Talk:duct tape

This etymology is wrong. It's obviously just an unresearched assumption. "duct tape" is a re-analysis of "duck tape" probably because it sounds more technical and more likely to most people. There's actually a somewhat famous saying, "you can do a lot of things with duct tape, but you can't seal ducts".

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Research-Review/Magazine/1999/departments/sciencenotes.shtml

— Hippietrail 00:01, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We seem to be disagreeing on exactly why "duck tape" came to be re-analyzed as "duct tape." Duct tape may be unsuitable for taping ducts, but that didn't stop it from being so used. I've seen it. The article you quote says as much: "Contractors are not supposed to use it for structural purposes such as suspending ducts, however-a legal stricture that may be more often honored in the breach." (by this I assume they mean the modern mis-reading of "honored in the breach" meaning "frequently disregarded" as opposed to the original meaning "better not done.")

In any case, I'll re-word the etymology.

The type of ductwork it was used on isn't the round tubes we know today. It was folded sheet metal, square in cross section, and quite large. —Długosz 05:48, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm interested in what makes you think the re-analysis came after and was due to the tape's mis-use, and not the other way around which would seem more likely to me, though I have no evidence of either history. Surely people used it on ducts because they thought it was called "duct tape". If we can't find some info supporting one case vs the other we probably should mention both possibilities in the article.

We probably should mention that it's widely believed that "duck tape" is the faulty re-analysis of the correct "duck tape". Bartleby.com for one has this backward etymology.

UPDATE! As I read more, it appears that this etymology may well be a hoax due to the owners of the Duck™ tape trademark and helped along by William Safire's language column in the NY Times! "Duct tape" could actually be the original term after all, even if that's less fun: http://groups.google.com.au/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=BA92B984.5D51%25nxk%40comcast.net — Hippietrail 16:23, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hmm . . . that's certainly the most plausible analysis I've seen yet, and I'm a bit chagrined for taking the Duc{t,k} Tape guys' word at face value (but if they wouldn't know, who would??). The lack of pre-1970's attestations is telling.

The only outstanding question for me is why is it called "duct tape" if it's not to be used for taping ducts? In particular, why is it "Duck Tape® brand duct tape"? Wouldn't that run afoul of California law one way or the other?

As I said, I have seen ducts taped with (ahem) gray tape, and it does indeed wear out after a while. I can only guess that for a while it was a reasonable price/performance trademark, as it would do the job for a while. Also, different brands may work better or worse, depending on the adhesive.

In any case, the duck tape story looks like just that: too good a story. -dmh 18:03, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Most of the circulated sources on this agree that it became known as "duct tape" because, among civilians, that was its primary initial use and the reason for its initial popularity. It was only later that building codes determined that regular duct tape wasn't sufficient for properly sealing ducts. No one should assume that since it currently considered unsuitable, that it never could have been used as such. In fact, if it weren't used for ductwork originally, there would be no need to declare it unsuitable. It is safe to assume that duct tape got its name because it was used to seal ducts. --The Yar 21:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)