Talk:Silly Putty

message: The following instance of plagiarism was found: from http://jclahr.com/science/earth_science/cr06/workshop/activities/sillyputty.group4.html was taken "[T]he cookie sheet that it was baked on will have a combination of dried putty and very hot, sticky putty."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.5.64 (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism 

message: If the author of this comment wishes to clear this up and add references, then great. Rheopexy is the increase of viscosity of a fluid with time, whereas dilatancy is the increase of viscosity of a fluid with shear rate. No references that I can find support the labelling of 3179 dilatant compound as rheopectic. In fact, most scientific references show it to be a combination of shear thickening and shear thinning. When I get more time (and get my references together) I will change this. --Trhoult (talk) 10:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take this one step further and just remove it altogether.  Rationale: The defining difference between rheopecty and shear-thickening is that rheopecty is time-dependent.  See: here and here. The longer a given amount of force is applied to a rheopectic fluid, the more viscous it becomes.  In contrast, the viscosity of a bouncing putty, is time-independent.  Its apparent viscosity increases with respect to shear force only.  By way of a simple explanation, if I stir the tip of a screwdriver with a constant amount of force within a rheopectic fluid, the fluid will gradually become more viscous.  If I do the same with a bouncing putty, the viscosity will remain constant (relative to the amount of force I'm applying).  The rate of the change in viscosity of a rheopectic fluid may be dependent on the amount of force applied, but the amount of the change is a function of time.  I imagine some of this confusion results from the mistaking force with total energy expenditure over time.  To extend my example:  While it may take the same amount of energy to apply a small amount of force to my screwdriver over a longer period of time as it does to apply a larger force for a shorter period of time, this does not mean the viscosity encountered is dependent upon time, because the amount of force is also changing.--∴Walkeraj 21:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be good if one or both of you could take a look at Thixotropy. It gives a number of examples including ketchup. I"m not sure however if ketchup shows thixotrophy, I believe it does show shear thinning and the two are often confused Nil Einne (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I will have a look at it at some point. I have a few examples of test data from ketchup I might post that will help clear up the issue.--Trhoult (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rheopectic versus dilatancy

message: I came here to look up silly putty for some facts. I'll help put correct grammar in this article.
--Airplaneman (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'll help clean up! 

message: Anybody care to add an image? Thanks.
: been meaning to get to that, it needs one. I'll try and get one this week, anyone else? -Ravedave 02:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added an image but my camera is acting up so it really only looks good as a thumbnail.--Lzygenius 08:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Better than nothing. I couldn't find the egg mine came in. I might have to pick a new egg up... - Ravedave 14:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Do you want a picture of Silly Putty the brand or silly putty the material, i.e. not the brand name version?  I've got about two pounds of the material in my closet that I can easily photograph for you.  Nautile 22:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it's been a decade, but can we get a better picture of Silly Putty? I was hoping to see the red egg and/or the original flesh-colored putty as the main photo. Bedazzledunicorn (talk) 22:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If you know of a free-use image, feel free to BE BOLD and add that content. Ckruschke (talk) 12:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image? 

message: Can Silly Putty be fired in a kiln?  What about clay mixed with silly putty? oneismany 18:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More than likely it would start fire, its made up of plastic type materials. -Ravedave 19:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, the Silly Putty polymer is not flammable, but it would certainly melt. —Andux␅ 07:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting.  If it got hot enough, would it sublimate, or would it melt completely and then evaporate?  Could the color (theoretically) withstand extreme heat?  What is the coloring composed of anyway?  (Oozing Silly Putty makes some interesting colors and shapes and I wonder if it could leave some impression on clay.)  Oneismany 19:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Silly Putty and clay

message: Where did that come from? What is the source on this? I suspect this could be original research or perhaps from a non notable source. I will wait a bit before removing it for this to be backed up. Thanks. HighInBC 00:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  homemade silly putty 

message: Do we have references for the Origins section?  This seems wrong to me: "He was looking for a substitute for artificial rubber."  Shouldn't he have been looking for a substitute for *natural* rubber?  But wait.. were *both* Wright and Warrick looking for synthetic rubber? It seems that Warrick developed the compound on purpose in search of a synthetic rubber, while Wright just had an accident with two substances sitting around in his lab.
:I agree the section seems strange. Synthetic rubber was apparently already produced in the US before the war so I presume he was looking for an improved version either more easily producable or more like natural rubber Nil Einne 13:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin references 

message: How did the phrase "go to silly putty" enter the English language?   So far as I can tell, it originally meant "have a nervous breakdown" or flip out and talk gibberish.   Was it really the result of heavy advertising on the part of the owner?   For what it's worth, you can find this phrase in the popular sense (flip out) in the lyrics of the folksong, Blues in the Bottle that John Sebastian took and modified for his rock and roll group, The Lovin' Spoonful.  I'm curious which came first, the phrase or the brand name.   Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 08:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of the name

message: I think there should be a list of different versions of Silly Putty (Space Sludge, Color-Changing, Bright Color, etc), describing their colors, textures and elasticity. Darin Wagner 16:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Different Versions 

message: Hi, I have a more pragmatic and highly practically relevant question ,) How do you remove the compund from e.h. a carpet? ;) Thanks Oliver Gassner 13:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC-1)
Not a reliable source but it works anyway:. Shrampes (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pragmatic question: Cleaning 

message: I have uploaded two videos from my work to YouTube showing the behaviour of Silly Putty during impact:
-  shows Silly Putty being impacted in compression, exhibiting ductile deformation and a large degree of elastic recovery.
-  shows Silly Putty being impacted again in compression at only a marginally higher energy level (slightly higher drop mass, same drop height), exhibiting ductile deformation followed by brittle failure, resulting in catastrophic failure of the specimen. --Trhoult (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Videos on YouTube 

message: My father, a US Navy submarine commander during the 1980's, stated that "silly putty" was used to seal the cables and small pipes passing through the wall of the reactor vessel on nuclear submarines. He said it was a "supply item" that was issued through the regular requisition process. This may be worth pursuing in the article, as it currently states "no known uses". 71.215.30.126 (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Applications of Silly Putty 

message: For more information re: the Carol Haynes comments see http://sillyputtyhistory.blogspot.com.  For more information about early Silly Putty History see the book A Call To Assembly by Willie Ruff (Yale University music professor) who was invovled with the early years of Silly Putty and who was a good friend of Peter Hodgson, Sr.   
Carol Haynes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.39.52.34 (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: While the information you bring is interesting, it does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources or the policy against original research. But, perhaps more importantly, even if the material could be reliably verified, it's still overly detailed and undue weight for an encyclopedic summary/overview article on Silly Putty, so I removed it from the article. Since you put it up on a separate blog now, hopefully those looking for the information will be able to find it there instead. Siawase (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for Carol Haynes comments & additional information. 

message: This is completely OR, but perhaps someone could answer this question for me: I just mixed cornstarch and a bit of soy sauce for a batter, and I seem to have hit exactly the ideal ratio. It's a placidly slow flowing liquid when you tilt the bowl, but when you as much as touch the surface, it's hard as wax. (You can break off large flakes with a spoon, which liquefy after a few seconds)... It can be formed into a hard waxy ball, but it doesn't bounce... it lands and then dissolves. -- megA (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's another type of Non-Newtonian fluid. Silly Putty specifically consists of polymers, but the physical properties are similar to the type of starch suspension you created. Siawase (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. It seems that I have accidentally discovered Oobleck, although my version is a bit thicker... My kitchen, the final frontier... There's physics everywhere! -- megA (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: lol, yeah I did a similar accidental discovery in the kitchen some years ago doing something with starch. Siawase (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Starch explosion? -- megA (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh wow, yeah not that, luckily. Siawase (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is This Silly Putty? (Cornstarch) 

message: Silly putty is the brand name of a product, not a business. I recommend its link be removed from "Companies based in Pennsylvania". 2hamburgers (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not A Company

message: Obsolete, but I recall that it used to be popular for cleaning the ink off of typewriter keys. WHPratt (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I added "ink" to the examples of substances that Silly Putty can be helpful in removing. JudahH (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't want to suggest that it could take ink out of cloth or anything like that.  However, it apparently worked nicely to remove ink-mixed-with-paper-debris from the letters on metal typewriter keys, so that some typists kept it handy. WHPratt (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It occurs to me that I should correct this. By "typewriter keys" I don't mean the buttons touched by the typist -- these would be cleaned by conventional means -- but rather the little hammers that make the impression on the paper via the ribbon. The latter would accumulate ink and paper debris through use, and would ultimately produce softer or uneven impressions. Pressing each hammer into silly putty could serve to remove the inky gunk. As typewriters and printers no longer operate by direct impression, this is a lost art. WHPratt (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Other uses 

message: I am a chemist with only peripheral knowledge of silicone chemistry, but with considerable industrial knowledge of viscoelastic theory. First, the composition information is WRONG. polysiloxanes (either hydroxyl or methyl terminated) are Newtonian liquids. Modification of hydroxyl terminated silicones by reaction with boric acid results in what is essentially silly putty (although the contributions of the fillers (silca, calcium carbonate, etc.) are also significant). A boric acid (or similarly) terminated product should be regarded as a MODIFIED polysiloxane polymer, not a polysiloxane polymer (or polydimethylsiloxane). Key in its rheology is the boron. It is just NOT true that "the ingredient polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS)" ... [is] "a viscoelastic liquid." except in the trivial sense that ALL liquids are viscoelastic liquids. Whoever wrote this is either massively confused or enormously over his/her head. I can't argue whether some regard the term viscoelastic to mean 'having a significant elastic response under stress" but the FACT is that all liquids have a response to stress hence all liquids are subjects of the study of viscoelasticity. PMDS is Newtonian in fact, the various molecular weights are used as STANDARDS for calibration of viscosity measuring devices because their response is so well described by Newton's definition of viscosity (viscosity is a CONSTANT ratio = shear stress/shear rate). To repeat: ALL liquids (all fluids) can demonstrate both viscous and elastic response to stress, it is just simply not true that "Viscoelasticity is a type of non-Newtonian flow, characterizing material that acts as a viscous liquid over a long time period but as an elastic solid over a short time period." Only in the context of discussing viscosity (where ideally flow is exactly (linearly) proportional to force) would it be correct to assume that someone characterizing a material as "viscoelastic" meant that the storage modulus (elasticity) is significant. IOW, in general, describing something as "viscoelastic" means nothing. And to repeat myself yet again: Silly Putty's "unusual flow characteristics" are NOT due to PDMS, but due to the modification of the PDMS with the boron compound. (In general, polymers (linear polymers or near linear polymers) are Newtonian liquids which do NOT exhibit much non-Newtonian behavior (at low/moderate flow rates). It is the cross-linking by the boric acid that causes the network to behave in a non-Newtonian manner. Other properties of Silly Putty, such as its ability to transfer ink images, are due to the solvents (and plasticizers present (which may include low MW silicones)). As an aside, I am surprised that toxicity is NOT mentioned in this fairly poorly thought out article. Arguably, since silicones have been implicated in immune system pathologies and since cyclic siloxanes also have known tox concerns, (not to mention any plasticizers present, as well as colorants), this is a glaring omission. Oh, I should add that it only takes a small amount of boric acid to drastically change the PDMS's flow behavior (thats the OH-terminated PDMS polymer, a few wt % (sorry, I don't recall mole %) does it.Abitslow (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a mess. 

message: Silly Putty mixed with graphene has unseen properties:  --167.58.99.200 (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphene