Understanding Feeds--Great Link

[fountainpenkid]

Hi all,

I'm sure I'm late to the party, but I just found this excellent (and unique) fountain pen blog: https://fountainpendesign.wordpress.com
His article on feeds is a must-read for those who want to understand their design: https://fountainpendesign.wordpress.com/feed-supply-ink-function-foutain-pen/fountain-pen-feed-function/

Enjoy!

[Hawk]

Fantastic. A must read!

[Pen Ingeneer]

Hi all,

I'm sure I'm late to the party, but I just found this excellent (and unique) fountain pen blog: https://fountainpendesign.wordpress.com
His article on feeds is a must-read for those who want to understand their design: https://fountainpendesign.wordpress.com/feed-supply-ink-function-foutain-pen/fountain-pen-feed-function/

Enjoy!

Ooooh! Humbly.... thanks for your nice comment. I enjoy writing. If you have any suggestions and or questions, let me know. They are the fuel for a writer.

[inklord]

Fabulous! With all the myth-mongering going on in any field of technology encountering passion, this is so refresing! Well done. Thanks, fountainpenkid, for pointing it out!

[jacksterp]

Fascinating!

Thanks FPK!!!

[sharmon202]

Thanks for sharing, this is in my favorites now.

[dneal]

Although I've not been through every page, I noticed there is quite a bit of erroneous information on that site.

From the link regarding feeds: Diagram 4 and the statement that "The slits are directly connected with the feed capillary and vent into the air canal" have me scratching my head.

I have yet to see a factory feed where the slits/fins are connected directly to the ink channel. Their purpose is to create additional surface area, to collect excess ink resulting from changes in reservoir pressure.

Even more confusing is: "I have seen feeds with excessive numbers of slits. They are useless. Some reduce the width as they go up. Doesn’t work, unless they are in the vicinity of the feed capillary, and once they are full, they never empty. Eventually they clog up and become useless." More slits (more fins, to be precise) = more surface area to collect excess ink.

Looking at the Nib Mechanics (https://fountainpendesign.wordpress.com/fountain-pen-nib-function-material-manufacture/nib-mechanics-function-performance-geometry/) page, I see more problems. The author advocates an inverted "V" alignment for the nib tipping (diagram 1 and 2), and also claims that a parallel alignment (diagram 3) causes a nib to dry out more easily (because both "ends" are exposed to air). The inverted V creates a scratchy, poor writing pen. They should be in parallel.

[fountainpenkid]

Although I've not been through every page, I noticed there is quite a bit of erroneous information on that site.

From the link regarding feeds: Diagram 4 and the statement that "The slits are directly connected with the feed capillary and vent into the air canal" have me scratching my head.

I have yet to see a factory feed where the slits/fins are connected directly to the ink channel. Their purpose is to create additional surface area, to collect excess ink resulting from changes in reservoir pressure.

Even more confusing is: "I have seen feeds with excessive numbers of slits. They are useless. Some reduce the width as they go up. Doesn’t work, unless they are in the vicinity of the feed capillary, and once they are full, they never empty. Eventually they clog up and become useless." More slits (more fins, to be precise) = more surface area to collect excess ink.

Looking at the Nib Mechanics (https://fountainpendesign.wordpress.com/fountain-pen-nib-function-material-manufacture/nib-mechanics-function-performance-geometry/) page, I see more problems. The author advocates an inverted "V" alignment for the nib tipping (diagram 1 and 2), and also claims that a parallel alignment (diagram 3) causes a nib to dry out more easily (because both "ends" are exposed to air). The inverted V creates a scratchy, poor writing pen. They should be in parallel.
I was perplexed by the first thing you mention as well. As it seems English is not PenIngineer's first language, I assumed this was an error in translation. However, the third seems less explicable in that way and I did not catch it as I casually browsed through a few of the posts. Though I didn't catch it until you mentioned it, the second one might make sense to me, actually (if, as before, it is just another translational quirk)--thin slits in a feed within the section that aren't connected to the main ink capillary would just hold ink indefinitely and not increase 'usable' in capacity. I can't say I've seen a feed like that though.
Considering he has an account here and replied to this topic, I hope we get a response!

[Pen Ingeneer]

I just completed a half an hour essay on the above. then I clicked on post the reply and it tells me that I have breached a security token... I have read your comments, be assured, I will reply, again

[Pen Ingeneer]

Maybe, if I may suggest, it would be a good idea if you go at least through the chapters referred to in the articles. I went back and read what I have written and I am sure you will find your answers there.

I did not like that you called my writing containing erroneous information. I have done this work. You may also want to consider the good comments I have received in this forum. If something is confusing to you, you could have taken this as a challenge to study the topic. Or asking question not making me wrong.

[Pen Ingeneer]

Although I've not been through every page, I noticed there is quite a bit of erroneous information on that site.

From the link regarding feeds: Diagram 4 and the statement that "The slits are directly connected with the feed capillary and vent into the air canal" have me scratching my head.

I have yet to see a factory feed where the slits/fins are connected directly to the ink channel. Their purpose is to create additional surface area, to collect excess ink resulting from changes in reservoir pressure.

Even more confusing is: "I have seen feeds with excessive numbers of slits. They are useless. Some reduce the width as they go up. Doesn’t work, unless they are in the vicinity of the feed capillary, and once they are full, they never empty. Eventually they clog up and become useless." More slits (more fins, to be precise) = more surface area to collect excess ink.

Looking at the Nib Mechanics (https://fountainpendesign.wordpress.com/fountain-pen-nib-function-material-manufacture/nib-mechanics-function-performance-geometry/) page, I see more problems. The author advocates an inverted "V" alignment for the nib tipping (diagram 1 and 2), and also claims that a parallel alignment (diagram 3) causes a nib to dry out more easily (because both "ends" are exposed to air). The inverted V creates a scratchy, poor writing pen. They should be in parallel.
I was perplexed by the first thing you mention as well. As it seems English is not PenIngineer's first language, I assumed this was an error in translation. However, the third seems less explicable in that way and I did not catch it as I casually browsed through a few of the posts. Though I didn't catch it until you mentioned it, the second one might make sense to me, actually (if, as before, it is just another translational quirk)--thin slits in a feed within the section that aren't connected to the main ink capillary would just hold ink indefinitely and not increase 'usable' in capacity. I can't say I've seen a feed like that though.
Considering he has an account here and replied to this topic, I hope we get a response!

May I refer to what I have written before. I do not like your condescending remark about me having English as a second language. Most people in this word would have English as a second language. Calling someone's expertise "another translational quirk" is pretty low, in my opinion. If you don't understand something ask, friendly, politely? I consider this enough of a response.

[Monkey]

Uh, I don't know any of you guys or anything about all this, but as an objective outside 3rd party: saying someone has English as a second language is not remotely condescending, it is mere fact. Even fluent speakers in non-native languages will run into translational issues at times. My husband is a native Dutch speaker who has been fluent in English for many years at a near-native level, and there are still plenty of times something comes up that he hasn't quite had to express before where he has to flounder a bit for a word/phrase. It is only natural. You seem to be getting quite defensive of these comments (which is understandable, but...) and then taking every remark as some sort of personal attack, which is not what they were.

[fountainpenkid]

Although I've not been through every page, I noticed there is quite a bit of erroneous information on that site.

From the link regarding feeds: Diagram 4 and the statement that "The slits are directly connected with the feed capillary and vent into the air canal" have me scratching my head.

I have yet to see a factory feed where the slits/fins are connected directly to the ink channel. Their purpose is to create additional surface area, to collect excess ink resulting from changes in reservoir pressure.

Even more confusing is: "I have seen feeds with excessive numbers of slits. They are useless. Some reduce the width as they go up. Doesn’t work, unless they are in the vicinity of the feed capillary, and once they are full, they never empty. Eventually they clog up and become useless." More slits (more fins, to be precise) = more surface area to collect excess ink.

Looking at the Nib Mechanics (https://fountainpendesign.wordpress.com/fountain-pen-nib-function-material-manufacture/nib-mechanics-function-performance-geometry/) page, I see more problems. The author advocates an inverted "V" alignment for the nib tipping (diagram 1 and 2), and also claims that a parallel alignment (diagram 3) causes a nib to dry out more easily (because both "ends" are exposed to air). The inverted V creates a scratchy, poor writing pen. They should be in parallel.
I was perplexed by the first thing you mention as well. As it seems English is not PenIngineer's first language, I assumed this was an error in translation. However, the third seems less explicable in that way and I did not catch it as I casually browsed through a few of the posts. Though I didn't catch it until you mentioned it, the second one might make sense to me, actually (if, as before, it is just another translational quirk)--thin slits in a feed within the section that aren't connected to the main ink capillary would just hold ink indefinitely and not increase 'usable' in capacity. I can't say I've seen a feed like that though.
Considering he has an account here and replied to this topic, I hope we get a response!

May I refer to what I have written before. I do not like your condescending remark about me having English as a second language. Most people in this word would have English as a second language. Calling someone's expertise "another translational quirk" is pretty low, in my opinion. If you don't understand something ask, friendly, politely? I consider this enough of a response.

I'm sorry you've taken it that way--my intention wasn't to demean you or your expertise whatsoever, but, as someone who has studied another language at a high level, to offer a possible explanation for what I saw as a confusing bit of writing. It was a defense (from the position that you wrote a few bits of incorrect information) rather than an attack.

I've re-read the first bit in question ("The slits are directly connected with the feed capillary and vent into the air canal. Their capillary pull is less than the feed capillary, nib and paper, but more than the air canal"), and I what continues to confuse me is the wording: "direct connection" to me implies an actual channel between the feed capillary and the slits, when in fact, no ink channel I've ever seen has little branches leading to the slits. The diagram in the section supports the claim as well:
https://fountainpendesign.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/container-capillary-air-nib-chamber-25mm1.jpg?w=224&h=300
It is possible I'm misunderstanding the fit between the nib and the feed--is where the 'direct connection comes in?

If you could describe what you meant in the other two questioned claims, I'd really appreciate it. I would love to gain understanding!

To be honest, I think dneal's comments were a bit harsh and 'put-down'-ish in their tone; unwarranted, considering the wealth of valuable and correct information you've written on the site. But with your authority comes a responsibility to defend and explain your writing, and I think in itself the critical discussion of your work--and that you've given people tools to think critically about fountain pen function in a scientific way--makes it a great success.

[dneal]

To be honest, I think dneal's comments were a bit harsh and 'put-down'-ish in their tone; unwarranted, considering the wealth of valuable and correct information you've written on the site. But with your authority comes a responsibility to defend and explain your writing, and I think in itself the critical discussion of your work--and that you've given people tools to think critically about fountain pen function in a scientific way--makes it a great success.

I thought I was being diplomatically matter-of-fact rather than "harsh". If Pen Ingeneer worked in Germany for many years, he should be used to terse matter-of-fact statements. I take exception to the notion my comments were "put-down'-ish" in tone. 30 years in the Army has made me quite adept at that, and if that was my intent there would be absolutely no doubt.


Maybe, if I may suggest, it would be a good idea if you go at least through the chapters referred to in the articles. I went back and read what I have written and I am sure you will find your answers there.

I did not like that you called my writing containing erroneous information. I have done this work. You may also want to consider the good comments I have received in this forum. If something is confusing to you, you could have taken this as a challenge to study the topic. Or asking question not making me wrong.

I appreciate the effort you went to in building your site. Still, your description and diagram (below) of how the fins of a feed work, and their purpose; is simply wrong. I actually wasn't confused, but used that wording to leave you an opportunity to make the correction. Positive comments you or I have received in this forum have no bearing on truth.

It is important that readers of this forum are aware that this is not how the fins of a feed work:

https://fountainpendesign.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/container-capillary-air-nib-chamber-25mm1.jpg?w=224&h=300

[Pen Ingeneer]

Uh, I don't know any of you guys or anything about all this, but as an objective outside 3rd party: saying someone has English as a second language is not remotely condescending, it is mere fact. Even fluent speakers in non-native languages will run into translational issues at times. My husband is a native Dutch speaker who has been fluent in English for many years at a near-native level, and there are still plenty of times something comes up that he hasn't quite had to express before where he has to flounder a bit for a word/phrase. It is only natural. You seem to be getting quite defensive of these comments (which is understandable, but...) and then taking every remark as some sort of personal attack, which is not what they were.

I don't mind either. But, it is the combination of calling me that and giving it as reason for false facts in my writing.

[Pen Ingeneer]

Although I've not been through every page, I noticed there is quite a bit of erroneous information on that site.

From the link regarding feeds: Diagram 4 and the statement that "The slits are directly connected with the feed capillary and vent into the air canal" have me scratching my head.

I have yet to see a factory feed where the slits/fins are connected directly to the ink channel. Their purpose is to create additional surface area, to collect excess ink resulting from changes in reservoir pressure.

Even more confusing is: "I have seen feeds with excessive numbers of slits. They are useless. Some reduce the width as they go up. Doesn’t work, unless they are in the vicinity of the feed capillary, and once they are full, they never empty. Eventually they clog up and become useless." More slits (more fins, to be precise) = more surface area to collect excess ink.

Looking at the Nib Mechanics (https://fountainpendesign.wordpress.com/fountain-pen-nib-function-material-manufacture/nib-mechanics-function-performance-geometry/) page, I see more problems. The author advocates an inverted "V" alignment for the nib tipping (diagram 1 and 2), and also claims that a parallel alignment (diagram 3) causes a nib to dry out more easily (because both "ends" are exposed to air). The inverted V creates a scratchy, poor writing pen. They should be in parallel.
I was perplexed by the first thing you mention as well. As it seems English is not PenIngineer's first language, I assumed this was an error in translation. However, the third seems less explicable in that way and I did not catch it as I casually browsed through a few of the posts. Though I didn't catch it until you mentioned it, the second one might make sense to me, actually (if, as before, it is just another translational quirk)--thin slits in a feed within the section that aren't connected to the main ink capillary would just hold ink indefinitely and not increase 'usable' in capacity. I can't say I've seen a feed like that though.
Considering he has an account here and replied to this topic, I hope we get a response!

May I refer to what I have written before. I do not like your condescending remark about me having English as a second language. Most people in this word would have English as a second language. Calling someone's expertise "another translational quirk" is pretty low, in my opinion. If you don't understand something ask, friendly, politely? I consider this enough of a response.

I'm sorry you've taken it that way--my intention wasn't to demean you or your expertise whatsoever, but, as someone who has studied another language at a high level, to offer a possible explanation for what I saw as a confusing bit of writing. It was a defense (from the position that you wrote a few bits of incorrect information) rather than an attack.

I've re-read the first bit in question ("The slits are directly connected with the feed capillary and vent into the air canal. Their capillary pull is less than the feed capillary, nib and paper, but more than the air canal"), and I what continues to confuse me is the wording: "direct connection" to me implies an actual channel between the feed capillary and the slits, when in fact, no ink channel I've ever seen has little branches leading to the slits. The diagram in the section supports the claim as well:
https://fountainpendesign.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/container-capillary-air-nib-chamber-25mm1.jpg?w=224&h=300
It is possible I'm misunderstanding the fit between the nib and the feed--is where the 'direct connection comes in?

If you could describe what you meant in the other two questioned claims, I'd really appreciate it. I would love to gain understanding!

To be honest, I think dneal's comments were a bit harsh and 'put-down'-ish in their tone; unwarranted, considering the wealth of valuable and correct information you've written on the site. But with your authority comes a responsibility to defend and explain your writing, and I think in itself the critical discussion of your work--and that you've given people tools to think critically about fountain pen function in a scientific way--makes it a great success.

Ok.

The diagrams are schematic, only showing essential components, not real life. By keeping it simple I find it easier to describe things, one action after the other, while in real life, several processes are in action, simultaneously. If I do not show every detail it is for that reason. There are more details I have not shown. For the general understanding, they are not necessary. What takes years to develop cannot shown in 5 minutes.

I plan to write about how the schematic principle is applied in actual feed designs. At the moment I am searching for good photos of various nib designs to show how different designs either follow those principles, or not.

As a preview: the connection between the feed capillary (-ies) and the slits has been performed in many ways. In one feed, the slits actually cross the feed capillary (direct connection) in another design there is one flat distribution channel where the ink, which floods out of the ink capillary is directly passed onto the slits.

Feed and nib connection does not contribute to this.

[Pen Ingeneer]

I thought I was being diplomatically matter-of-fact rather than "harsh". If Pen Ingeneer worked in Germany for many years, he should be used to terse matter-of-fact statements. I take exception to the notion my comments were "put-down'-ish" in tone. 30 years in the Army has made me quite adept at that, and if that was my intent there would be absolutely no doubt.


Maybe, if I may suggest, it would be a good idea if you go at least through the chapters referred to in the articles. I went back and read what I have written and I am sure you will find your answers there.

I did not like that you called my writing containing erroneous information. I have done this work. You may also want to consider the good comments I have received in this forum. If something is confusing to you, you could have taken this as a challenge to study the topic. Or asking question not making me wrong.

I appreciate the effort you went to in building your site. Still, your description and diagram (below) of how the fins of a feed work, and their purpose; is simply wrong. I actually wasn't confused, but used that wording to leave you an opportunity to make the correction. Positive comments you or I have received in this forum have no bearing on truth.

It is important that readers of this forum are aware that this is not how the fins of a feed work:

https://fountainpendesign.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/container-capillary-air-nib-chamber-25mm1.jpg?w=224&h=300

I invite you to tell us :welcome: