Talk:Plasticine

Ingedients

Does anyone know what the ingredients in plasticine are? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesC (talk • contribs) 14:39, 3 March 2005

I believe it's fundamentally dry clay and something oily and/or waxy to bind it instead of water. It seems to have been one of those things where the inventor (Harbutt) passed the original recipe on to his family and it's not public knowledge, but several websites say if you try to bake it you'll end up with a fire, which implies a hydrocarbon as the binding agent. --Andrew Norman 07:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

http://scorpius.spaceports.com/~goodwine/playdough.htm

Not sure if this is it, but give it a shot:

* 2 1/2 cups flour

* 1 cup salt

* 1/4 cup vegetable oil

* 1 cup water

* food colouring

Mix dry ingredients. Add oil and stir. Add water a little at a time. Stir until it holds together well. Knewad for 5 to 10 minutes. Divide dough into several pieces. Add food colouring a little at a time. Knead until each colour is evenly worked. Store in airtight containers.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ildfrozt (talk • contribs) 14:09, 28 September 2005

That is for Play-dough, which can easily dry out. Plasticine does not dry out. -- Pinktulip 09:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not based on clay; clay is essentially silicate based. Plasticine is based on calcium carbonate, which is mixed with the material known as "slackwax" (this is the soft oily wax that is extracted when lube oils are dewaxed). The addition of stearic acid prevents the mixture from becoming too "sticky" when handled. The characteristic smell of plasticine is actually a material called Irganox L130 which is added as an antioxidant. The main ingredients of plasticine (the calcium carbonate, slackwax and stearic acid) have no strong odour. One other error in the article: plasticine doesn't "melt". It may soften, but "melt" implies a change of state, and as plasticine is a blend of materials including a non-melting filler, then "melting" does not apply. StanPomeray (talk) 07:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Can you provide some reference for that which could be used in the article? Materialscientist (talk) 07:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately not! I spent about 15 years in R&D as a formulation chemist/materials scientist and what I have stated above is the result of various discussions over the years with raw material suppliers and other people in the industry. I wouldn't be able to reference it to anything in writing - apart from anything else, I doubt you'd get Ciba (or BASF as they are now) to produce a product data sheet that says "Irganox L130 smells like Plasticine" LOL StanPomeray (talk) 07:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I have experimented with making plasticine. From my experience, a number of ingredients can be used. The basis is that you need an inert safe powder, and a water replacer. The idea is to have clay that will not dry out. So.. clay... there are different recipes for that. Ask potters about this subject. I have a nephew who is a chemist who makes clay for high tension electricity insulators. It is surprising what goes into different clays for different purposes. Using Calcium Carbonate, is an intelligent choice of powder, as it is just chalk, white, and so will help show off colouring pigments and is readily available and safe. The binding agents are basically waxes and oils of varying viscosities and melting temperatures. Your choice there can vary on what characteristics you want. You need a wax/oil mixture that will keep the mixture malleable in the way you want, at the temperatures you are working at. After the powder, the main bulk of the mix will be a wax, which replaces the water of traditional water based clay . There are different types, but you need one that has a relatively low melting point and must stick to itself. Bees wax is good, but expensive. Petroleum based Micrpcrystaline waxes are soft but relatively hard to come by for the home hobbyist. Petroleum jelly and greases can be added to soften the waxes further. Fat and lard can also work to lower the softening temperature of the wax. Oil can also be used, but in my experience can make the mix 'wet' rather than just soft. Paraffin wax is not a good wax , as it has a reasonably high melting point and produces a crumbly mix and any stickiness in the mix must come from grease or petroleum jelly, which is not ideal. I have not used glycerin but it makes sense as a humidifier or water replacer. I have used it in gelatin molds and it works very well and lasts a long time. So in summary, the 'recipe' for plasticine does not have to be hard and fast. It can vary depending on your application, eg; car body design, special effects modeling in the movie industry, animation, and model making.

The recipe I started experimenting with is the following ( I cannot remember the source, but it was off the net years ago): In the interests of completeness, here is the arcana to invoke plasticene (Note: US gallons and such): 10 lb microcrystalline wax 1/2 gal. #10wt oil 4 lb plain automotive grease 25 lbs dry clay powder (Such as Kentucky ball clay) Metric: 4.480kg  (4480g) microcrystalline wax 1.273L  (1273ml) #10wt oil 1.792kg (1792g) plain automotive grease 11.2kg (11200g) dry clay powder (Such as Kentucky ball clay) quarter recipe: 1.12kg  (1120g) microcrystalline wax 0.31825L  (318ml) #10wt oil 0.448kg (448g) plain automotive grease 2.8kg (2800g) dry clay powder (Such as Kentucky ball clay)   Melt wax, oil, and grease together in an (electric?) frying kettle or chip pan; stir clay in slowly once melted. Pour into shallow microwave-safe plastic containers, or into a wet plaster mould. Pagestep007 (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Picture

A picture of plasticine is needed.--Patchouli 00:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Many experiments have been attempted to create homemade recipe. Here is a successful attempt. Knowledgeable3000 (talk) 05:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Drying Plasticine

If Plasticine is flammable, due to its oil/petrolium jelly base, and it doesnt dry out, how do you cure/solidify the model you make? Is there a special chemical you spray or something? Is it even posible to do this? Any info would be great. Cort 68.57.202.60 05:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well Plasticine becomes soft, malleable and workable when warmed in your hand and goes hard when cooled but when warmed again it becomes soft. John 89.145.245.86 (talk) 08:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't cure/solidify it. It's meant to be re-useable 86.145.131.125 (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope. To dry, mostly freezing it will make it harden, but there is always a bit of squishiness at the bottom of the plasticine.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.41.161 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 19 March 2012‎

Peistocene

oh, come on. Who can get confused about plasticine and peistocene? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.235.226.196 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 16 February 2007

The question is who wouldn't confuse pleistocene and plasticine?! That's one of my all-time favourite confusions, don't knock it! Or, if you are going to knock it, at least spell pleistocene correctly. Thanks. --Oolong (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Panorama

native resolution:9768x2416 image of a Plasticine art installation.. Suggestions or matters of relevance, please. --Devinly (talk) 03:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

External links

Can someone please find some better external links than the existing two? I understand this may be difficult but really, those links are appalling. One leads to a visual display hosted by the Museum of Bath on which the videos are disabled, meaning there is no information available, and the other appears to lead to forum thread that is barely legible. I will try and find some links when I have time, but until then could someone else please have a go? Faerie Queene (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk

swimming ear plugs look like this and windows office does not have this word in its dictionary - I wonder why? is it not a English word? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgkprog (talk • contribs) 19:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

basic modelling strategies

Though Plasticine may be formed into an infinite variety of shapes, this may be done using just a few simple basic procedures, such as the following:

1) Tubes, rolled, using a flat surface, such as a melamine cheese board, for example.

2) Flat sheets, rolled with a rolling pin or a thick rod. These may be cut into flat shapes with a preferably blunted, pointed kitchen knife

3) Balls, rolled between the palms of the hands in a contrary orbital motion.

4) Freestyle modelling, using the fingers or appropriate tools.

These 4 modes may be combined to fully realise the astonishing range of forms available to the Plasticine sculptor.

In addition, the original Harbutt's factory provided a miniature brick-forming mould which consisted of a small hand-held board about 1 cm thick, pierced with several slots measuring about 1cm x 2 cm. This came with a matching push rod of the same dimensions. Plasticine was smeared into the slots, and the perfectly formed bricks were then rapidly and accurately extruded using the pushrod.

The author's grandparents possessed an example of this tool which they used regularly at the start of the last century, much as children would now play with Lego. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.124.214 (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

James May's Toy Stories

James May's Toy Stories on BBC2, aired 11 July 2010, featured Plasticine, designing a garden for the Chelsea Flower Show, with remarkably good results.78.20.145.31 (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I tried

But stupidity triumphed again. I tried to remove that poor quality example of a figure made of Plasticine, but repeatedly the page was vandalized by people putting it back in. Instead of that piece of crap there should be an example of professional work, like out of Wallace and Gromit or any other professional stop-motion animation using Plasticine. A bunch of nerds kept blindly reverting my edit and unjustifiably calling it vandalism, though, so I guess that's that. It's too bad the idea Wikipedia is based on is total bullshit, though. It's a bit depressing actually. You're supposed to be able to make an edit, justify it as I did, and at least have a discussion take place before the change is reverted. No wonder non-nerds like me don't want to bother even changing a typo. If I did that, no doubt someone like Reaper Eternal would revert it within seconds and call it vandalism. 174.91.1.138 (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

One of the reasons that you were getting reverted was because you didn't use the WP:Edit summary, so it was assumed the removal of content was vandalism. If you would like another picture to be used instead, please visit commons:Category:Plasticine and pick one out, so it can be added to the article. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The IP may also profit from reading Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Except the article's now been protected against IP edits, after that threat to use "infinite" addresses to keep reverting the deletion. So I've picked an image from the category and put it up myself. --McGeddon (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I gave a reason in the edit summary that Reaper Eternal either ignored or didn't read. I would do as you suggest, but we both know that would be changed back in seconds. The "threat" to use infinite addresses was based on Reaper Eternal not running to his nerd buddies and getting someone with greater power to protect the page. They don't seem to care that the request was unjustified. It's funny, a personal attack seems to be considered so much more heinous than unjustified, blind reverts. A personal attack on someone doesn't automatically make the edits unjustified. Think about that. Think - for a change. 174.91.5.19 (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Btw, if I had gone in and made the change you just did - replacing that ghastly picture with something professional that gives people an idea of the quality possible in professional hands instead of something that looks like it was slapped together by a two year old - it would have been reverted. Even if I had put something on the talk page, a guy like Reaper Eternal wouldn't have looked there before he changed it. His style is to blindly revert, then seek blocks and page protections. Imagine if he had been an anonymous IP like me - and had done exactly what he did? He would no doubt have also quickly found himself blocked. 174.91.5.19 (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If you go back to the very first edit today, see [1], there was no edit summary, and it was immediately reverted by ClueBot in the next edit, probably because of the use of the word "crappy". Perhaps, if you had queried on the talk page first about changing the picture, and not fed the fire in subsequent edits, this wouldn't have happened the way that it did. Think about it. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The first few I didn't give a reason, that's true, but after they were reverted so quickly I did. Yet they were still reverted because Reaper saw who it was and probably didn't bother to read any justification or if he did read it just rejected it out of hand. I'm not saying it was all other people, but if someone had bothered to even ask instead of just blocking me... I could have put someone on the discussion page but at that point I thought it was pointless. Well, anyway, a better picture has been put up which is all I wanted. You never know who is going to read this article, and it seems a better idea to have something of professional quality as an example. 174.91.5.19 (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

This seems to me as an excellent opportunity for you to become involved in Wikipedia. Your idea was allright in the first place, all you need is some knowledge as to how things work and may I advise you that a friendly word leads to friendly reactions? So, take a daring step, make an account and come up with a nice username and go for it! (Be BOLD in updating, as they say over here) Better images, by the way, may often be found at Wikimedia Commons (just click on 'upload a File' on the left) or else, perhaps you'd like to upload your own? Best wishes,--Satrughna (talk) 08:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Aardman Animation

To the best of my knowledge, Aardman don't use Plasticine, they use an equivalent - and in their opinion, superior - product called Newplast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.194.33 (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know (documentary I watched on the studio) Aardman make their own Plasticine. So they are able to adjust the recipe as they want. Pagestep007 (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

IMHO in English child play with plasticine is called "clay modeling"

From both this article and elsewhere I looked, it seems that the material actually used by children is indeed "plasticine" or stuff with similar names and composition. But AFAIU in modern American English the activity itself is usually described using the word "clay" like "making models out of clay" or "clay modeling" etc. For instance google search { "clay modeling" children } returns 100K hits. That being said, Wikipedia has clay modeling article and apparently the "real" meaning of the term is some specialized process in automotive design. 76.119.30.87 (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Lucy in the Sky

How about the reference to "plasticine porters with looking glass ties" in the Beatles' Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.225.17.141 (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Spelling of Fuse

@Andy Dingley: This article uses British spellings (e.g. "colour"), per ENGVAR. See http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fuse?q=fuze#fuse-2. If there is a WP:RS saying that "fuse" is incorrect in this context, please give details, and obtain consensus for change before reverting again. Burninthruthesky (talk) 11:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:Fuze, as already advised. Consensus was established a long time ago that "fuze" was both correct in this context and is the favoured spelling for consistency across WP, see Contact fuze, Proximity fuze et al. Nor is this an ENGVAR issue, it's more of a technical jargon issue. Besides which, the UK English spelling is fuze. For refs, see Talk:Fuze, just to save re-typing. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I have looked at Talk:Fuze and I see mention of sources saying both spellings are acceptable and carry the same meaning, with some sources suggesting "fuze" is chiefly a US variant (so does the Oxford dictionary I linked above). I don't see any evidence that "fuse" is incorrect, nor any sign of consensus for a "favoured spelling for consistency across WP". Burninthruthesky (talk) 11:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The OED supports fuze. "oxforddictionaries.com" is a website and regularly, if not unreliable, then certainly simplistic to the point of uselessness. This is not a simple issue, but it is one that has been hammered out before. See also Talk:Contact fuze. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to Talk:Contact fuze. I see evidence there to suggest the -z spelling is considered more technically correct in some circles. However, the SOED entry for fuse begins, "Also *fuze." The * denotes "now used primarily in the United States". I'm afraid I'm still not convinced that the audience of this article will see "fuze" as anything other than a spelling mistake. Burninthruthesky (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

How about using the real OED? Also the technical literature of the field. There is no evidence whatsoever (even in the archives of the OED, I asked) for "primarily in the United States" either now or hisorically. The UK military sources, from the development of mechanical fuzes in the mid 19th century, use "fuze". Andy Dingley (talk) 13:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Well I've never been in a situation before where the SOED on my bookshelf wasn't sufficient. I discovered I can access the OED online thanks to my local library membership, so I had a look. It lists "fuze" as an 18^th century variant. So I dispute the claim, "The OED supports fuze". Burninthruthesky (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

From Collins English dictionary:

Fuse v. [not relevant to this discussion] -n. soft wire with low melting point, used as safety device in electrical systems. combustible cord for igniting bomb etc. (no mention of 'fuze' as alternate spelling.)

Fuze n. device for intiating explosive device (usually military). (no mention of 'fuse' as alternate speling.)

Or better still, I just found this left over from when I when I attended the RN explosives course. From Ministry of Defence (Army) publication, Explosives Terms and Definitions:

(page 33) Fuse: Cord or tube for the transmission of flame or explosion usually consisting of cord or rope with gunpowder or high explosive spun into it. (The spelling FUZE may also be met for this term, but FUSE is the preferred spelling in this context.) -their emphasis

(page 35) Fuze: A device with explosive components designed to initiate a main charge. (The spelling FUSE may also be met for this term, but FUZE is the preferred spelling in this context.) -their emphasis

From the above, it seems that the Ministry of Defence prefer the spelling 'fuze', and who are we to argue with the main authority on military ordnance. As I said in my edit summary, the correct spelling is 'fuze', but a fuze may contain a fuse (as in a hand grenade). 86.145.215.191 (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a copy of the paper Collins English dictionary to hand, although I've no reason to doubt the quote above. I notice their online definition differs. The MOD source confirms that both spellings are to be found. As I suggested above, we should consider the WP:AUDIENCE for this article about Plasticine are unlikely to be military specialists. Burninthruthesky (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

"Misspell for the unfamiliar" isn't a policy. Nor is removing the link to the relevant article, because you presumably don't want to pipe the link from presentation of the "s" spelling to what WP is using as standard and consistent "z" spelling.

Yes, this term is unfamiliar. So we should link it. We should also use what WP has already adopted as the consistent spelling.

Why are you and Hengistmate so keen to remove the link to the article? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not a misspelling. "Fuse" is an everyday word understandable by most readers in context, so should not be linked. Its spelling is correct according to the OED and other cites above. There is some evidence that "Fuze" is correct as a technical term. The Manual of Style says, "Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do." See WP:JARGON. Burninthruthesky (talk) 12:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

"Fuse" is most likely to be misunderstood as the better known electrical device.

Why are you against linking the term, which would clear up any uncertainty? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I personally don't see anything objectionable about [[Fuze|fuse]] if a link is considered necessary, but I don't for one moment believe that readers will misunderstand "bomb fuse" to mean an electrical fuse. Burninthruthesky (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The MOD document states that 'fuze' is the "preferred spelling" not that both spellings are acceptable. Burninthruthesky is deliberately misinterpreting the reference to support his own cause. Regardless, if the project has already adopted the 'fuze' spelling elsewhere, as appears to be the case, then consistency demands that it be spelt 'fuze' in this article. It also should be wikilinked to the fuze article (which would clear up any potential confusion with electrical fuses and combustible cords - that is what wikilinks are for). 86.145.215.191 (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I said "both spellings are to be found", which is consistent with the MOD cite above: "The spelling FUSE may also be met for this term, but FUZE is the preferred spelling in this context."; the context in that case being an "explosives course". There is no requirement for consistency between articles; on the contrary, words should be chosen to suit the context of the article. I maintain that in this article, the OED spelling is the most appropriate. I am not supporting any "cause" apart from WP policy, which I have cited above. Burninthruthesky (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Where in the quoted MOD doument does it say 'fuze' should only be used in the context of an explosives course? The answer is that it doesn't and once again you are synthesising the reference to support your chosen version. The reference states that 'fuze' is the preferred spelling without any qualification. As far as the OED spelling is concerned, my OED lists 'fuze' as a valid spelling so I agree that we go with the OED spelling of 'fuze' given that it matches the MOD's preferred spelling. 86.145.215.191 (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

"explosives course" were your words describing the context in which you were given that information. Whatever the MOD source means by "this context", it is clearly a specialist document. My SOED and http://www.oed.com do not list fuze as a current British spelling. Anyway, I've probably said enough on this now. Burninthruthesky (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

You seem transfixed with the explosives course being the context for this particular document. It is not the context at all. It is merely where I encountered it for the first time. Its context is all encompassing because it is available on indent from Her Majesty's Stationary Office to anyone who can raise indents (it is not classified). 86.145.215.191 (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Fuze. There is a convention, but (as you have noticed), the convention is used but not strictly followed on either side of the Pond. The fuze in the article is battery powered, so there's a complex function, so the convention would say it's a fuze, and I would use fuze in this article as that is the spelling adopted previously by WP editors for munitions. See also Danger UXB (which uses "fuse") and SC250 bomb#Fuzes (which uses "fuze" mostly, "fuse" ocasionally, "defuse" (British spelling for either fuse or fuze), and references a 2015 Southwark News article that uses "fuse". This is not a big issue; WP:LAME. Glrx (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

See the lead for fuse (explosives): "In common usage, the word fuse is used indiscriminately. However, when being specific (and in particular in a military context)...". If this were an article about military ordnance, I would support "fuze". It isn't. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

It is. The use of Plasticine described here is very specific. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC

Agreed. This usage is very specific to a military context being, as it is, a specific type of bomb dropped by the German military (specifically: the Luftwaffe - or German Air Force to you). 86.145.215.191 (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

... and I have just noticed that a new editor has weighed in with this edit. Clearly he or she felt the wrong spelling was confusing (and also appears unwaware of this discussion). 86.145.215.191 (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Er, no it isn't. It's about Plasticine. Lots of clues to that - title of article, etc. IMHO, the use of Plasticine described here is quite unnecessarily specific. It isn't even particularly notable that Plasticine was used for something. They might have also used a bit of string, which would require another link. It seems like one of those facts that someone puts in Wikipedia just because they can. I think there's a word for it in Wikipedia somewhere. Btw, I notice that "fuzes" are "defused". Isn't that odd? Hengistmate (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

It was a very important use of plasticine. I would be interested to see how you could make a 'bit of string' perform the same function.

Incidentally, I see from the edit history that Hengistmate made three reverts to the article almost within 24 hours. A further revert would have been a violation of WP:3RR under the 'gaming the system' provision. Instead a new editor Burninthruthesky less than 3 hours later takes up the revert string. Is anyone else's sock alarm going off? Just to add insult: Hengistmate accuses Andy Dingley of edit warring with this edit when he was still only at 1RR (Hengistmate was at 2RR at this time - but now at 4RR). 86.145.215.191 (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

These revert timings are not correct. Anyway, please WP:FOC. Burninthruthesky (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

They are entirely accurate. See [2]. 86.145.215.191 (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Exactly - this is not an article about military ordnance. The details discussed here would be more suited to the linked article on Bomb disposal, but I don't see any mention of plasticine or liquid oxygen in that article. I would support removal of all detailed discussion of fuzes from this article, as it seems to be causing controversy. Burninthruthesky (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Er no. It's not the subject matter that is causing controversy, just a single editor resorting to sockpuppetry to hammer an incorrect spelling into the article and refusing to allow it to be linked to a relevant article (as in - why are supposedly two people so resistant to allowing the word to be linked to another article when the link is so obviously relevant?). 86.145.215.191 (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)