What Liquefied This Sac?

[Garageboy]

When I got into fountain pens about 3 or 4 years ago, I wanted to try blue black. I took a sample of BSB and Noodler's Black and put them in a vial to mix em up. Next day I see a sludgy oil spill of a disgusting science experiment gone wrong in the vial. Glad I didn't put that in any pen. Nasty.

That's expected, theres even warnings all over NOT to do that

 

I'm less concerned about the sac (those can be replaced) and more concerned about feeds, sections, etc

[watch_art]

That's expected, theres even warnings all over NOT to do that

 

I'm less concerned about the sac (those can be replaced) and more concerned about feeds, sections, etc

 

well at the time I had no idea that it was a bad idea.

[pb2]

Perhaps the proof of the pudding will come if the goo goes away and sacs and diaphragms stop melting down. Then we can blame it all on the sac formula in that certain '09 vintage (?)of bungled rubber.

 

Those of us who have bought sacs by the hundreds for the past few years may simply have to get beyond the "bad batch" (and you can't tell by looking at them if there is a clinker in sac pack that is due for potential disaster). It's for this reason I am always happy to replace a melt down sac for free. Ah, the smell of the orange shellac! I love changing sacs! The goo is kind of fun too.

 

As for inks, I always get the colors I like regardless of brand. Parker Penman for instance, has that Sapphire blue that is worth an occasional pen need to soak. I experiment with mixing a lot and try to keep my pens rinsed from time to time. I am likely among the worst of us who have 30 of my pens inked and left to sit for weeks. ... Of course, I have mastered cleaning pens over the years as I always do before sending them back to my clients. And when my sacs melt down I can always fix them on the spot for free.

 

Conclusion: Some sacs have been bad. Some inks have been naughty. Enjoy your pens anyway!

 

 

Pendleton

[Vintagepens]

Perhaps the proof of the pudding will come if the goo goes away and sacs and diaphragms stop melting down. Then we can blame it all on the sac formula in that certain '09 vintage (?)of bungled rubber.

 

It may seem like only a few years ago, but that bad batch of sacs out of Canada is now a good decade in the past -- so long ago that it is now very unlikely that any sacs from that batch are still out there. It should also be noted that when they failed, they failed almost immediately -- in a matter of days or weeks, usually.

 

The main supplier of latex sacs -- the Pen Sac Co. in California -- was not part of that episode. So reports of Pen Sac Co. sacs of recent manufacture melting are legitimate cause for concern . . . .

 

best

 

David

[inkstainedruth]

 

well at the time I had no idea that it was a bad idea.

More recently, someone on here did the same thing you did -- mix BSB and Noodler's Black (trying to get the "ideal" blue-black ink. Only in this case the ink got put into a pen. The results weren't pretty -- no disintegrating sacs or anything like that, but the ink didn't really mix (so part of a line would be black and another part would be blue); and after a couple of days the ink just sort of congealed, and came out of the pen in chunks....

But that involved BSB, which is generally known to not play well with others. In my case, it was Quink Black, flushed pretty well (distilled water, ammonia solution, more distilled water), because I'm kinda OCD to begin with, followed by Noodler's Manhattan Blue. And that's when I had problems. And it may have been in a couple of different pens.

Mind you, I don't know what ink (or date of sac replacement, if any) there was in the 51 before I got the pen. And in the case of the 21, there was definitely *something* in the feed, because I had to clean the pen out when I got it (and in fact, there had been some slight amount of leakage or seepage, because the cap was stuck on pretty tight when I looked at it initially -- I had the guy in the antiques mall remove the cap for me, because that way I couldn't get blamed for breaking the pen, knowing that there could be issues with the plastic to begin with).

I don't *want* to put the blame on Noodler's inks. OTOH I decided that, in the case of my *other* 51 Aero -- the plum one -- decretion was the better part of valor, and am keeping Noodler's inks out of it for the time being. It's kinda like the story a friend of my mom's told her years ago about parachute training -- there's apparently a superstition about your 13th jump; his 12th was with a guy doing his 13th, and the other guy was killed, so my mom't friend decided to Just Not Make Anymore (although, in fairness, the 13th jump is supposedly also when you have to do your own packing).

Having to drop maybe $60 for repairs on the blue 51 will be bad enough (don't know quite yet what to do about the 21 -- I haven't had it taken apart to see what's going on inside). But the sac on the 51 is *definitely* toast -- I've seen the innards.... /../../public/style_emoticons/default/wallbash.gif And I'm just not willing to run that risk on the other 51.

Ruth Morrisson aka inkstainedruth

 

Edited for typos

Edited September 6, 2013 by inkstainedruth

[OcalaFlGuy]

Ruth,

 

I wouldn't worry about your 51s and any of these dreaded boutique inks.

 

The 51 was designed to be used with an ink many more times dangerous than anything on the market now. (Both the 51 ink and Superchrome.) Also the Aeros anyway are fairly easy to completely disassemble to thoroughly clean.

 

I personally have and could argue for a 51 just for Baystate Blue. The only caveat is I'd pick a darker color for less likely staining. (Though the Lucite I don't find to stain easily.)

 

 

I don't think any modern ink is going to affect the Plyglass sac, certainly not near as bad as the inks the pen was intended to use. There are also exact replacement Plyglass sacs now.

 

There are pens I would not say this about but you should not have any problem with at least an Aero 51 and any modern ink, IMO.

 

Almost all my 51's have Private Reserve DCSSB in them. And will continue to.

 

Bruce in Ocala, Fl

Edited September 7, 2013 by OcalaFlGuy

[Dr.Grace]

Ruth, to add an anecdote to your story, I had a couple of bottles of Manhattan Blue that developed SITB. An obvious thick sediment. But I've seen nothing like that with several other Noodler's inks. They're not all the same.

[FarmBoy]

Is it fact that some of the boutique inks don't contain the suspect chemicals that were in Superchrome?

 

Once again I point to formulation as the key. First is it consistent batch to batch in the small production inks. Second, if the components were known, someone with a chemical background cod make an educated guess at the interaction cause(s). Also, do we know that the formulation of the boutique inks most often named has not changed based on field reports.

[pajaro]

So, are the only naughty Noodler's inks the Bay State inks?

 

I don't like Bay State Blue because I despise ink in that color.

 

Wouldn't you know it? I was born in the Bay State. Geeeeeez Louise!

[Garageboy]

BSB reacts with acidic inks and leave a sediment that looks like dried ball point paste

 

I did this intentionally to see what would happen

 

I still wish someone could help me cut a few coupon pieces so I can soak some celluloid samples in them and destructive test them

[watch_art]

I can mail you some celluloid chunks if you want. I've got quite a bit. Send me an email shawn@newtonpens.com

[Garageboy]

Thanks. once I figure out a system, I may take you up on that offer.

 

I was in touch with antoniosz and american art plastics, trying to get a sheet that I could have cut into a coupon (basically, an sheet cut into the shape of an hourglass with known cross section at the neck)

 

I was to soak some samples in various inks (hoping they are all the same) and put them in a tensile testing machine which will pull the ends apart til they break

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/15253488@N00/704949110/lightbox/

[mhosea]

It looks like MKeith might be right about Noodler's Blue.

It's been awhile since I checked all the sac fragments in the sealed inks, but I did so this evening. Several of these have had sac fragments in them for a full year, others about 8 months. The results so far:

Noodler's Blue -- gummy sac fragment (about like freshly chewed bubble gum), loss of elasticity (obviously)

Noodler's Black -- OK

Noodler's Nikita -- OK

Noodler's Baystate Blue -- OK

Noodler's Gruene Cactus Eel -- OK

Noodler's Qin Shi Huang -- OK

Noodler's #41 Brown -- OK

Noodler's Bad Belted Kingfisher -- OK

Noodler's Bad Blue Heron -- OK

Noodler's North African Violets -- OK

Noodler's Upper Ganges Blue -- OK

Noodler's Heart of Darkness -- OK

Sailor Sei Boku -- OK

Waterman Blue -- OK

Control samples -- all OK

Note that a single result like this is suggestive, but it's not sufficient unless we can replicate it, so the next step is to repeat with Noodler's Blue. If you have some Noodler's Blue and a hunk of a latex sac, I invite you to do the same. I am sure that the Noodler's Blue that the sac fragment was in did not have any phenol added. Unfortunately, I may have added some to my unused bottles. Consequently, I am not in the greatest position even though I have two full bottles of Noodler's Blue. Finally, I'm pretty sure my bottle of Noodler's Blue was cross contaminated with a sample of Noodler's Blue Eel, so Blue Eel would be worth testing also.

If you want to give it a go, here's my methodology:

1. Take a latex sac remnant.

2. Divide it in two.

3. Place one half in a vial with the test ink, at least enough ink to immerse the sac fragment.

4. Place the other half in a "control" fluid. This might be an ink widely considered safe, such as Waterman Blue or Pelikan 4001 Royal Blue. I was using Waterman Blue for awhile, but I switched to distilled water with phenol as a preservative.

5. Wait a long time (months and months).

6. Fish out the sac fragment from the test ink and inspect it. If it seems OK, clean it, dry it, and then put it back.

The "dryout" version of the experiment is the same except don't seal it. Use less ink you want the sac to be partially exposed to the air during the dryout version.

Unfortunately, I may not have checked that fragment for some time, so even if we can replicate the result, it may take nearly a year to do it. I do not expect results in less than 6 months time. I hadn't done a dryout type experiment with Noodler's Blue, so it's possible that that avenue will yield an accelerated result, though.

Edited April 30, 2014 by mhosea

[raging.dragon]

The simplest explanation consistent with the known facts is that some small percentage of latex sacs are defective. Imperfect mixing of the latex and it's additives would be one plausible cause.

 

Looking at complicating factors, it seems plausible that surfactants, dyes (perhaps organo-metallic dyes?) or some other ink component accelerates the failure of the defective sacs (and possibly shortens the lifespan of good sacs too, but they seemingly don't fail suspiciously quickly).

 

A combination of two or more factors would explain the difficulty in reproducibly melting sacs.

Edited April 30, 2014 by raging.dragon

[raging.dragon]

And even if it turns out inks are melting latex sacs, silicone and PVC sacs will almost certainly be unaffected, or at least far more resistant.

Edited April 30, 2014 by raging.dragon

[mhosea]

If enough folks will take up the challenge to start their own trials, we might be able to say something more in a year's time about Noodler's Blue in particular. Of course, you can test any other inks you like. It may turn out not to be reproducible, or a year hence we may have a large percentage of melted sacs. Would be nice to know, or maybe I'm the only person on the planet with the patience to do this kind of thing? I couldn't believe that.

 

BTW, I do want to reiterate that, while it doesn't rule out that the effect is due only to the acceleration of the demise of an already defective sac, one of the control fragments that is OK is an adjacent cut from the same sac that melted.

Edited April 30, 2014 by mhosea

[slippery when wet]

https://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/index.php/topic/254490-ink-breaking-down-diaphragm-rubber/

 

I posted this thread on Oct/2013 not realizing there were others with similar issues.

 

[mhosea]

I don't have Navajo Turquoise. Do you still have it? If so, I think it would be worth testing as I described. We fear that the phenomenon is complicated, and so difficult to replicate, but the truth is that we don't know it isn't just this simple: certain, very particular inks will melt a sac if given a year or so to do it.

[Ron Z]

I still say that constant immersion in the ink is an invalid test. The sac is exposed to both ink and air even when the pen is filled. We don't know how the three are interacting, nor what all of the variables are in the failure of the sac.

 

The failure of the urethane rubber in head gaskets is a prime example. The rubber was fine when completely immersed in liquid but the intermittent exposure to air as the ink was drained out of the pen caused the urethane to break down. I talked about this with a rubber expert - the guy from whom I bought the buna-N that we use for head gaskets in Sheaffer plunger fillers. He was not at all surprised that it was happening, and would have expected it.

 

There is a link between ink used and sac failure. Just what the mechanism is, we do not know.

[mhosea]

I still say that constant immersion in the ink is an invalid test. The sac is exposed to both ink and air even when the pen is filled. We don't know how the three are interacting, nor what all of the variables are in the failure of the sac.

 

As for what the test is "valid" for, this presupposes that you have a certain inference in mind, and most likely the inference you have in mind is that the absence of observed effect implies something positive about safety. In that case I would agree with you. It is not a valid test of safety. Any decent test has either a low false positive rate or a low false negative rate, if not both. Here we expect that, because of the particulars of the test, the ink might be safe when used this way and yet not safe when used in another way more closely approximating use in a pen. Consequently, if nothing happens, I learn nothing. However, I see no reason to expect that latex sacs will melt this way, in a sample vial, when the ink is safe to use with latex sacs in the normal way. That is to say, as regards the inference that a melted sac implies that the ink is unsafe for use with latex, I would expect the false positive rate to be low enough for the test to be considered useful. Applying to the single positive result so far observed, supposing that we can demonstrate that Noodler's Blue will reliably turn latex sac fragments gummy in one year of exposure in a sample vial, would you then argue that the test revealed nothing useful because the ink might still be safe in actual use?

It is not the only method of testing I have been using. I have also been conducting a related test on several samples in which the fragment sits ink as it evaporates. This results in exposure to air as well as increasing the concentration of the ink, simultaneously. Over some months it has so far failed to produce any results at all (other than the curious fact that Noodler's inks reach a syrupy state but remain liquid--glycerin?), but I only did this with a subset of the inks, not with Noodler's Blue. Note that all the fragments have been exposed to air periodically for checking, though they are obviously not half-in-half-out as they would be when in a pen. We could fill sacs with ink. This is a more expensive experiment, and establishing a valid control is more work. It could be achieved, though, by cutting the end of the sac off, cutting the resulting tube in half, and installing each half on a small plastic plug. But now we are talking about sacrificing ostensibly good sacs for the effort. I have a few sacs from an assortment that are too small for any uses I can foresee, so maybe I'll see about using them in a way more closely simulating use in a pen.

 

Edit: OK, how about this? I have a number of old, spent Sheaffer cartridges. I can cut a sac into two tubes and cut the two ends off the cartridge so that I will have two small "cups", one with a small hole in it. I'll mount each of the sac tubes on a pair of such cups with shellac. After it sets, I will fill one with the ink to test and one with a control fluid. The small hole can be plugged or not. I propose not, as some evaporation would be normal enough.

Edited April 30, 2014 by mhosea