Talk:Match

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Chemistry Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, which collaborates on Chemistry and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article..

Fails to mention pre-friction match. --65.174.34.14 15:57, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it fails to mention matches period. This article is about match*STICKS* waa jadhg jh fahdfjh alikahfdl iuaghl h dfnhich were named after matches.
~ender 2005-06-26 16:46:MST

What about strike-anywhere matches?

See below Pyrotec 12:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

What chemicals are produced when a match strikes and burns? Are they safe? What about the practice of lighting a match to cover odors in the bathroom? Why does that work? Is it that the smell of the resulting chemicals overwhelm others, or is it that the resulting chemicals (hydrogen sulfide?) numbs our sense of smell?

See below, but it could be H2S aljk hadlfjh Matches to Reformulation to remove white phophorus, as this section really deals with improving the safety of matches by removal of white phosphorus (and complying with laws banning the use of white phosphorus in matches). (2) In fact this section needs Copyediting as it discusses both safety matches and strike anywhere matches without distinction between the two; and, therefore, it was not about safety matches per se.

You are correct it does not deal with the fumes produced by burning matches; I may add it when I have some time. It also does not deal with Bengal matches or Swan matches. Pyrotec 12:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Contradiction of US Law 2 matchstick chewing 3 Other matches 4 Fire control history 5 Breathing in smoke from lighting a match 6 Matchbooks 7 Aerogel

[edit] Contradiction of US Law

One sentence (under "Reformulation...") claims "The USA did not pass a law, but instead placed a punitive tax on white-phosphorus based matches in 1913", and (under "Strike-anywhere matches") another states "The Niagara Falls plant stopped making it until 1910, when the US government made the use of white phosphorus matches illegal and cancelled the US patent on phosphorus sesquisulfide based safety matches." Which of these (if either) is correct? The Jade Knight 01:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your comment about the inconsistency over the punitive tax and no law banning white phosphorus based matches versus a law banning the use of white phosphorus. At the present I don't have the answer. I do have an update on phosphorus sesquisulfide so I'm doing this part now. Pyrotec 21:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] matchstick chewing

does anyone know if chewing modern matchsticks is safe? maybe the wood might be treated, or small traces of the match head getting in the mouth could be harmful? JoeSmack ^Talk 05:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other matches

The term "match" as used for a means of providing ignition is not limited to matchsticks, and this article already says as much by referring to fuses. Why is it such a big problem to include a single sentence mentioning matches fired by electricity rather than friction? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The original edit caused several difficulties. Primarily, it overlooked the first paragraph in Match that states that matches are typically a wooden or stiff paper stick. The edit re-defined non-electric matches as being wooden, thereby discounting waxed card (Vesta) matches. Secondly it conveniently overlooked, as did Talk:Match, the first paragraph in Match that matches are ignited from heat of friction when struck. Fuses are discussed in the article, I added them, but the view point is fuses ignited by striking; whereas electric fuses are electrically initiated - not initated by heat of friction. Electric fuses (and electric fuse compositions) are not new, they were discussed as long ago as 1968, by Ellern in his book on pyrotechnics. The edit to match appeared to be a contrived insertion that was unrelated to matches, other than sharing the name match and it distorted the article; which is why I moved the edit to Match (dissambiguation). I agree the article is somewhat wider than matches, as it mentions quick match and slow match, fuses, etc, but I think electric matches could have been better inserted into the match article. I’ve done a re-edit to match that hopefully meets both our concerns.Pyrotec 18:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Wooden was inaccurate, I agree. It should be changed to "friction," I think, because both of those types are dependent on friction. The insertion is hardly contrived. Friction matches and electric matches both serve as sources of ignition and are far from the kinds of disparate meanings that should be relegated to a disambiguation page. The original wording though has a section that you kept reverting and I changed -- "simple and convenient" -- which is a POV value judgement about the nature of matches, rather than objective description -- "device for producing fire" -- which I used. Your change to setting the sentence apart with "note:" comes off as extremely awkward and really isn't in keeping with wikipedia's style. Generally it's preferred to write things as prose, not as notes and bulleted lists. Since the intro specifies typically, mentioning the electric type is just a matter of showing where matches deviate from that norm. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll accept friction in place of wooden. However, I have difficulty accepting device for producing fire as a definition of a match. Gas fires, barbecues, blow lamps and gas-filled lighters meet this definition but they are not matches. Matches are not devices they are more comsummed items or consummable items; so are butane gas lighters, hence friction as a source of initiation needs to go in, but that does not exclude flint lighters. I'm somewhat hesitant to go down this road, but if I envoke the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations, there are (only) four types of matches: Matches, Fusee; Matches, Safety; Matches, Strike Anywhere; and Matches, Wax Vesta. The wikipedia article does not mention wax vestas; and only mentions fusees without defining them. Electric matches are not matches, but historically they did use match composition, and they are known as electric matches. Legally, for classification, they have other proper names: fuse, electric; bridge wire; fuse, ignition. I don't think they have a place in a match article other than as a footnote or comment. The problem is the name and it is longstanding: Ellern referred to it in 1968 and his reference is an Atlas Match data sheet of 1957.Pyrotec 00:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fire control history

Fails to mention how people used to light fire (at home, in the streets and in industries), until immediately before they began using matches.

May I suggest you read the article Fire making; the article Matches is already in the Category of Firelighting so this article is only two clicks away. Pyrotec 23:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Breathing in smoke from lighting a match

Is this safe or is this very dangerous? I mean, in the moment a match is struck against the surface and catches on fire. Is is then dangerous to brathe in that smoke and then exhaling it? --Glisern 22:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The risks from breathing the smoke are related to the concentration of the smoke and the duration of exposure. If it is only one or two matches per hour or per day then there probably is no real risk. However, if someone has a full time job testing matches, then I would suggest that this work be done in a cabinet with fume extraction. Again, at the point of striking the match, the fumes come from the match head. When the head has finished burning, the fumes come from the match stick, which is either waxed card or waxed wood. In comparison, fumes from the match head are possibly more hazardous than the fumes from the match stick. Pyrotec 23:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matchbooks

Matchbooks were first PATENTED in US, but the idea came from Europe, where PACKAGE was not a patentable item at the time! Note: Same true for nowadays - many thinks patented in US are NOT patentable in Europe (for example, software algorithms). Stasdm 19:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think in safety matches they do not use antimony, they use sulfur instead.

[edit] Aerogel

Is there any good reason for the Aerogel pic? - it really says nothing about matches. Remove? ClovisSangrail 19:56, 28 May 2007 (AEST)

I agree Petecarney 22:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. The image is not referred to in the text and seems to be present only because it contains matches. It has no place here. Xarqi 05:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It is an interesting picture but it belongs with areogel not with matches --Chocrates 05:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)