Parker 51 vs Hero 100

[Gdr2004]

How do the two compare? I've heard Hero 100 is a faithful "tribute", but something tells me there is a big difference between a Hero 100 and Parker 51. What is the difference?

 

Writing samples anyone? :-D

[*david*]

You will discover absolutely nothing from writing samples.

 

They feel a bit different and look a bit different, but the writing looks exactly the same.

 

See www.richardspens.com for a complete explanation (that comes from someone who uses and repairs many examples of both pens.)

[kissing]

there was a topic like this a few months ago. This might be helpful

 

https://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/in...showtopic=14720

[Nihontochicken]

Thanks for the old thread link. I was going to ask whether there is a true modern Aerometric-style filler being made. According to RB, guess not, save the Hero 100. Good info to know. Which then brings up another question. Is there a modern filler that is superior to the true Aerometric, and, if not, why isn't some company making honest Aerometric-style fillers for use in standardized converter pens and custom-made pens???

[Richard]

Is there a modern filler that is superior to the true Aerometric?

"Superior" is a mutable term. What defines superiority? Ease of use? Capacity? Number of moving parts? Longevity?

 

Let's assume that the answer to this question is no. That assumption brings us to your next question:

 

If not, why isn't some company making honest Aerometric-style fillers for use in standardized converter pens and custom-made pens?

It would be possible to make a custom-made aerometric pen, but it would have to possess a fixed filling system (as do the "51" and the 100) because THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN AEROMETRIC CONVERTER!

 

Excuse my shouting, but this is one of my hot buttons.

 

I'll repeat it without shouting. There is no such thing as an aerometric converter. Parker's squeeze converters are not aerometric. Sheaffer's squeeze converters are not aerometric. Waterman's Lady converter is not aerometric. To be aerometric, a filling system must have three basic features:

• It must have a breather tube extending essentially the full practicable length of the reservoir in order to allow a complete fill, with a transverse hole in the tube close enough to its nib end that this hole will be in air space, not immersed in the ink supply, when the full pen is held nib upward. The inside diameter of the tube must be small enough to serve as a restriction to ink flow during pressure changes, and the diameter of the hole must be large enough to permit air flow but not so large as to defeat the function of the breather tube during filling.

• There must be a mechanism for equalizing internal and external pressures while the pen is fully assembled. In the "51" this consists of a hole in the barrel.

• The inner cap must be vented, not airtight, so that vented air can escape from the nib area.

Absent any of these essential features, a pen is merely a squeeze filler, not an aerometric filler. Thus, since you can't put a breather tube in a converter, you can't make an aerometric converter.

[Nihontochicken]

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN AEROMETRIC CONVERTER!

 

Oh, my! Sorry for inadvertently poking a tender spot. Still, I'd like to know, is there currently no such thing as an Aerometric converter in terms of possibility, or merely in terms of faulty/sloppy execution? Given the cross-section of an Aerometric 51 below

 

http://www.richardspens.com/images/ref_info/anatomy/51.jpg

 

it appears that in this particular design the section is indeed integral to the filler unit. But is this really necessary? It seems to me that a pen could be easily designed with perhaps a separate section, into which the nib, feed, collector and hood fit forward, and a separate Aero filler unit (or perhaps even an interchangeable piston converter, cartridge, or other unit) and barrel fit aft. The barrel and cap vents are, of course, necessary for the correct Aero function, but are not difficult additions. Am I missing something here?

[HesNot]

I do not proclaim to have a perfect understanding but having read some of the discussions on the aerometric design (and there have been some heated ones ... ) but I believe the ultimate issue is the breather tube which has to fit into the section/collector in order to function as an engineered solution (along with the specific diameter transverse hole in the right spot) to provide for the pressure equalization functions more or less at the heart of the design purpose.

 

I don't presume to know if engineering a removable option with the correct breather tube is practical but a permanent affixed tube in the section rules out other converter/cartridges being attached and I'm not sure how you could have such a tube extending from the converter back into a "universal" section/collector/feed/nib assembly.

[Ruaidhri]

I really LOVE it when someone says "aerometric" - you just know what's going to happen

 

There are a couple of other buttons there too but you will have to find them yourselves

 

Fond regards,

Ruaidhrí

 

 

Edit to add : For God's sake don't ever mention cap & barrel vents over on L&P

Edited October 19, 2006 by Ruaidhri

[Dillo]

Hi,

 

There are three fillers that look quite similar:

 

Press bar

Press bar pump

Aerometric

 

Aerometric fillers are very similar to the press bar pump filler except that the breather tube has a small hole in the side of it.

 

Press bar fillers have no breather tube, so just pressing it twice is enough.

 

Press bar pump and aerometric fillers require about 5-10 presses. Keep on pressing until the pen stops pumping out air.

 

I recently got my hands on a Demo "51" which I use to test

these things.

 

If the tube does not have a hole and the pressure decreases,

the pen ejects ink.

 

If the tube has a hole in it. (replacement breather tube with

a hole precisely drilled into it), the pen does not react at all.

 

I also tested Patent 2400768 and it works quite well. Air

goes out of the pen instead of pushing ink out with it.

 

The cap of the "51" is vented...

 

When the pressure around the pen drops, the pressure of air

in the reservoir becomes higher than the surrounding

pressure, and it needs to go somewhere. (Don't underestimate

how easily it can push ink up the breather (Hole-less) and

out of the pen. ) Now, with this hole, the air goes into the

hole and out of the pen. Without the hole, the air displaces ink.

 

Dillon

 

That is extracted from an email to Mr. Kirchheimer. It tells the differences between the two configurations--tube without hole and tube with hole in its side. (Press bar pump and Aerometric respectively.)

 

 

Dillon

[Dillo]

Hi.

 

The Hero 100 nib section is internally like the Parker 61.

 

The pen is put together differentely though--in a very innovative way. I had to have tools made to open it up. Definitely not a newbie task.

 

The Hero 616 is more like the "51" especially mine since I gave it a 14K gold nib and made the filler into an aerometric.

 

Dillon

[RLTodd]

why isn't some company making honest Aerometric-style fillers for use in ....

No perceived (almost guarantee actual) demand.

 

There is no free lunch, people who have capital to invest expect a return on their investment, people who have available labor expect a return for its use. So far it seems everyone who is dipping a toe into it is C/C. I think Bexely and Conklin subcontracted out their pump fillers to existing pen manufactures.

 

Which reminds me, how much is a computer controlled lathe for turning the barrels, caps, and small parts?

[Nihontochicken]

The Hero 616 is more like the "51" especially mine since I gave it a 14K gold nib and made the filler into an aerometric.

 

Dillon

 

Might you be persuaded to elaborate as to how/why the 616 is more like the 51? I have both a 100 and a 616, and would like to spare the life of one as I dissect the other to determine its 51 "likeness". Also, any tips for such dissection? I am really interested in "looking under the hood", so to speak, in order to determine what it would take to put together a modern 51 with low cost, readily available parts. Any hints as to how the 616 may be made into a true Aerometric filler with the important hole in the breather tube? I presume such a hole be added without irrevocably destroying the filler? TIA!!!

[wdyasq]

No perceived (almost guarantee actual) demand.

 

There is no free lunch, people who have capital to invest expect a return on their investment, people who have available labor expect a return for its use.  So far it seems everyone who is dipping a toe into it is C/C.  I think Bexely and Conklin subcontracted out their pump fillers to existing pen manufactures.

 

Which reminds me, how much is a computer controlled lathe for turning the barrels, caps, and small parts?

Believe it or not, many of the parts like barrels, caps and small parts are best suited for a 'second operation lathe' . The only problem with that is it might take several hours to setup for a run of parts. It does require a real operator and going to an automated one with a 'chucker' and such would put out 'so damn many parts' in an afternoon you could supply the fountain pen market for a long while.

 

A manual loading CNC lathe might cost ~$3000 for a size suitable for making pen parts and versitle enough to make all of the various parts, except for the nib, feed, clips, and such. Most of the feed and hood might be made on a CNC lathe then finished with other operations.

 

The sac guard could be a stainless steel tube with a port cut or the cheaper and easier to build hoop type. A silicone sac might be used.

 

I've never built anything like the feed/collector out of a simialr material. It appears to be turned. Second, third and fourth operations would be needed for the slots and nib reaming.

 

The last part would be rolling the gold into a tube, tipping, rough grinding, slitting, closing the slit and then tempering, finish grinding and polishing. One should note almost all the smaller pen companies farm this part out and there are no small pen companies building a tubular nib pen. This leads one to believe they would be actually making the nibs 'in house'. This also means all of the expense of machinery would be born over a small number of parts. The intelligent designer would make the nib interchangable with the older '51'.

 

This would be an expensive venture. I think it might be best done by a group of 'hobbiests' who might have sweat equity and part of the tooling necessary for such a project.

 

Ron

[RLTodd]

This would be an expensive venture. I think it might be best done by a group of 'hobbiests' who might have sweat equity and part of the tooling necessary for such a project.

Thank you for the information. It appears that the startup cost would be less than I was originally thinking, but still a cash sink. I think the intereted group of enthusiasts was what put Bexely together.

[kissing]

May I ask -

 

Why Aerometric? Is there a significant advantage to the Aerometric which makes it preferred over some other filling mechanisms?

[Richard]

The aerometric system exists only in pens with breather tubes. The point of the system is to allow air to escape from the reservoir when the pen is upright, capped, in an airplane that is climbing to altitude. An ordinary non-aerometric breather-tube pen, such as a Skyline, will generally force ink up the breather tube, and this is what the aerometric system avoids. Without a breather tube, the air just happily escapes because there's no ink in the way.