Talk:Silly String

History

I truly believe that this product was invented by David Carrington. In the summer of 1968 or 1969 my father discussed how they were experimenting with "The make It Snow " stencil product and how tweaking the formulation allowed for the string like product to come out. Red was not an original colour as the product was more pinkish. I would hope that some one would research the make it snow stencil product and see if the formulations are similar and also see when a patent was issued. I still have one of the original cans of Silly String. Mr Cox and Mr Fish may have patened the product but I do not beleive they were the inventors. My father passed away in December of 2009 and going through some his things I came a cross some of the original test cans. My father did not seek out the spotlight. I think that this may be similar to the debate over the invention of the "Light Bulb". My father also was the first to put toothpaste in a can in the early 1970's. It was packaged similar to that of shaving cream this product like the pump and other toothpaste dispencers did not catch on.(Bigfatcat123 (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC))

Military Use

I'd debate the statement that the military application was pioneered by the British. The only reference cited that mentions an earlier (1990's) British military use by one user also refers to it being developed for military use during the Korean War and the Vietnam Conflict by another user. I think a more definitive source than someone saying so on a forum would be needed in order to definitively state that the concept was developed by either nation. In the meantime, I think it would be most accurate to state that it has been used by both militaries for several years, which appears to be the case.--H-ko 22:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Edited it to say that. One of the sources actually says this is an old technique. Umlautbob 07:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I independently discovered its use as a means to detect tripwires (and mark them simultaneously) when I was the Chief Instructor for the US Army Sapper Leader Course in 1993. In the same year we introduced several innovations to the program of instruction. My thinking that led to this discovery was not influenced by any documented source. SapperChandler (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Flammable Solvent?

It is said in the article that the solvent is somewhat flammable, but in a former sentence it says that the solvent is CFC, which is absolutely non-flammable and used as fire-exstinguisher. Is it that after CFC was discovered to hurt the ozone-layer that other, flammable solvents are used, or is this a mistake in the article? --217.86.94.204 20:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The filament of the ones (not necessary official "Silly Strings"TM ones) sold in Italy are seriously flammable (by direct observation).

Have a nice day!, Nickh ²+, --37.161.136.245 (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC).

Military -- Silly String has long been used

"Silly String has long been used "

How long?

(Interjection: I wondered about that statement, too. It's fairly typical of the sloppy language many people use. If Wikipedia is to have any value as a refernce source, writers should take greater care to explain what they mean.)

And if "long" why is it not provided as standard equipment... I've read an article about a mom having to ship it to son in Iraq... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.6.224.225 (talk) 04:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Here's one of many articles found with a google search. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/06/iraq/main2234543.shtml --Gbleem 08:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The CBS news link just gives a blank page with a banner ad. Karanne (talk) 03:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

name change confetti string

I think we should change the name to confetti string and say that silly string is a brand of confetti string. --Gbleem 08:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Google test:

• "Confetti string": 921

• "Silly-string": 713,000

I don't think a move is appropriate.

Atlant 20:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

References

I wikified all the references to use the "reflist" template. There were a couple links I removed that had either gone dead or required a login account to access them. If you can track down other sources for those (you'll have to check the previous edit prior to my changes to know which ones), have at it. Thanks. ♫ Bitch and Complain Sooner ♫ 17:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC) The last entry to AZcentral comes up with a 404 error. Searching that site does not come up with the referenced link regarding the shipment of Silly String to the Middle East. Also, the NY Times links require a free login. Since I'm still new here, I don't know how to correct the 'reflist' link.

By the way, how did they finally get the stuff over there? Thanks, Karanne (talk) 03:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources?

I need to sleep now - is this a reliable source? [1]

and this looks like one [2]

I am bookmarking these for later as I need to sleep. Anyone is welcome to add them. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Why don't they just fix it?

Use gas that doesnt freeze you or hurt Teh Urf, and plastic foam that doesn't damage things.. and preferably that dissolves over time into nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 00:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Start, Duration of Annual Los Angeles Ban (Reversions)

User:75.72.183.49: You may be inclined to argue about whether "12:00 am on October 31" is really Halloween at all, and I assume that is why you edited this article (inserting "(sic)" after that date and time). However, read the paragraph again. What is stated there is the exact date and time as they appear in the Los Angeles ordinance. We needn't notate sic ("intentionally stated thus") when we are citing facts, supported by reliable sources, here on Wikipedia, since that should be the intention of all of us even if we might like the facts to be different. The "36 hour" reference adds value by clarifying the time period and its duration. Hence: reverted. — Dwpaul (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

What makes you think it's 36 hours? That's but one interpretation of what the sign says. I merely trimmed the text of the article to remove the inference. Adding "(sic)" was editorializing, sure, but that's a separate issue. I'll redo the edit, without the "(sic)" this time. -Phil

This is what makes me think: http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2004/04-0772_ORD_176176_10-06-2004.pdf. "'Halloween' shall mean the 36-hour period from 12:00 a.m. on October 31st of each year, through 12:00 p.m. on November 1st of each year." LA Municipal Code Sec. 56.02. SILLY STRING -- HOLLYWOOD DIVISION DURING HALLOWEEN. (emph added). Reverting again. — Dwpaul (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2014

The following section ("History") is written in an un-encyclopedic fashion and has a numerous grammatical errors:

A United States Patent was issued to the founders of Silly String in 1972 as a "foamable resinous composition". The invention of the original silly string was accidental. The founders were inventor, Leonard A. Fish and chemist, Robert P. Cox. The partners initially wanted to create a can of aerosol that you would be able to spray on a broken/sprained leg or arm and turn into an instant cast. The invention was a success. But when it came down to packaging the can, the founders had to go through a box of 500 different kinds of nozzles. After going through about 30 or 40, Fish pressed one nice string that shot about 30 feet across the room. From there Fish came up with an idea to make the string less sticky and add different colors. Because none of the founders knew how to sell toys, they made an appointment with Wham-O in California. In that meeting, Fish described spraying the can all over the person he had the meeting with and all over his office. This person got very upset and asked him to leave the premises. One day later Fish gets a Western Union Telegram that said to please send 24 cans of "Squibbly" for a market test immediately, signed by the same guy that kicked him out. He called them back the guy explained that after he cleaned everything up in the office, the two owners of Wham-O came back to talk to him and one noticed a piece of silly string on a lamp shade that he missed while cleaning up. He explained where the string came from and the owners quickly asked him to send samples over for a market test. Two weeks later Wham-O signed a contract with the founders to license what we now know as Silly String.

The whole anecdote is shaky and I would suggest a re-write by someone knowledgable on the subject, but for now I request that it be changed as follows:

The invention of the original silly string was accidental. In 1972, A United States Patent was issued to Leonard A. Fish, an inventor, and Robert P. Cox, a chemist, for a "foamable resinous composition." The partners initially wanted to create a can of aerosol that one would be able to spray on a broken/sprained leg or arm and use as an instant cast. Their invention worked, but when it came down to packaging the can, the two had to test 500 different kinds of nozzles. After having gone through about 30 or 40, Fish came upon one that produced a nice string, which shot about 30 feet across the room. This incident inspired Fish to turn the product into a toy. After altering the formula to be less sticky and adding colors, the pair decided to market their product. Because neither of them knew how to sell toys, they made an appointment with Wham-O in California. Fish describes how, during that meeting, he sprayed the can all over the person he was meeting with and all over his office. This person became very upset and asked him to leave the premises. One day later, Fish received a Western Union Telegram asking him to send 24 cans of "Squibbly" for a market test immediately, signed by the same individual who had kicked him out. He called them back and explained that, after he had finished cleaning up his office, the two owners of Wham-O had come back to talk to him, and one had noticed a piece of the string on a lamp shade—he had overlooked it while cleaning up. He explained where the string came from and the owners quickly asked him to send samples over for a market test. Two weeks later, Wham-O signed a contract with Fish and Cox to license the product now known as Silly String.

Kingxiang (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed major revisions to Composition section, addition of chemistry background

Proposed major revisions to Composition section, addition of chemistry background

I propose building out the Composition section and moving all details on the product's chemical makeup to that section.

Please delete the following sentence on composition from the History section; it has been incorporated into the Composition section. "It is polymer-based, likely 11-16% polyisobutyl-methacrylate and 0.5 to 4% sorbitan trioleate dissolved in a solvent that evaporates in the air and acts as a foaming agent. The pressure in the can propels the mixture a distance of up to 20 feet (6.1 m). Other alleged ingredients are a small amount of isopropyl alcohol and plasticizers like dibutyl phthalate."

In addition, please delete the current Composition text and replace it with below. Source is the original patent, current article reference [2].

New Composition section:

Silly String is made of a mixture of components dispersed throughout a liquid solvent in the product’s aerosol can. These substances include a polymer [resin] that provides the string’s structure, a [plasticizer] to tune the physical properties of the string, and a [surfactant] that promotes foaming of the product. Other ingredients include silicon fluid (to make the strands easier to clean up), flame retardant, and a pigment for color.

A key component in Silly String is its [aerosol spray can] and the propellant that ejects the product mixture from the can. The product originally used [chlorofluorocarbon] propellant [Freon 12] mixed with [Freon 11], both part of a group of compounds believed to damage the ozone layer. In 1978, the United States banned the use of CFCs like Freon 11 and 12 in aerosol cans. The manufacturers then changed the formulation to use permitted propellants. Aerosol propellants are liquids with very low boiling points. When under pressure inside the can, the propellant is in liquid form, but when the nozzle is opened, it rapidly escapes – along with the compounds mixed in it – and evaporates as it enters the air. The string takes shape as the propellant evaporates.

The inventors sought to control the ratio of compounds in the product to form a string that holds itself together while remaining slightly sticky to the touch. This allows the product to weakly adhere to people and windows, for instance, but easily be cleaned up without the string falling apart or staining inert surfaces.

The current formulation is not published, but one of the primary recipes in the original patent calls for 12.2% of the synthetic resin poly(isobutyl methacrylate) by weight. It additionally calls for 0.5% of the selected plasticizer, [dibutyl phthalate], 2.5% of sorbitan trioleate surfactant, 0.35% silicon fluid such as dimethyl siloxane or methyl phenyl siloxane, 5.6% of flame retardant hexabromobenzene, and 2-3% pigment (all percentages by weight). The aerosol propellant represents the bulk of the product. Solubility of the resin and other materials in the product is enhanced by addition of another solvent, originally Freon 11, in 6.6% by weight.

Cataclysmicvoid (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Arjayay: Um... patents were cited, and those are reliable sources for descriptions of formulation and operation. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Anachronist - Um - um - they may be cited now, but they were not cited when I refused it - as can be seen [3] here, The references were added 4 hours after my refusal - please check out the page history - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 11:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Arjayay: Correct, I did add the reference after you noted that it was missing! My apologies, I'm not familiar with editing articles from the talk page and wasn't sure on the formatting. Now that it's added, it would be great to get this article updated! Cataclysmicvoid (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Cataclysmicvoid - sorry, I missed your later post, but with all this to-ing and fro-ing, your account should now be autoconfirmed, so you should be able to make these changes yourself - If not, please let me know - Arjayay (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  16:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2017

In the 'Safety' section, the final sentence has a 3-year-old "Citation needed" tag; please either remove the sentence or find a reliable source. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:90BF:36D1:C424:982A (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Done per request. I have no prejudice against re-adding any or all of the removed sentence if a reliable source is added. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 00:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

History two

The History section was primarily added in 2013 without a reference. I'm not quickly able to discover an earlier source, because the keyword details have been written about or replicated in so many listicles and trivia pieces since then. I found it when I noticed the transcript/narration of this 2016 youtube video very closely matched our section (i sent them a mildly grumbly note asking them to attribute their sources, whether it was us or an earlier 3rd location). Maybe someone else here has better luck or more time to confirm the details and add a citation, or debunk/clean it. Quiddity (talk) 07:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2021

Add this to the beginning of the first sentence as follows: “Since 1993, when its use in detecting tripwires was discovered by Sergeant First Class David B. Chandler, Chief Instructor of the U.S. Army Sapper Leader Course, Silly String and similar products ….” SapperChandler (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Filler

This article states: "A key component in Silly String is its aerosol spray can and the propellant that ejects the product mixture from the can. The product originally used chlorofluorocarbon propellant Freon 12 mixed with Freon 11, both part of a group of compounds that damage the ozone layer. In 1978, the United States banned the use of CFCs like Freon 11 and 12 in aerosol cans. The manufacturers then changed the formulation to use permitted propellants.[2] Aerosol propellants are liquids with very low boiling points. When under pressure inside the can, the propellant is in liquid form, but when the nozzle is opened, it rapidly escapes – along with the compounds mixed in it – and evaporates as it enters the air. The string takes shape as the propellant evaporates." This somewhat lengthy description of CFCs is true for just about any aerosol product available in the 70s - is wiki including it in every article about aerosol products available in that era? Suspect someone was just adding padding to make this article longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:801:380:63E0:0:0:0:B605 (talk) 10:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Grammar mistake

'and has also used by the US military to detect tripwires.' Should probably be ' and has also been used by the US military to detect tripwires.' 185.116.114.41 (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done, quite right. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Physical Safety & Allergy Hazards Absent

This article leaves out hazards related to its latex and resin, which large numbers of people are allergic to, as well as other potential physical safety issues. There have been severe incidents due to its use and the perception that it is safe to everyone. The Safety Hazards section only mentions environmental problems, and bans on its use are described as being almost exclusively due to cleanup concerns. Elleoneiram (talk) 08:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)