What Liquefied This Sac?

[psfred]

All rubber sacs will indeed eventually perish, but the typical old, dead sac in a pen is not goo, but rock hard and brittle. Vacumatic diaphragms, in my limited experience with unrestored pens, tend to get stiff and crack, or simply petrify in place.

 

I have pulled a mushy sac out of a "51" vac, but I have no idea how long it had been there as the pen was sold "as found". Probably not original, but not new. either.

 

The sacs I've had fail very quickly have all melted. Not the same failure mode as an old stiff, or petrified sac by any means, and it can happen very quickly. Not days, perhaps, but certainly weeks or months. As I said, I cannot assume it's the ink as some do and some don't go bad and with a few exceptions all I use is Noodler's inks, and of those Black and Polar Blue for long periods of time in a single pen. Now, I've gotten sacs from several sources, but for the last few years only The Pen Sac Company. I've not kept detailed records, but I did have a run of bad sacs once for Snorkels as about six went gummy without ever being inked. Quite annoying, that, but certainly NOT ink related.

 

I shall test some when I get them installed -- Ottoman Azure in the "51" vac that just had a diaphragm fail while filled with it, and Polar Blue in the other "51" vac that dripped ink all over last week when the diaphragm slimed. That one was on it's first fill since I restored it, I believe.

 

A report will be filed in a month or so.

 

Peter

[Vintagepens]

I would beg to differ regarding the term "boutique inks". Don't know who first used it, but it very well could have been me. It is a useful term to describe the host of new and innovative inks that have been brought to market in recent years by small enterprises, enterprises that themselves are very different from the big and long-established companies that had previously had the ink market virtually entirely to themselves.

 

I don't see the term as at all derogatory -- quite the opposite. Consider "boutique hotels" as a parallel coinage.

[Vintagepens]

  On 3/26/2013 at 6:53 PM, JohnnyT said:

Have "51" Aero PVC sacs been observed to fail secondary to use of boutique inks?

 

No reports of actual failure that I've heard of. Highly saturated inks are much more prone to stain such sacs, though.

 

David

[FarmBoy]

  On 3/26/2013 at 5:35 PM, lcoldfield said:

After about 15 years worth of experience in the UK repairing customer pens I have seen few gooey sacs, but the ones I have seen apparently came about as a result of one of three causes:- 1. Defective formulation for the sacs (not from the Pen Sac Company) 2. Use of Diamine ink (similar to Noodlers?). 3. Use of red ink.

I only use Pelican or Sheaffers ink in pen testing as neither of these has given any indication of reaction with rubber or plastic.

Incidentally, I have suspected Quink as a problem for some time because it was the only ink used for one of my pens for some 10 years and now the plastic section has gone soft. Quink is almost certainly responsible for all the gooey Parker 61 connectors that I have seen.

I wonder if anyone else has doubts about Quink? - it does claim to contain (dis)solve X!

Laurence

I've not seen a gooey 61 connector. I'm quite familiar with softened 51 sac nipples. While ink may be a factor, I have had NOS repair parts that had not seen ink with the affliction.

[79spitfire]

  On 3/27/2013 at 4:05 AM, Vintagepens said:

I would beg to differ regarding the term "boutique inks". Don't know who first used it, but it very well could have been me. It is a useful term to describe the host of new and innovative inks that have been brought to market in recent years by small enterprises, enterprises that themselves are very different from the big and long-established companies that had previously had the ink market virtually entirely to themselves.

 

I don't see the term as at all derogatory -- quite the opposite. Consider "boutique hotels" as a parallel coinage.

Helpful description of where the term 'boutique inks' likely came from, but in the context of this thread, I do believe the term is used in a derogatory manner.

 

As a personal experiment, I happen to have 2 empty vials handy. In each one I place a small piece of #14 sac, of 2 different makes. I know where I got them, but not the manufactures of the sac. In each vial I placed a few drops of my old standby, Noodler's black. I'm going to let them sit overnight. That should be long enough to see a reaction.

 

Disclaimer: This is a last minute quickie test I don't claim it to be conclusive. One think I'd like everyone to keep in mind, latex in it's natural state is water soluble, the vulcanization process used renders it water resistant. Ink is mostly water, and in the manufacture of ink and sacs humans are involved. Bad batches of either are realistic to expect.

 

If either sac piece turns to goo, I will re-conduct the experiment with a different ink, from a different manufacture.

 

Interesting to note, one of the #14 sacs came to me with a sac that had failed in a pen.

Edited March 27, 2013 by 79spitfire

[framebaer]

  On 3/27/2013 at 4:31 AM, FarmBoy said:

  On 3/26/2013 at 5:35 PM, lcoldfield said:

After about 15 years worth of experience in the UK repairing customer pens I have seen few gooey sacs, but the ones I have seen apparently came about as a result of one of three causes:- 1. Defective formulation for the sacs (not from the Pen Sac Company) 2. Use of Diamine ink (similar to Noodlers?). 3. Use of red ink.

I only use Pelican or Sheaffers ink in pen testing as neither of these has given any indication of reaction with rubber or plastic.

Incidentally, I have suspected Quink as a problem for some time because it was the only ink used for one of my pens for some 10 years and now the plastic section has gone soft. Quink is almost certainly responsible for all the gooey Parker 61 connectors that I have seen.

I wonder if anyone else has doubts about Quink? - it does claim to contain (dis)solve X!

Laurence

I've not seen a gooey 61 connector. I'm quite familiar with softened 51 sac nipples. While ink may be a factor, I have had NOS repair parts that had not seen ink with the affliction.

 

Yes, plus 1 here.

I believe there was some formulation oddity to the plastic 51 nipple part made by Parker. Nothing to do with the inks running through the pen, or prehaps some interaction with the polyvinyl? sacs used.

Edited March 27, 2013 by framebaer

[Vintagepens]

  On 3/27/2013 at 4:44 AM, 79spitfire said:

Helpful description of where the term 'boutique inks' likely came from, but in the context of this thread, I do believe the term is used in a derogatory manner.

 

I would respectfully disagree there.

Reading over the entire thread twice, I see the term used in a purely descriptive manner. The posts may then go on to find fault with those inks (or to defend them), but I can't see any indication that the term itself carries any negative connotations on its own.

 

For me, "boutique" carries no negative connotations, excepting perhaps regarding cost. It would be a strange choice for an insult, in any event. If the intent were to put down a whole class of small-maker inks, I'd think something more like "homebrew" or "amateur" would be much more suitable.

 

David

Edited March 27, 2013 by Vintagepens

[Vintagepens]

  On 3/27/2013 at 12:06 PM, framebaer said:

  On 3/27/2013 at 4:31 AM, FarmBoy said:

I've not seen a gooey 61 connector. I'm quite familiar with softened 51 sac nipples. While ink may be a factor, I have had NOS repair parts that had not seen ink with the affliction.

 

Yes, plus 1 here.

I believe there was some formulation oddity to the plastic 51 nipple part made by Parker. Nothing to do with the inks running through the pen, or prehaps some interaction with the polyvinyl? sacs used.

 

I too have not yet seen a gooey 61 connector. I presume the one mentioned was in a UK-made cartridge/converter 61?

Both 51 (from the 1950s on) and 61 connectors were made of styrene, which has proven to be not quite as durable in the long run as materials such as acrylic. The formulation of the styrene surely varied as well. I have a large quantity of NOS 51 connectors with factory-attached vinyl sacs, stored in bins for decades without any softening or damage. I also have a quantity of similar assemblies for the Parker 21 where the sac nipples have softened, and where the outer surfaces have been partially melted by contact with the vinyl sacs from other units.

With these variables in play, I'd hesitate to blame the Quink.

 

David

[79spitfire]

Well, after soaking pieces of sacs in Noodler's black for several days, I got nothing but wet sacs. No reactions, no nothing. The sacs were from 2 different vendors, and likely 2 different mfrs.

 

I'm going to put a couple of drops of another ink in the vials. Any suggestions? So far (as far as I can tell) Noodler's black has no weird reactions with latex sacs.

[mhosea]

I'm planning to soak mine for a couple of years, one in distilled water, the other in Noodler's Black. I've thought about taking them out periodically to get more oxygen in the mix, but I don't really care very much, and I think dropping the fragments into sample vials is about all I'm willing to do. I'll probably just forget about it until we have another thread exactly like this one next year.

[Vintagepens]

Thanks for running the test. But I'm not surprised about the results. I think there's pretty widespread agreement that we're dealing with a combination of factors, and it may be a long time before it's all figured out.

 

Still, when we have factors A, B, C, D, E, and F, and they all seem to play pretty well together in all their possible combinations, and we then add factor G and then we start seeing sporadic problems, we can't say that G is entirely innocent just because we can't (yet) figure out exactly which combination is required to make things go bad.

[79spitfire]

  On 3/31/2013 at 1:41 AM, Vintagepens said:

Thanks for running the test. But I'm not surprised about the results. I think there's pretty widespread agreement that we're dealing with a combination of factors, and it may be a long time before it's all figured out.

 

Still, when we have factors A, B, C, D, E, and F, and they all seem to play pretty well together in all their possible combinations, and we then add factor G and then we start seeing sporadic problems, we can't say that G is entirely innocent just because we can't (yet) figure out exactly which combination is required to make things go bad.

I'm going to be honest here, I'm tired of whenever something odd happens, the first blame is placed on specifically Noodler's ink.

 

I'm tempted to put a few drops of JB's flush in the sample bottles, and see if it's a reaction between it and the ink. I'm speculating that the potential cause is an accidental mix of substances...

 

Remember the OP stated the pen stopped functioning shortly after filling with the ink in question.

[FarmBoy]

I have not reported any melted sacs in my own pens but I only use blue or black ink. I have however removed my share of melted sacs from pens owned by others. I don't know if the other people whose pens had melted sacs used blue or black ink.

[mhosea]

  On 3/31/2013 at 1:41 AM, Vintagepens said:

Still, when we have factors A, B, C, D, E, and F, and they all seem to play pretty well together in all their possible combinations, and we then add factor G and then we start seeing sporadic problems, [...]

 

Do we have that? I must admit to having little confidence that this situation is well understood even at that level of abstraction. I know that when you have silicone sacs of various other sizes available, I'm going to be buying some because I worry that if there's an increase in failures it might have more to do with the latex than the inks. I know you guys think otherwise, but if it's a matter of choosing something that's most likely going to have a good outcome, more robust sacs seem like at least as good an idea as avoiding all those pretty inks, especially since we know some latex failures seem to occur no matter what.

Edited March 31, 2013 by mhosea

[PDW]

  On 3/27/2013 at 2:16 AM, mhosea said:

 

As a trained scientist I am concerned about the lack of corroborating, repeatable experiments, but I've already said so in the past, others had already said as much in this thread, and I did not think it would be helpful to say it again.

 

 

I've thought in the past about the dfference betrween scientists and engineers. Scientists look for thories and test them, engineers 'just' have to get the next one working properly. Their goals are different - a testable theory vs. a working widget. Engineers can afford to be more inductive in their approach.

 

I regard Nishimura D, Zorn R, Oldfield L and Marshall J (now that's a publication I'd read ) as expert engineers, and whilst a theory would be nice I'll go with their observations for now. A falsifiable theory can come later.

Edited March 31, 2013 by PDW

[lcoldfield]

I think most engineers will resent the implication that they are not scientists. I trained as a physicist and spent most of my career in electrical engineering. The formulation of theories (and experiments to verify them) depends on initial observations, and this is what we are collecting in this thread. Unfortunately, it appears that we are unlikely to settle this issue positively without a very long (and expensive) series of experiments.

 

Regarding the Parker 61 connectors - yes, they were all UK made and probably UK made ink run through them. I was talking about a large number of these, not just one. Perhaps I overstated the problem by saying that the connectors had gone 'gooey', but many of the ones I have seen had gone soft enough for the cartridge piercing to fall out with part of the connector.

Laurence

[FarmBoy]

The scientific endevour coupled with this topic remains of interest to many of us. Unfortunately, we are not able to gain access to the root data that would likely convict or free the inks in question. That data being the components in the ink. One does not need the exact formulation, only the components. In this regard it would be quite easy for an ink formula for to do the experimation, though this testing pathway seems unlikely.

 

Likely the decomposition process proceeds along more than one pathway. One can invision several chemically derived modes of failure. Again in the absence of the data mentioned, determination of which combination of events (or materials) is intractable for both scientists and engineers. It is likely one or two key elements that are at fault.

 

One thing does strike me as odd in this thread. It seems that the opinion of those that handle 100s of sacs is heavily discounted in favor of those that handle a few. How many here buy sacs/diaphragms in increments of 50 or more?

 

Farmboy

[cvasara]

  On 3/26/2013 at 2:02 AM, ethernautrix said:

I wouldn't mind giving up most Noodler's inks, but the black is my favorite black ink, and it isn't even the DARKEST. Hrm.... This is distressing.

 

Black is the only color ink I have used for years. (OK, Decades). I have tried a Black Noodles on occasion, but always seem to come back to Sheaffer Jet Black. I don't profess to know all there is to know about 'bullet-proof' but Sheaffer Skrip Jet Black has never caused a problem with any pen or sac that I have ever used. And I have them, on my desk, going back to 40s. I prefer Skrip (not the new Skrip), but Sheaffer Jet Black, in the 2 oz. Yellow Box, and the Red Box. No melted sacs, no clogging, no problem. Back to a basic ink can be boring, but rarely a problem.

And it's less costly than most of those 'problem' inks discussed above.

[mhosea]

  On 3/31/2013 at 4:41 PM, FarmBoy said:

Unfortunately, we are not able to gain access to the root data that would likely convict or free the inks in question. That data being the components in the ink. One does not need the exact formulation, only the components. [snip]

 

I'd be very much encouraged if somebody could remember the sequence of events that led to failure well enough that we could simply do what they did with a pen like theirs (or even with their pen) and make the failure happen more or less on demand, without knowing why it occurs.

[Richard]

  On 3/31/2013 at 4:41 PM, FarmBoy said:

One thing does strike me as odd in this thread. It seems that the opinion of those that handle 100s of sacs is heavily discounted in favor of those that handle a few.

This is a phenomenon that Julius Caesar explained more than 2,000 years ago. He wrote, "FERE LIBENTER HOMINES ID QVOD VOLVNT CREDVNT" (DE BELLO GALLICO, III.XVIII)

 

My translation of this, which I think is reasonably accurate, is, "As a general rule, people willingly believe that which they want."

 

In the case at hand, people really would rather believe that their ink is not harming their pens. So they listen to, and agree with, those who say it isn't happening.

 

  On 3/31/2013 at 4:41 PM, FarmBoy said:

How many here buy sacs/diaphragms in increments of 50 or more?

I buy them in lots of more than 1,000. Once in a while, I even use one.