescence, though.)

Ultraviolet light is beyond the blue end of the visible spectrum, so it can cause fluorescence in any visible colour. But there's no rule that says the incoming light can't be visible; it just has to be further up the spectrum than the colour of fluorescence it creates.

Tungsten-lit assemblage of objects

So here are some brightly-coloured objects from around my house, illuminated by tungsten-filament bulbs. Some of the dyes used to colour many modern polymers are highly fluorescent; shining an ultraviolet light around your house is the best way to find them, but a blue LED flashlight will do a good job too.

Red-lit assemblage of objects

A red flashlight's no use, though. It's probably possible for red light to cause visible fluorescence that's even deeper into the red, but you'd probably need a spectrometer to distinguish it from simple reflection of the illuminating light.

Here, we see what basic colour theory says we should. All we're seeing is the red light that bounces off the scene, so everything is shades of red, and the less red there is in the colour of an object, the less of the incoming light will bounce off it and the closer to black it will look.

Green-lit assemblage of objects

Go to green light, though - not even blue! - and suddenly fluorescence is happening. The red Gakken mini theremin (as hard to play as a full-sized theremin, but with the mellow, soothing tone of a Stylophone! Buy one today!), and the red rubber Escher's solid (sold as a dog chew toy, of all things, at my local discount shop), and the red crooked dice, are behaving as basic colour theory says they should. There's no green in them, so they look black.

The orange parts of the Nerf guns, though, are cheerfully fluorescing under the bright green light.

(Actually, only the little "Secret Strike" is a Nerf product; the double-barrelled gun is a Buzz Bee Double Shot, which ejects the empty shells when you break it open!)

I think the yellow parts of the toy guns may be fluorescing a bit under green as well. They mainly look yellow only in comparison with the fluorescing orange plastic (as per this amazing optical illusion), and my digital camera certainly isn't a calibrated colourimeter, but there's still a significant amount of red in there with the bouncing green. That adds up to at least a yellow-ish green.

The length of red paracord (useful for all sorts of things, and also the only flexible string I've found that Joey's little razor teeth don't go straight through) and the carapace of the crab Hexbug, aren't as fluorescent as the plastic, but they're having a go.

Oh, and check out the two Hoberman Switch Pitch balls. One is green and orange and is fluorescing a little and reflecting rather more in the green light; the other is blue and magenta, and is hardly fluorescing at all.

(The Switch Pitch is, I think, one of the greatest fiddle-toys ever invented. I know this post's littered with affiliate links, but seriously, buy a Switch Pitch, if you can. Not everything Hoberman make is a classic; the Brain Twist, for instance, is a worthy attempt at Hoberman-ifying a Rubik's Cube, but I reckon it's more of an ornament than a toy. But the Switch Pitch and the tougher, hard-to-find Switch Kick, are brilliant.)

OK, on to the blue light that started this interminable thing.

Blue-lit assemblage of objects

Now the lower-fluorescers from the green-lit shot are fluorescing with more enthusiasm, the things that never fluoresced in the green are still sticking to pre-quantum-physics colour theory, and the orange plastic has gone nuts. There's a pretty sizeable energy gap between LED-blue and that orange, so it's sucking up and spitting out electrons photons with great enthusiasm.

My own store of quantum energy ran out before I made an actual UV-lit version of the picture, but I could pretty much just Photoshop one up in less time. All of the fluorescing things in the blue-lit image would look much the same under UV, and everything else would be invisible. Or, more realistically, you'd see everything else in faint blue, because the ultraviolet compact-fluorescent lamps I've got here emit a fair bit of visible blue-violet light along with the UV.

You can get UV LEDs that emit proper near-UV light (not the more dangerous UV-B or even more dangerous "germicidal" UV-C) with very little visible output. Most "UV" LED flashlights use cheaper purple LEDs, though, which may have a bit of near-UV output but basically just do what a blue LED light does, only more so.

And yes, you can get UV Ultrafires, too, but I don't know which flavour of "UV" LED they contain.


Psycho Science is a regular feature here. Ask me your science questions, and I'll answer them. Probably.

And then commenters will, I hope, correct at least the most obvious flaws in my answer.

Unexpectedly pretty thing of the day

If you see a welder marking out a piece of metal with what looks like chalk, or a tailor doing the same to cloth, they're likely to not be using standard blackboard chalk.

Plain chalk is calcite, one of the several forms calcium carbonate can take. Welders' and tailors' chalk, on the other hand, is "French chalk", a stick of solid talc, magnesium silicate. Ground up, talc is the base for talcum powder.

This was just another of the pieces of vaguely interlinked data that float around in my mind, until I discovered I could buy ten 125-by-12-by-5mm (about 5 by 0.5 by 0.2 inches) sticks of French chalk, plus a sliding metal holder with a pocket clip, for a grand total of 4.8 Euros including delivery to me here in Australia.

Sticks of French chalk and holder

(As I write this, that's about $US5.90, £3.80, or $AU5.70. Here's the eBay listing, here's the seller's store, here it is on eBay Australia, and here on eBay UK.)

So I had to buy the darn things, of course, in order to hasten the day on which my flattened corpse will be discovered beneath a fallen pile of scientific, electrical, medical and engineering toys and curios.

The talc sticks are unexpectedly beautiful objects. They're very smooth, despite visible sawblade marks on the sides...

Detail of French chalk sticks

...and they have the slippery feel of soapstone. Or, more accurately, soapstone has the slippery feel of talc, because soapstone is a metamorphic talc-schist.

They're moderately fragile, of course, but quite dense, and much harder-wearing than calcite chalk. And I think they've been cut from solid mined blocks of natural talc, because they all have slight marks and veins and other inconsistencies, which become more apparent...

Light shining through French-chalk sticks

...if you shine a light through them.

(The backlight is my possibly-actually-antique flashlight.)

I think there are two reasons why you'd want to use talc rather than calcite for marking out. First, the mark can be more accurate, because although talc is the definitive soft material (scoring one on the Mohs hardness scale), it's actually quite a bit harder and sturdier than a stick of blackboard chalk, and thus won't wear much in the course of one line across metal or cloth. Calcite itself is much harder than talc, but calcite chalk is deliberately made porous and weak; French-chalk sticks are solid and waterproof. A stick of solid non-porous white calcite would rip the paint straight off your blackboard.

The second and probably more important reason to prefer French chalk for marking steel or cloth is that when you draw with a talc stick, you get a line of freshly-created talcum powder. I think this will stick better to a surface than a normal chalk mark, and resist being rubbed or shaken off as you join and cut and otherwise handle your metal or cloth.

(There could be chemical reasons for the choice too, for welders at least. Magnesium silicate is used in some high-temperature pottery glazes, and it's also used as a welding flux, for gas welding at least.)

The ability to precisely draw talcum powder onto a surface could be mechanically useful, too. When I was a kid I used talcum powder to lubricate Technic Lego contraptions, because it doesn't make much of a mess and doesn't attack plastic. Graphite powder, which you can similarly topically apply with a soft pencil or artists' graphite stick, is a better dry lubricant - but it turns everything black and conducts electricity, which may or may not be desirable.

Talc is also a high-temperature electrical insulator. You could easily carve and drill small custom insulators out of French-chalk sticks, or use them unmodified as formers for heating elements or what-have-you.

What I'm actually likely to do with my sticks of talc, of course, is just fiddle with them aimlessly and admire them for their surprising beauty.

I reckon I got value for money, just for that.