Alas, another Noodler's experiment

[mhosea]

S.B.R.E. Brown noted in a review recently that Noodler's Liberty's Elysium had melted the diaphragm on his Edison pen (he didn't mention the ink in that video, but I asked in a comment, and he told me). Since it's fairly rare that we get such specific information, and because my son still had the bottle of NLE that I had given him (from the first run, I think), I felt it would be justified to have another go at the sac melting experiments. This time, in addition to the fragments in control (Waterman Blue) and treatment inks, I sacrificed a new sac to the experiment in order to address criticism that immersion is not a very good approximation of what actually happens in a pen. I put the sac in a sample vial and filled the sac with Noodler's Liberty's Elysium. That was back in November. I have opened it now and again to refresh the air and to have a look, and just now I took it out, rinsed it, and examined it. There has been no apparent degradation after 8 weeks of exposure. As usual, the simplistic "single-agent" hypothesis (Noodler's Ink melts latex all by itself) continues to elude replication, at least in anything vaguely resembling "the short term". I guess I'll leave it running. It's not hurting anything, but I really suspect that there are two parts to this equation.

[southpaw52]

S.B.R.E. Brown noted in a review recently that Noodler's Liberty's Elysium had melted the diaphragm on his Edison pen (he didn't mention the ink in that video, but I asked in a comment, and he told me). Since it's fairly rare that we get such specific information, and because my son still had the bottle of NLE that I had given him (from the first run, I think), I felt it would be justified to have another go at the sac melting experiments. This time, in addition to the fragments in control (Waterman Blue) and treatment inks, I sacrificed a new sac to the experiment in order to address criticism that immersion is not a very good approximation of what actually happens in a pen. I put the sac in a sample vial and filled the sac with Noodler's Liberty's Elysium. That was back in November. I have opened it now and again to refresh the air and to have a look, and just now I took it out, rinsed it, and examined it. There has been no apparent degradation after 8 weeks of exposure. As usual, the simplistic "single-agent" hypothesis (Noodler's Ink melts latex all by itself) continues to elude replication, at least in anything vaguely resembling "the short term". I guess I'll leave it running. It's not hurting anything, but I really suspect that there are two parts to this equation.

No ink company has such a mystique as Noodlers. If the ink was as bad as reported they won't be in business.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T337A using Tapatalk

[stub]

I guess I'll leave it running. It's not hurting anything, but I really suspect that there are two parts to this equation.

I have also noticed that all my problems with inks have been with pens that have both a latex sac and some significant metal. As I noted in the other threads most of my issues have been with Sheaffer pnuematic pens (since Sheaffer makes up easily more than half of what I own and most often use) and those are essentially encased in metal. I wonder if it is the formulation of the latex with the ink in combination with (somehow) the metal coverings.

One pen that has been almost constantly in use and had some various "harsh" inks in it and still survives fine is a Sheaffer TD I bought off you, which I suspect is not sac'd with latex but pvc or silicone.

I am beginning to wonder if it is just that specific combination of ink, modern latex and some significant metal like you find in a TD or Snorkel that is at issue.

[mhosea]

It is possible that metal exposure is involved in some way or other. One difficulty, however, is that ink is not actually required to make a sac fail due to long-term exposure to metal. I am not sure which metals in particular (I assume not all), but my understanding is that metal will cause ordinary latex to break down after lengthy exposure, so latex for fountain pen sacs and diaphragms requires a chemical of some sort to inhibit the reaction. Apparently some years ago there was a Chinese manufacturer who thought they could make sacs without the inhibitor, or with inadequate amounts or inadequate mixing of it or something, and those sacs failed left and right in all sorts of pens, as most pens employing sacs have at least metallic pressure bars.

A different possibility would be a harmful by-product of a reaction between acidic Noodler's inks and basic inks like Pilot Iroshizuku, perhaps in conjunction with some ingredient peculiar to Noodler's and Private Reserve inks. The idea is that some remnant of the old ink is not washed out completely. A small part of the new ink reacts with the remnant of the old ink, creating something or other that is harmful to latex.

I probably did put a PVC sac in that pen. Although I have been accused of defending Noodler's, the reality is that I took the risk to heart and started using synthetic sacs where possible. First I tried pure silicone, but when the gas permeability and extra surface tension (the same problem as often seen in converters) became obvious, I switched to Woodbin "silicone" (PVC) in any pens where the sac was not in contact with plastic.

[grainweevil]

Mike, I applaud your efforts; you go many further miles than anyone else. Just one thing bothers me though - Noodler's reported inconsistency between batches of ostensibly the "same" ink. It seems to me it leaves a potential variable that upsets any chance of a definitive conclusion, no matter how much one strives for same. Now if SBREB were to sacrifice a sac with his NLE and reported what happened, that could be a useful additional data point.

[stub]

Mike, I applaud your efforts; you go many further miles than anyone else. Just one thing bothers me though - Noodler's reported inconsistency between batches of ostensibly the "same" ink. It seems to me it leaves a potential variable that upsets any chance of a definitive conclusion, no matter how much one strives for same. Now if SBREB were to sacrifice a sac with his NLE and reported what happened, that could be a useful additional data point.

What is the nature of that variation? Whole sale reformulation of the ink every time he mixes it up? Or minor variation of saturation due to the amount of dye? My impression is that the ingredients were the same and the general recipe was the same but Italian grandma style sometimes there is a little more salt or the next time a little more garlic but it is still always recognizable as grandma's sauce.

I don't think the batch variation matters.

[grainweevil]

Mike, I applaud your efforts; you go many further miles than anyone else. Just one thing bothers me though - Noodler's reported inconsistency between batches of ostensibly the "same" ink. It seems to me it leaves a potential variable that upsets any chance of a definitive conclusion, no matter how much one strives for same. Now if SBREB were to sacrifice a sac with his NLE and reported what happened, that could be a useful additional data point.

What is the nature of that variation? Whole sale reformulation of the ink every time he mixes it up? Or minor variation of saturation due to the amount of dye? My impression is that the ingredients were the same and the general recipe was the same but Italian grandma style sometimes there is a little more salt or the next time a little more garlic but it is still always recognizable as grandma's sauce.

I don't think the batch variation matters.

I couldn't say what the variation of the mix may be, but changes in colour and behaviour seem to be frequently reported. I've a vague memory of reading that certain dyes become unavailable and are replaced, for instance. Whether that applies to NLE, I have no idea. Your sauce analogy is a good one, however too much garlic in something and my father will be complaining of indigestion for the rest of the day; the right amount and he won't even notice it. The thing is, how do we know ink sacs aren't equipped with equally delicate digestions?

Anyway, I have no dog in this fight particularly, but it just seems to me that with the possibility of variation between bottles of ink unless the same suspect ink from the same bottle is put to the test, you haven't really eliminated the single most important thing - is it the ink that's the culprit.

[Quantum Sailor]

I can't specifically remember where I have read it, but I have read it more than once, that Noodler's reacts really badly to being mixed with other inks. Idk if that's actually true since it's just something that I read on the internet. I do use Noodler's ink, but only in non-sac filling system pens. I have never experienced and issue with it so I can't really speak to any of the issues.

I only bring it up because it may be an unknown variable. Such as a pen that has some ink left in it or residue? Idk, Interesting experiment mhosea.

[penwash]

Just want to say I always learn things from your post, Mike.

Post more often, if you would

[mhosea]

Anyway, I have no dog in this fight particularly, but it just seems to me that with the possibility of variation between bottles of ink unless the same suspect ink from the same bottle is put to the test, you haven't really eliminated the single most important thing - is it the ink that's the culprit.

I agree with this. In these matters I have thus far tried to be clear that I have "failed to prove" rather than proved or eliminated anything. In fact my hope has always been to get a positive result, melting latex with ink on demand. I got a teaser once, a gummy fragment. But my attempts to replicate it failed.

[welch]

Hello, Mike. I think we discussed this about five years ago on a different site.

You are not likely to pin down any direct link between Noodlers, or Private Reserve, or Iroshizuku, and sac failure. A defective product might fail once in a thousand tries: you might need ten or twenty or even more samples of each variety of a saturated ink, and need to test them against many runs of sac. This bottle of this "flavor" of Noodlers or that Private Reserve against this sac bought from Woodbin or that vintage sac pulled from that pen? Too many variations.

Consider Parker's Superchrome. The ink must have worked OK in most Parker pens most of the time. If it flat-out failed the first time and every time then Parker would not have released it.

However, several current pen repair specialists say that they have noticed saturated ink in a surprising number of pens sent to be fixed. They warn against heavily saturated inks. From known failure to the inks running in the pens to a generalization to the warning. Fair enough: while I have used "ordinary" Noodlers, Private Reserve, and Asa-Gao in my P-51's, I no longer use them in P-51 Vacs (or Sheaffer touchdown fillers).

Incidentally, I use Parker Penman Sapphire even though Parker withdrew it because they had too many complaints from users and retailers -- so says Sam Fiorella, who warns that she saw frozen nibs that had written with Penman inks. Maybe I've been lucky with the two bottles I've used (and the one I'm working on), or maybe Penman did not deserve its reputation. Most likely, we will never know exactly whether or how Penman might have clogged pens. We can all use it in spite of the caution.

On the interaction of tiny amounts of previous ink with newly-filled saturated inks: maybe I just don't want to imagine anything that encourages a user to want to tear a pen down to parts whenever they change inks. Or to toss a pen into an ultra-sonic cleaner. Or to dunk and scrub a feed.

[mhosea]

You are not likely to pin down any direct link between Noodlers, or Private Reserve, or Iroshizuku, and sac failure. A defective product might fail once in a thousand tries: you might need ten or twenty or even more samples of each variety of a saturated ink, and need to test them against many runs of sac. This bottle of this "flavor" of Noodlers or that Private Reserve against this sac bought from Woodbin or that vintage sac pulled from that pen? Too many variations.

Consider Parker's Superchrome. The ink must have worked OK in most Parker pens most of the time. If it flat-out failed the first time and every time then Parker would not have released it.

Well the claim has never been that "defective" batches of Noodler's inks dissolve sacs. My experiments have been designed to confirm the claim that Noodler's does so in some generality as a brand. If the claim is adjusted to be only that "defective" batches of Noodler's ink melt sacs, I am forced to agree with you. I do not have any feasible experiments in mind. The best we could possibly do is get our hands on a specific bottle of the ink that has supposedly melted a sac.

The analogy to Parker Superchrome is an interesting one that might highlight the situation when we look deeper. Parker Superchrome was generally corrosive. It wasn't "defective" as such. It was always corrosive, every batch. They designed a pen to resist its corrosive properties. Even the sterling silver breather tubes of those pens could only hold out so long against it. All that was required from a business perspective was that it hold out to decades of exposure, which I guess they did. If we were back in the 50's and somebody were claiming that Superchrome dissolved the breather tube in his new Parker 51 in a matter of weeks, then we would be in much the same boat. The explanation in that case might be that a batch of the ink came out much more corrosive than it was intended to be. Or possibly the alloy of the sterling silver that the breather tube was made of was defective. Maybe even both conditions had to be present at the same time for failure to occur within a reasonably short period of time. If the analogous situation exists here, we are not going to be able to replicate failures because we have no way of generating random samples of the requisite size (nor way to know what the requisite size is).

[Jon Szanto]

In other news, we were able to catch Mike working on his 'experiments'...

[mhosea]

On the interaction of tiny amounts of previous ink with newly-filled saturated inks: maybe I just don't want to imagine anything that encourages a user to want to tear a pen down to parts whenever they change inks. Or to toss a pen into an ultra-sonic cleaner. Or to dunk and scrub a feed.

There are a couple of things I do that fall well short of this. First is that when flushing a pen sac, after it starts to run fairly clear, I fill it and shake the water to the back of the sac. Usually this results in a noticeable amount of additional color in the water that is expelled, which leads me to think that if one just flushes a typical sac'd pen without doing this, something is almost always going to be left at the back of the sac. Another thing I do is fill my ultrasonic with water and just dip the nib and grip section in, and draw in some of the water. Then I let the ultrasonic work on it for several seconds. This usually releases some ink outside the paths where the ink flows that got there when it was filled and then dried. That's mainly to prevent transferring one ink to another bottle.

[TSherbs]

On the interaction of tiny amounts of previous ink with newly-filled saturated inks: maybe I just don't want to imagine anything that encourages a user to want to tear a pen down to parts whenever they change inks. Or to toss a pen into an ultra-sonic cleaner. Or to dunk and scrub a feed.

There are a couple of things I do that fall well short of this. First is that when flushing a pen sac, after it starts to run fairly clear, I fill it and shake the water to the back of the sac. Usually this results in a noticeable amount of additional color in the water that is expelled, which leads me to think that if one just flushes a typical sac'd pen without doing this, something is almost always going to be left at the back of the sac. Another thing I do is fill my ultrasonic with water and just dip the nib and grip section in, and draw in some of the water. Then I let the ultrasonic work on it for several seconds. This usually releases some ink outside the paths where the ink flows that got there when it was filled and then dried. That's mainly to prevent transferring one ink to another bottle.

sounds like a great method

but I don't own an u-s cleaner

[mhosea]

but I don't own an u-s cleaner

Mine's pretty cheap and does the job. At any rate, JB's Perfect Pen Flush does well. I'm guessing similar pen flushes would, too.

[welch]

I mean that a product failure is a defect; that's jargon from Six Sigma training. Batches of PR, Noodlers, or Iroshizuku probably are not defective. Maybe "it" is a matter of build-up, or repeated use, or constant use. That, of course, will be hard to test.

Superchrome may have worn down parts of the P-51, and Parker warned against using Superchrome in pens other than the P-51. The oldest advertisements available on EBay are from 1947. They tell readers to use Superchrome nly in 51 (and suggest getting a P-51 if you don't have one).

Maybe the same thing happens with current saturated inks? (Incidentally, one ad says that Superchrme is three to ten times more saturated than ordinary ink!)

[mhosea]

Maybe "it" is a matter of build-up, or repeated use, or constant use. That, of course, will be hard to test.

It doesn't sound like that, though. A lot of people are doing that sort of thing and not experiencing failures, and the failure anecdotes tend to be rather dramatic. Stephen says the diaphragm was fine before he put the Noodler's ink in, and then it wasn't. Just like that. To me that sounds less like something that happens one in a thousand trials under essentially the same conditions and more like something that ought to be amenable to a chemistry experiment...if we only knew what the experiment ought to be. OTOH, any given failure could just be a mundane sort of latex failure such as has existed at some low rate since latex was first employed to the task of holding ink. It's really the sacs, more than the inks, that we expect to have a failure rate. What might explain it is if the sacs could have a different probability of failure with Noodler's, etc. than they do with Waterman.