Normal Sediment In Fountain Pen Ink - Photos

[KCat]

Well, I tried to edit it, but there is something weird in that message, which I can't put my finger on. I just edited it, found a missing angled bracket, but there also are too many pictures (30 is the limit), so I put #31 and #32 in code tags.

 

Warm regards, Wim

 

It is very odd, Wim because all 32 images showed up just fine initially. And there were no new ones added to the post. So when Sean initially posted, he had too many pictures but it worked. Nothing was done to the post after that point and then some days later they simply stopped working. I hate intermittent errors. They're so hard to debug. The s/w didn't change but it sounds like the image limit capability has an odd bug that could be hours to find simply because the intermittents are hard to track down with the normal processes as you well know.

 

IF that is the case and the s/w allowed 32 images than at some point it detected that there were too many and the post went kablooey - then this may serve as a reminder to folks to not go over that number. Whatever is "in" the post now that is causing the error was not apparent to the s/w when it was originally posted. Then again, neither was the image count.

Edited December 24, 2010 by KCat

[SamCapote]

Well, I tried to edit it, but there is something weird in that message, which I can't put my finger on. I just edited it, found a missing angled bracket, but there also are too many pictures (30 is the limit), so I put #31 and #32 in code tags.

 

Warm regards, Wim

 

wimg, yeah this is one of those strange bugs. I was using the HTML code SOLELY to have my full size images open in a new window/tab which would not happen previously. Before you edited post #1, I am 100% sure all the HTML links and brackets worked, because I literally copy and pasted them from post #1 into Post #30, and the images all displayed with Preview. However when I went to click Post, I got an error saying too many images. So I divided & copy/pasted original links into two posts #30 & 31 which you see now.

 

The original post is a jumbled mess now, would you mind sticking in a couple of paragraph breaks so it is readable, and delete those HTML links and just put an ending note linking to images now at Post #30 & 31 for me? Thanks!

It's also great to now know that there is a limit of 30 images per post which is easy to follow going forward.

 

 

.

Edited December 24, 2010 by SamCapote

[wimg]

Well, I tried to edit it, but there is something weird in that message, which I can't put my finger on. I just edited it, found a missing angled bracket, but there also are too many pictures (30 is the limit), so I put #31 and #32 in code tags.

 

Warm regards, Wim

 

wimg, yeah this is one of those strange bugs. I was using the HTML code SOLELY to have my full size images open in a new window/tab which would not happen previously. Before you edited post #1, I am 100% sure all the HTML links and brackets worked, because I literally copy and pasted them from post #1 into Post #30, and the images all displayed with Preview. However when I went to click Post, I got an error saying too many images. So I divided & copy/pasted original links into two posts #30 & 31 which you see now.

 

The original post is a jumbled mess now, would you mind sticking in a couple of paragraph breaks so it is readable, and delete those HTML links and just put an ending note linking to images now at Post #30 & 31 for me? Thanks!

It's also great to now know that there is a limit of 30 images per post which is easy to follow going forward.

 

 

.

Ok, fixed, with links to your posts with the images showing.

 

Warm regards, Wim

[lapis]

Sam, your shots are not only awesome, they're also stunning!

 

Mike

[mstone]

wimg, yeah this is one of those strange bugs. I was using the HTML code SOLELY to have my full size images open in a new window/tab which would not happen previously.

 

FWIW, I really really hate when web sites do that. If I want the link to open in a new window I'll control-click. If I want it to open in the same window, I'll click. I don't need someone else do decide what I want to do.

[SamCapote]

wimg, yeah this is one of those strange bugs. I was using the HTML code SOLELY to have my full size images open in a new window/tab which would not happen previously.

 

FWIW, I really really hate when web sites do that. If I want the link to open in a new window I'll control-click. If I want it to open in the same window, I'll click. I don't need someone else do decide what I want to do.

 

Honestly, I didn't know that CTL-L Mouse Click did that, so I appreciate you saying that. I bet most others don't know that function either. I get fed up normally of having the window tab I'm looking at going away to new screen, and having to use the backspace to get back to where I was. I had developed the more arduous habit of Right Mouse Click, choosing "Open Link In New Tab."

[UkeDan]

thank you for your huge contribution to the Inkvestigation. (Sorry. Couldn't stop myself.)

 

An inkspectre calls...

 

I have an inkling this could get out of hand......

 

BTW kudos to SamCapote. As usual, highly informative. I practically fondle my bottles every few days so no time for sediments.

 

Edited because I'm dumb.

Edited January 6, 2011 by UkeDan

[kellya]

wimg, yeah this is one of those strange bugs. I was using the HTML code SOLELY to have my full size images open in a new window/tab which would not happen previously.

 

FWIW, I really really hate when web sites do that. If I want the link to open in a new window I'll control-click. If I want it to open in the same window, I'll click. I don't need someone else do decide what I want to do.

 

Honestly, I didn't know that CTL-L Mouse Click did that, so I appreciate you saying that. I bet most others don't know that function either. I get fed up normally of having the window tab I'm looking at going away to new screen, and having to use the backspace to get back to where I was. I had developed the more arduous habit of Right Mouse Click, choosing "Open Link In New Tab."

If you have a 3-button mouse (the click on the scroll-wheel), middle click should open in a new tab/window too. Then you don't even have to get the keyboard involved

[SamCapote]

wimg, yeah this is one of those strange bugs. I was using the HTML code SOLELY to have my full size images open in a new window/tab which would not happen previously.

 

FWIW, I really really hate when web sites do that. If I want the link to open in a new window I'll control-click. If I want it to open in the same window, I'll click. I don't need someone else do decide what I want to do.

 

Honestly, I didn't know that CTL-L Mouse Click did that, so I appreciate you saying that. I bet most others don't know that function either. I get fed up normally of having the window tab I'm looking at going away to new screen, and having to use the backspace to get back to where I was. I had developed the more arduous habit of Right Mouse Click, choosing "Open Link In New Tab."

If you have a 3-button mouse (the click on the scroll-wheel), middle click should open in a new tab/window too. Then you don't even have to get the keyboard involved

 

LOL, actually I have been using the same 8 button programmable Logitec MX-518 mouse + scroll wheel for years. I used to do online FPS gaming, and each button is set for various custom mapped keys that made sense at the time. Pretty funny to see all the things popping all over the place when I push all 8 buttons now.

[pajaro]

If you have a saturated ink, doesn't that mean that the dye is in a saturated solution? So, if you leave it alone, something might fall out of solution unless it's stirred, or shaken, not stirred, whatever. It seems to me it's something like the case of sweetener in coffee. I stir it to get as much as possible into solution, aided by the hot temperature, which improves solubility.

 

With the ink, something falls out of solution, seems to be sediment. Someone shakes the bottle, stuff goes back into solution. Or, you drain off the liquid, leave the sediment, and you have a less saturated solution. Or, am I missing something? Seems the sediment is not to be worried over, because it is stuff normally falling out of solution, to go back into solution on shaking the bottle.

[SamCapote]

If you have a saturated ink, doesn't that mean that the dye is in a saturated solution? So, if you leave it alone, something might fall out of solution unless it's stirred, or shaken, not stirred, whatever. It seems to me it's something like the case of sweetener in coffee. I stir it to get as much as possible into solution, aided by the hot temperature, which improves solubility.

 

With the ink, something falls out of solution, seems to be sediment. Someone shakes the bottle, stuff goes back into solution. Or, you drain off the liquid, leave the sediment, and you have a less saturated solution. Or, am I missing something? Seems the sediment is not to be worried over, because it is stuff normally falling out of solution, to go back into solution on shaking the bottle.

 

A good post and well thought out. I don't think there is a good understanding of the term "saturated ink" because it has a colloquial use that essentially relates to more color put on the paper if same exact amount is distributed in the same exact way--than a "less saturated ink."

 

However, the "power," intensity, or degree of saturation of the color can vary either by using higher concentrations of an actual dye put in the diluting liquid (i.e. water), but could also be "highly saturated" if a solid particle suspension pigment ink or paint was used.

 

So assuming we are exclusively using and talking about dyes, these mostly are manufactured and processed as powders, or highly concentrated liquids (think of food coloring). The dye powder or concentrate is added to a liquid (i.e. water) in various amounts by various manufacturing ink makers. Adding more dye is more expensive, and eventually will reach a point where no more dye will 100% dissolve into solution (vs. non-dissolving pigments that are put into suspension). You can do this experiment yourself by adding sugar or salt to cold water.

 

Now, to further increase the amount of dye to be fully dissolved into a solution, you can do various things to the solution while adding dye such as heating, agitating, or adding other chemicals to provide additional suprachemistry with noncovalent bonding forces that were just being discussed in this other thread. Probably best to continue this aspect there.

Edited January 6, 2011 by SamCapote

[coldman]

I've also observed sediment in some of my inks. Here are pictures of the sediment in my Noodler's Hunter Green and Noodler's Luxury Blue. My Polar Eel Blue also has sediment, which looks very similar to that of Luxury Blue.

 

First picture (click for larger image): A thick purple layer can be clearly seen in the green bottle, and a thinner similar layer is visible in the blue bottle (although it does not stand out as well from the ink).

http://bildr.no/thumb/841433.jpeg

 

Underside of bottles:

http://bildr.no/thumb/841436.jpeg

 

Leave the bottles as above for a little while, rotate 90 degrees, and photograph of the sides:

http://bildr.no/thumb/841437.jpeg

http://bildr.no/thumb/841443.jpeg

One version as the camera captured it, one with clumsily tweaked brightness to show the dark spots on the side of the glass. Those are sediment that flowed from the bottom of the glass to the side while the bottle was horizontal.

 

Now place the bottle upside-down:

http://bildr.no/thumb/841441.jpeg

http://bildr.no/thumb/841442.jpeg

A large "tounge" of dark sediment can be seen flowing slowly down the side of the glass.

 

 

I tried shaking the bottles vigorously to dissolve the sediment. Within hours a loosely-packed but clearly visible sediment reappeared. I tried shaking the bottle again and filling a Dollar demonstrator which I left horizontal overnight. The next day a stripe of sediment was visible in the ink chamber. Again, shaking the pen seems to have dissolved it.

 

I don't know what this sediment is, but since it's also present in SamCapote's bottles, I assume it's normal for these inks. I haven't stopped using these inks, but I have stopped shaking the bottles. Whatever the sediment is, it precipitates quickly, and I'd prefer it stays in the bottles where it apparently wants to be anyway.

[Possum Hill]

I missed this thread earlier, due to unfortunate circumstances.

 

Many thanks to SamCapote for his work and contributions of actual facts (what a revolutionary concept!) to our knowledge of fountain pen ink!

 

I think he deserves the title "Ink Analyst". :roflmho: :roflmho: :roflmho:

[SamCapote]

I've also observed sediment in some of my inks. Here are pictures of the sediment in my Noodler's Hunter Green and Noodler's Luxury Blue. My Polar Eel Blue also has sediment, which looks very similar to that of Luxury Blue.

 

I tried shaking the bottles vigorously to dissolve the sediment. Within hours a loosely-packed but clearly visible sediment reappeared. I tried shaking the bottle again and filling a Dollar demonstrator which I left horizontal overnight. The next day a stripe of sediment was visible in the ink chamber. Again, shaking the pen seems to have dissolved it.

 

I don't know what this sediment is, but since it's also present in SamCapote's bottles, I assume it's normal for these inks. I haven't stopped using these inks, but I have stopped shaking the bottles. Whatever the sediment is, it precipitates quickly, and I'd prefer it stays in the bottles where it apparently wants to be anyway.

 

Coldman, I never meant to dismiss the concern that I think one should have for various visible sediments like you also noticed. Those sediments that are completely eradicated with shaking, but reappear quickly as you described should be taken into account when choosing which pen to use, and how frequently to flush it. I think as long as you don't let an ink sit and dry out in your pens, even with this above behavior you are going to be able to remove it with flushing. I should take some of these bottles and pipette up some of the sediment and look at it under the microscope, and then also add it to some water to see what happens with it.

 

Let's assume the worst case scenario where it does not appear to readily dissolve. Then the question is whether the sediment is a small enough particle (similar to the Platinum nano-pigment inks) to not cause any pen feed blockage. Would I use these inks of various manufacturer brands in my most expensive and/or vintage pens, especially those with piston or lever filling? Not likely. I'm not afraid of these inks, rather they are in a use category that requires more frequent flushing and attention,

 

I missed this thread earlier, due to unfortunate circumstances.

 

Many thanks to SamCapote for his work and contributions of actual facts (what a revolutionary concept!) to our knowledge of fountain pen ink!

 

I think he deserves the title "Ink Analyst". :roflmho: :roflmho: :roflmho:

 

We are all on this bus together. Thanks for your note, and right back at ya for yours! Off to do some Mr. Wizard testing as above.

[SamCapote]

Out of curiosity, I pipetted some Hunter's Green that had some blue-white sediment on the bottom and looked at it at 100x & 400x microscopic powers. Then repeated with some from top of bottle without mixing. Most of the color difference is the volume of ink under the coverslip, rather than a real color difference. I never like seeing all this "stuff" on microscopic views of inks, but it is not uncommon in a number of brands with or without sediment. This is also NOT fungal or bacterial contamination. The technical name for it is "schmutz."

 

These are all thumbnail images.

 

 

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h75/pike444/Inks/Noodlers/Hunters-Top100xs.jpg

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h75/pike444/Inks/Noodlers/Hunters-Top400xs.jpg

 

==========================================================================================

 

 

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h75/pike444/Inks/Noodlers/Hunters-Sediment100xs.jpg

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h75/pike444/Inks/Noodlers/Hunters-Sediment400xs.jpg

[Pen Nut]

Very interesting article with fantastic pics

[TheGreatDane]

Although this is an older thread, I found it very useful as tonight I noticed a fair amount of sediment in several of my inks. Excellent pictures, BTW.

 

I'd also like to point out that there is a difference between solution and suspension. A solution is chemically dissolved. A suspension is merely floating about a medium in 'suspension' (think: muddy or sandy water).

 

With this in mind, if you're dealing with a super-saturated solution, in theory you could increase the proportion of liquid to eliminate the overly saturated sediment. On the other hand, if you added more purified water to a suspension, you'd accomplish nothing. In time, you'd be back to square-one.

 

In conclusion, I wish we had more information on ink formulas...

[kwzi]

Most of modern inks are either suspension or solution, there is a third way - emulsion. Emulsions are at lest two phase systems of two liquids, in which one liquid is finely dispersed in the other, funny thing that in inks water is the main costituent of both phases. The main phase is mostly empty, this is almost pure water, the other phase is a mixture of water, other solvents, stabilizers, biocides, dyes and some other additives.

Why do I think so? Because this is the cheapest way to do the thing. Most of dyes nad other additives have only limited solubility in water, if any significant at all. Large volume of organic solvents which would had to be used otherwise to prepare ink, would impact mostly on price and smell of the ink, but also on some other properties of ink. Its is much easier to prepare concentrated solution of dyes and other additives in a good organic solvent that has very low miscibility with water and then disperse it in water. Organic solvent maybe even replaced with water if correct surfactants and other agents are employed.

 

Why do I think so? If a sediment would be solid, came from aglomeration of pigment particles or from precipitation from solution it would not dissolve or break to enough small particles on simple shaking or stirring. What we see as a sediment is in truth a liquid with very high viscosity, upon shaking due to low surface tension with water it disperse itself again in form of very small drops, which we cannot see by eye or even optical microscope.

Edited April 9, 2013 by kwzi

[Chippy1199]

Hey,

 

I have some noodlers ghost ink. I've had it for around 3 years, and havent really used it since I bought it. It has been sitting in its box in a dark corner of my drawer. I decided it was time I used it, and when I pulled it out I found these "growths" in the bottom of the bottle....

 

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v622/chippy1199/IMG_0161.jpg

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v622/chippy1199/IMG_0160.jpg

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v622/chippy1199/IMG_0159.jpg

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v622/chippy1199/IMG_0158.jpg

 

 

Has anyone ever had experience with this type of "sediment" in a bottle before?

 

Thanks

 

Chris

[amberleadavis]

Those are nasty looking.