Talk:Silly Putty

Plagiarism
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)

The proper way to deal with these issues is to add the citation, which I see is already in place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.106.145 (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Tradenames, Brand Names, and Ingredients
In the scientific literature the reaction of boron-compounds with silicone oils are referred to as Bouncing Putty. Silly Putty is a trademark as is Thinking Putty, Nutty Putty, Power Putty, Theraputty, etc. They all vary somewhat in their ingredients. Yet, they are all Bouncing Putty. It makes sense that Silly Putty's page talk about the material in general and discuss the history of the specific product. However, I think it should reference a generic Bouncing Putty entry which can discuss the materials properties, ingredients, additives, etc in more detail.

In regards to the ingredients, take note that the MSDS sheet used as source material for the current ingredients list omits a number of ingredients which are not required to be disclosed on an MSDS sheet. Manufacturers must disclose product composition using MSDS but are also keen to protect their trade secrets and the specifics of their formulation. A more accurate discussion would describe that in commercial putty products the reacted material (boron-compound + silicone oil) is compounded with a variety of materials to tweak the properties towards the intended market such as:

fillers: silica (crystalline or amorphous), bentonite, diatomaceous earth, lithopone and others property modifiers: glycerine, oleic acid, rheological additives, silicone oils, etc colorants: titanium dioxide, organic and inorganic pigments

Lastly, while the raw reacted product will flow completely into a puddle over time, most commercial formulations (including Silly Putty) use additives to prevent this behavior in the final product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amuderick (talk • contribs) 14:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't quite silly putty.


 * Ingredients of Silly Putty


 * Those aren't today's ingredients. .  I vote merge.  Any manufacturer is going to have different coloring agents, finely tune their own mix -- it's still the same compound and should share the same page. Alvis 01:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * So why did the proposed move to "bouncing putty" never happen? The OP is from 2006! Redirects should stay, of course, but as far as I could verify (e.g. google scholar), "bouncing putty" is indeed the predominant name in scientific literature.
 * Was there any founded objection? Iridos (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Rheopectic versus dilatancy
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) &#x2234; Wa lk er aj 21:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.--
 * 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)
 * 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)

I'll help clean up!
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)

Potty Putty
Was marketed in the UK in the 1960s/70s. "Potty" as in crazy, loopy, nutty - although in the US a product under that name is available here, where the connotation is clearly different. Not sure who the toy company was, or the names in other European countries, Rich Farmbrough 23:18, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

It's not accurate to say "It is known as Potty Putty in the UK" as many people in the UK know the product as Silly Putty. Maybe a Potty Putty existed once but it's more commonly known by the US name.

Image?
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Silly Putty and clay
Can Silly Putty be fired in a kiln? What about clay mixed with silly putty? oneismany 18:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * More than likely it would start fire, its made up of plastic type materials. -Ravedave 19:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the Silly Putty polymer is not flammable, but it would certainly melt. &mdash;Andux␅ 07:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

Merge discussion
Silly Putty is a brand name. Is there a generic name that can be used instead? That way the Thinking Putty page can be merged here as well. quadratic 02:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, both products are based on Dow Corning's 3179 Dilatant compound. - TSF Mar 16 2006

How can it have the same ingredients and have totally separate physical properties? Don't you think it would shatter like Thinking Putty when hit with a hammer if it was the same compound?


 * I don't know if it does or not, but different ratios give different physical properties. - JustinWick 05:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The original author of this suggestion would have us have one article for all viscoelastic polymers methinks.


 * Silly Putty does shatter when hit with a hammer, doesn't it? Anyway, I tend to agree that the history and technical details of viscoelastic polymers should have one article. A separate article for "Silly Putty" would cover the specifics (marketing, pop culture) of Silly Putty. --Dystopos 16:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Silly Putty does indeed shatter when struck. Thinking Putty and Silly Putty are the exact same base substance, obtained from the same source (Dow Corning's 3179 Dilatant compound).  The "coral" putty sold at puttyworld.com is IDENTICAL to Silly Putty.  The other putties differ in that they use a white base, and have additives which colorize them and give them a slightly different texture/feel.


 * White and coral putty is the same compound, and the Thinking Putty is based on the white. Colorants may make the putty softer and less susceptible to the shear/shatter property, but the base is the same.


 * (Just a nitpick on the above comment: Thinking Putty also comes in coral, which I'm assuming is the base coral compound.  I believe the statement about Thinking Putty being based on the white compound is true for all other colors.


 * This page has had a 'merge' tag on it far too long, with almost no discussion. I'm going to be WP:BOLD and suggest that after July 5, 2006 (about a week from now) if there are no serious objections, that any relavant info from Thinking Putty be moved here and Thinking Putty turned into a redirect here.  I think we've established that they are essentially the same product (with the core ingredient of both being Dow Corning's 3179 Dilatant compound, and the only differences being coloring and marketing.  Any objections?  Let's discuss...  --Rehcsif 22:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge complete --Rehcsif 17:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

homemade silly putty
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)

if you mix glue with borax then you can make silly putty. Look online for the procudure and ratios

Glue (PVA - white glue) and Borax is analogous to "Flubber." Guar gum and borax are like Mattel's old "slime" - neither is Silly Putty, which is silicone based, not water based. --96.51.103.46 (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Origin references
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)

Origin of the name
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)

List of Different Versions
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)

Pragmatic question: Cleaning
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)

I just removed ground in silly putty from my couch and carpet by using a large ball of putty and dabbing it into the stain. This technique worked perfectly and no stain or residue was left behind. Zedgama3 (talk) 01:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Videos on YouTube
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)

Applications of Silly Putty
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)

I noted today that my entry needed a citation. There is no citation. My remarks are from personal knowledge. I indicated that my father, William Henry Haynes, was the General Manager and VP of Silly Putty from around 1950 until 1976. The Silly Putty plant was in Branford, CT. It was the only job that my father had during my lifetime. I have a photo of Peter Hodgson, my dad, and me in front of Pete's house in Madison, CT. There are only a handful of people left that know Silly Putty's early history. One of them is the musician Willie Ruff who still lives in the New Haven area. Another is Peter Hodgson, Jr. Others would be the Kilpatrick children. Not sure how else to verify. See my dad's obit in the New York Times (my name would be mentioned - Carol Spooner at the time), June 2, 1976 and Peter Hodgson's in August 1976. Another wrinkle to the story is that we are a Black family and my father's contribution would be a part, though very minimal, of Black history. I am an attorney in Louisiana and would be willing to be interviewed by anyone doing a story. Can be reached through the Louisiana Bar Association. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.9.20 (talk) 00:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I was a child, so I might be wrong about this, but I always thought Silly Putty was sold as 5/8 oz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.9.20 (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The last two sections are by Carol Haynes. Sorry, I'm new to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.9.20 (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules regarding citations assure that content is verifiable, and is not meant to assure accuracy of content. What you are saying is considered "original research." If I take everything you wrote and put it on a web page, and mention that I got it from you in an interview, that would be a legitimate non-Wikipedia activity. If somebody used that web page as a citation, that would be a legitimate Wikipedia citation source. This arcane bit of nonsense is something that only a lawyer could appreciate, but as they say in the news business, I can say anything right or wrong, as long as I attribute it to somebody else. I remember a case where a vice president of a defunct company corrected a Wikipedia entry about his company, and the changes were removed due to lack of citation. Personally, I'd ignore such nonsensical requirements and leave it up to others to "clean up" Wikipedia by removing first hand accurate information. 50.0.106.145 (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Another application of Silly Putty mentioned is its ability to pick up newsprint. There is (was) also a request for a citation there. Unlike with the above case, Wikipedia does NOT require citations for things that are simple statements of fact, undisputed or general knowledge, except when they are surprising or unusual. One of the most basic principles of junior high school chemistry is that like dissolves like. Silly Putty is petroleum based. Soy is not. It's self evident that it will pick up petroleum based newsprint, and not soy based newsprint. NO original research is needed, but anybody with a glob of Silly Putty can determine that there's nothing to dispute. The article even has a citation from the company saying that Silly Putty can be dissolved with the petroleum based product WD-40, and the article is full of descriptions of SP's petroleum based ingredients. Some people go overboard with citation requests even when Wikipedia requires none. Hagrinas (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Citation for Carol Haynes comments & additional information.
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)
 * 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)

Silly Original Research?
This article states: "In the home, it can be used to pick up substances such as dirt, lint, and vomit." Is this supposed to be funny? Pick up vomit? The cost of silly putty and its efficiacy in this role makes this highly dubious - would love to see a citation of this use as it sounds like original research if not just plain vandalism. A wet rag does the same thing for virtually no cost and probably much faster - haven't handled the stuff in years, but would think it would leave some residue from it's very nature that would require additional cleaning up afterwards in any case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.164.201 (talk • contribs)
 * It was originally "pet hair" not "vomit". I did a revert and moved that whole chunk to its own section since it doesn't belong in the lead. The article is open to anyone to edit though, so feel free to edit it. Siawase (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Refuse to edit wiki any longer as some idiot (typically a UK English speaker) will immediately revert it. Besides wiki is so full of crap, there's no telling if something is vandalism or just some moron's brillant piece of original research. it is fun to read though, as it is almost always completely wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.164.201 (talk • contribs)
 * Yeah, editors sometimes do get a bit revert happy with IP edits. You may want to consider registering an account. I left a welcome message on your talk page with some more information. And indeed, it's good practice not to take anything on Wikipedia as gospel unless it can be verified by a reliable source, particularly anything that seems unlikely. Siawase (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Is This Silly Putty? (Cornstarch)
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Starch explosion? -- megA (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, yeah not that, luckily. Siawase (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Not A Company
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)

Re: Other uses
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)

It works on capacitive touchscreens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.95.39.146 (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I added "ink" to the examples of substances that Silly Putty can be helpful in removing. JudahH (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)

I had a geology professor in college that used Silly Putty to demonstrate plastic flow and shear characteristics of rock under immense pressure.Bcwilmot (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Since the patent on Silly Putty must have expired many years ago . ..
SInce the patent on Silly Putty must have expired many years ago, this article should mention some other brandnames under which essentially the same substance is sold. It does not matter at all if the ingredients are slightly different, as long as the substance has essentially the same properties.

The omission of such information is to the advantage of the copyright holder of the "Silly Putty" trademark. But Wikipedia does not exist for the purpose of promoting a particular brand name.

Ideally a search for "Silly Putty" should indeed redirect to a non-brandname titled article. In any case, the article should certainly not list Silly Putty as the only example of this type of substance.Daqu (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I recently ran actoss this in a toy store. Melting Snowman and other melting versions, some glow in the dark (Glow-Doh), but it is not clear if that flows:
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67vdUkecOkI
 * From: http://www.dragon-itoys.com/products/meltingsnowman
 * Also on the package:
 * http://www.blueskydesigns.co.uk/
 * http://www.blobimals.com/
 * ToySmith Sumner, WA 98390 (c) Toysmith 2013
 * Regards &#32;-- Steve -- (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC) Steve

This article is a mess.
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)

→Agreed. The shear thickening (dilatant) behavior is due to the weak interchangeable crosslinks formed by Lewis-acid/Lewis-base complexes between oxygen and boron. Under low stress, the crosslinks are able to break and reform in different positions, so the material behaves like a fluid. At high stress, the crosslinks remain intact so the viscosity increases dramatically. See DOI: 10.1002/chem.201402877 for reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.67.14.194 (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

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