What Liquefied This Sac?

[Richard]

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.

In one instance that I had to deal with, the sequence was as follows: The purchaser bought a New Postal Pen. This person used no inks other than various Noodler's inks but could not remember which specific colors had been used. This person's New Postal Pen failed, as its bulb turned to goo. The pen came back to me for repair. That is pretty clear-cut, if you ask me.

[79spitfire]

So basically, unless I join the 'Noodler's inks destroy pens' crowd, my opinion is for naught?

 

While I've never thought myself anything other than a casual hobbyist, I have repaired a fair number of pens, including Sheaffer Vac-fills and Parker Vacumatics, as well as the more traditional lever fillers from Esterbrook.

 

In a reasonably logical manner I've tried to duplicate, a phenomenon I've only seen once myself, interestingly enough it also was a Sheaffer Snorkel, and happened to be immediately after filling the pen with ink, but it wasn't Noodler's, it was another one of my favorite brands Diamine.

 

So into the vials, I will put a few drops of Diamine Majestic purple, after rinsing out the Noodler's black and the JB's pen flush. Despite what the 'experts' state, I'm still not convinced that Noodler's is the only culprit.

 

For all we know the culprit may be one of the various chemicals already present in most domestic water supplies, Chlorine, or Chloramine, used by many municipalities to kill bacteria in the water supply.

 

I wonder what chlorine does to latex... Think I'll find out.

 

OK, I'm out of bleach.. I'll try Ammonia, another common pen cleaning component.

 

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the New Postal, a bulb type filler with an exposed latex sac? Could something on your customer's hands contributed? Or will that thought be just written of as 'fanboyisim' as well?

Edited April 1, 2013 by 79spitfire

[Shaporama]

The empirical evidence is there. You are certainly free to disregard the experience of three well-regarded pen repair persons, but not I. Also, I am enjoying this thread immensely; from what I understand we would never be permitted to have this discourse in the ink forum. Pity.

[79spitfire]

Explain why I can't duplicate the results.

[Shaporama]

I am neither an engineer nor a scientist but I do understand the concept of risk, and my own tolerance for uncertainty. When I make a decision, be it personal or during work I carefully weigh the benefits and the risks knowing full well that I may never be able to fully nor adequately quantify either. I am satisfied that based on the experiences of Messrs Nishimura, Zorn and Binder, coupled with my own risk adverse nature, I can be perfectly happy without Noodlers inks.

[mhosea]

The empirical evidence is there. You are certainly free to disregard the experience of three well-regarded pen repair persons, but not I.

 

I think the disconnect here is that we have professionals of different professions with different levels of training with different concepts of what "empirical evidence" is and what it is not.

 

I do contest the suggestion that I might be skeptical only because I don't want to believe the inks I am using are harming my pens. In fact the inks I am using in my sac-based pens were made by Waterman (purple) and Herbin (Eclat de Saphir in one and 1670 Bleu Ocean in another). I think the ink before that was Montblanc Royal Blue. I might use Noodler's Blue (just the standard) occasionally, but only occasionally, and I can certainly take it or leave it. Granted the 1670 Bleu Ocean is a bit saturated, but just marginally so. I'd like to claim that I come by my skepticism honestly.

[bbwriter]

Latex from a different direction.

 

Before I began to read FPN and trying to absorb all of the information about Fountain Pen's I could, I spent three years reading the posts on one of the Slingshot Forums.

 

One style of Slingshot is made of stainless steel and uses latex tubing as the projectile propelling force. After one year of using the stainless steel/latex combination I had a set of latex bands fail. Examination showed the latex had melted through in the area that contacted the stainless steel. I replaced the latex bands and continued to shoot. After approximately another year I noticed that the latex was sticky (as though there was glue on the bands) in the area that came into contact with the stainless steel (the latex was melting). I took the sticky latex as a clue that failure was immenent and replacemant was warranted.

 

There are two over the counter rubber protectants...Formula 303 and Armour-All...used by the singshoters. Although they would not help with what happens inside of a sac because you would not want the chemicals in contact with the ink. Also heat is considered to be a cause of latex band failure.

 

The latex tubes used by the Slingshot shooters are manufactured in Thailand and usually purchased from sellers in China.

Edited April 1, 2013 by bbwriter

[ShallowJam]

 

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?

 

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

Claiming that particular inks melt sacs when many people use these inks in vintage pens with sacs, yet do not experience melting, is an extraordinary claim. There is not enough evidence here for more than a slight curiosity toward the situation, and here we are having people decide to stop using Noodler's. There is not near enough evidence here to encourage people to stop using Noodler's, yet they are.

 

As I said in a previous post, a lot of people use noodler's in general, so of course a lot of sacs that fail are going to have noodler's in them when they go. This does not prove that the sac is not the problem. It seems much more likely that the sac is failing rather than that the ink is melting the sac.

[FarmBoy]

 

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?

 

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

Claiming that particular inks melt sacs when many people use these inks in vintage pens with sacs, yet do not experience melting, is an extraordinary claim. There is not enough evidence here for more than a slight curiosity toward the situation, and here we are having people decide to stop using Noodler's. There is not near enough evidence here to encourage people to stop using Noodler's, yet they are.

 

As I said in a previous post, a lot of people use noodler's in general, so of course a lot of sacs that fail are going to have noodler's in them when they go. This does not prove that the sac is not the problem. It seems much more likely that the sac is failing rather than that the ink is melting the sac.

 

I believe I have postulated that a component of some inks may cause the observed decomposition of latex pen sacs either alone or in combination with another agent frequently used with pens.

 

Let's add a layer to the many experiments now in progress, rinse your sacs in the cleaning solution of choice, do not rinse the sac and expose the sac to your suspect ink. It may be worth while to have one side of your sac exposed to the wet agents and the other kept dry and exposed to air.

 

Another variable was pointed out to me today; Do we know that the formulation of the small production inks is consistent from batch to batch?

[ShallowJam]

I think its rather likely that there is some variation batch to batch in both the inks and the sacs, yes.

 

I am not trying to say that the inks are definitely not the problem. What I am saying is that we definitely don't know that they are.

[psfred]

I don't mean to dis the experiences of professional pen repair people.

 

The difficulty here is that repair people see failed sacs, not a full representation of all sacs, and even I cannot say with absolute certainty what I've put in any particular pen or in what order.

 

My personal experience with failed sacs and diaphragms is that they do not fail instantly, but instead slowly soften and become sticky with time, at least weeks and likely months. The only time I had a sac "fail" very quickly was the batch of Snorkels were every single one I fixed over a period of a few months ended up with a melted sac, filled or not.

 

As I said before, I cannot say with absolute certainty that all of them were not exposed to baby powder -- a side note here, when someone advises against using baby powder, listen, as it causes sacs to become sticky and turn to goo! -- and I have similar or identical pens in which diaphragms or sacs of similar or identical provenance do NOT fail when used with similar or identical inks.

 

Over the last few years, several people have exposed latex sacs to Noodler's inks for various periods of time and none of them, so far as I know, has had the sac in question fail by becoming sticky or gooey. This is only a partially controlled experiment, as will my replacing a couple of diaphragms in "51"s shortly and using only inks I have had in the pen when the old one failed.

 

I've used latex tubing for decades in other applications from chemistry labs to medical technology, and invariably the stuff either becomes brittle and cracks or gets a brittle skin and becomes gummy as it ages and "dies". This is why I don't suspect the ink nearly as much as I suspect either oils or perfumes in baby powder or improperly formulated latex. There isn't anything in a fairly normal ink that should cause latex to become gummy that's not found in Noodler's inks. Since becoming gummy is a known failure mode of latex rubber, it's less likely that ink causes it to fail that that the original formulation or materials are not right.

 

We shall see how my new diaphragms work in a bit. To repeat myself, I've had a few of them fail without ever being exposed to ink, and one of the two that turned to goo on me a couple of weeks ago was replaced several years ago but never inked until I filled the pen with the ink that a few weeks later was dripping out the filler. I suspect the diaphragm was bad when I filled the pen and only perforated later rather than being fine until it was exposed to ink and then died.

 

Peter

[SamCapote]

I appreciate repair meisters Zorn, Nishimura, Binder sharing their observations, and despite being a Noodler's fan, I prefer using Waterman, Parker, Sheaffer, MB inks on my few sac pens--mainly because they rinse out easier.

 

There's nothing wrong with people being extra cautious with latex sac pens, but to be certain that certain ink(s) are causing a problem, it should be consistently reproduceable. A pen repair meister could easily make a definitive test such as putting the sac they use in a vial of suspected ink, and check for deterioration.

 

Since this has happened before, to be fair, bad batches of latex such as presented by Goncharov in his thread here (including additional examples in post #5 from psfred) should be included as possible culprits. Since each batch of latex must be mixed properly, and metal inhibitors, etc. added, it is possible that human errors could happen at any time. Goncharov reports using Parker Quink Black, Mont Blanc Royal Blue, and Waterman Florida Blue with the melting issue appearing. Psfred reports self-destruction of unused latex sacs. Interesting that in this case Ron Zorn only suspects the latex and/or the coating powder, but none of the inks. That inconsistency is why some of us seek more definitive evidence before any one culprit is blamed.

 

The take home lesson for me with threads like this is that I will never buy any more than the 4 (vintage) pens I have with sacs, I can also see why people just use ballpoints.

[welch]

Explain why I can't duplicate the results.

 

You are not testing in the way a company's QA tests products. QA testing understands that there are variations in material products -- in the computer business, I assume that software can be debugged (although "late binding" has made debugging more exciting than necessary), but hardware is fluky. Software is built around ,logic..it is abstract. Hardware is physical, and there are variations.

 

For some detail on proper product testing, read through any parts of Six Sigma, a quality effort begun at Motorola made mandatory at GE. Consider the effect of one failure out of various samples: 1 billion iterations; 1 million; 10,000, 1,000, 100.

 

 

My conclusion is that:

 

- Richard and Ron are experience, skilled, and have handled many pen repairs.

- If they notice a trend, that's important.

- One counter-example does not balance many failures they have seen.

[79spitfire]

The take home lesson for me with threads like this is that I will never buy any more than the 4 (vintage) pens I have with sacs, I can also see why people just use ballpoints.

 

WOW, that's harsh!

 

Staying away from sac pens eliminates a lot of great vintage pens, but to each his own.

 

David's Silicone sacs may fix a lot of these concerns..

 

PLEASE make them in other sizes!

 

Pretty please!

[79spitfire]

Explain why I can't duplicate the results.

 

You are not testing in the way a company's QA tests products. QA testing understands that there are variations in material products -- in the computer business, I assume that software can be debugged (although "late binding" has made debugging more exciting than necessary), but hardware is fluky. Software is built around ,logic..it is abstract. Hardware is physical, and there are variations.

 

For some detail on proper product testing, read through any parts of Six Sigma, a quality effort begun at Motorola made mandatory at GE. Consider the effect of one failure out of various samples: 1 billion iterations; 1 million; 10,000, 1,000, 100.

 

 

My conclusion is that:

 

- Richard and Ron are experience, skilled, and have handled many pen repairs.

- If they notice a trend, that's important.

- One counter-example does not balance many failures they have seen.

I understand where your coming from, but the claim is certain inks will damage latex sacs. So far I've exposed pieces of latex sacs to all the various materials to the common materials used in pens and pen restoration (stay tuned for a list) and so far all I have to show is wet pieces of latex. Some of the materials are intentionally potentially damaging. Nothing yet. Your all welcome to try, we can compare notes.

 

My honest suspicion is it AT WORST is an accidental combination of common materials, and not a defect in any one product.

[ethernautrix]

Sheaffer Jet Black.

 

I appreciate the implied recommendation, but I have tried most of the black inks, including Sheaffer Jet Black (which I used to enjoy using twenty years ago). About a dozen years ago, I noticed how this ink bled through the page. I became dissatisfied with SJB. There are other black inks I could use in those of my pens that use a sac, but I feel fine using Noodler's Black in my modern pens (c/c and piston).

 

This thread reinforces why I don't like using "sac" pens.

[Vintagepens]

Regarding the silicone sacs, we have three more sizes close to ready. The molds need just a bit more adjustment. If all goes well, we may have both available in a month or less.

 

best

 

David

[psfred]

Don't forget that making pen sacs these days is a "boutique" operation as well, the demand is, well, not like making cars.

 

Given the low production rate, hence need for small batches of materials, and who knows what shelf life issues or supply consistency issues the makers face, it's highly likely here is more variability in sac quality than we, and the makers, would like.

 

It's one thing to run a continuous production line and another to make a batch, clean everything up, and make another later in initially empty equipment, or only dip and vulcanize sacs with variable times "idle" between. Mind you, I don't KNOW how the Pen Sac Company operates, or any other maker of pen sacs, but I'm guessing it's "on demand" rather than daily constant operation.

 

One other thing I thought of today while waiting on equipment at work is that some of the sacs I've installed over the years were stickier than others -- that is, when cut, the end would stay stuck together at the cut and had to be coaxed apart. They would also stick flat if pressed firmly. Others were dry and did not act like this, but I've no data on which ones proceeded to go to mush and which didn't. I shall watch in the future, and not use sacs or diaphragms which show any tendency to be sticky when obtained until I've verified they don't go bad on their own or in contact with ink.

 

I love my old pens, I'd like to be able to share the pleasure of using them with others, and I certainly would prefer that any sac I put in a pen would last a decent amount of time. Bad business to put defective materials into pen repair, eh?

 

Peter

Edited April 1, 2013 by psfred

[mrcharlie]

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."

Without taking sides one this, I'd just like to point out that such a statement cuts both ways. Professional pen restorers and manufacturers are de-facto in the business of selling expertly installed sacs, diaphrams, and bulbs. If you are selling badly made materials, it is to your natural benefit to see the problem as ink degrading the latex product rather than bad latex, isn't it?

 

There have been some people in this thread who've claimed to have goo sacs that haven't been inked, or have used only non-boutique inks, but you seem to disregard this. You see failed sacs returned, but should understand that non-failed sacs you don't see may be used with "boutique inks" and not fail, and you will never know since they aren't returned; as much data as you have, you don't have what scientists would consider representative data; you have self-selected data. Your opinions have the distinct possibility of what is known as "confirmation bias" as well.

 

As a hypothetical, if some significant percentage of sacs are used with possibly "bad" inks without failure, and some significant percentage of sacs do fail, and the ones that do fail have all been exposed to the posited "bad" inks, does that mean the problem is necessarily the fault of the ink? Because I think the restoration/repair pros are saying yes to this question, and from a scientific mindset the answer is no. There are other possible causes, including but not limited to variation in the manufacture and materials used in the sacs. At the very least, how does the bad ink hypothesis deal with the sacs that don't fail yet have been used with the posited sac destroying ink?

 

Humans' minds are very much hardwired to notice pattern correlations, and to assume causation in such cases. A large amount of scientific method and rigor is designed to overcome the human tendency to see causation in evidence that isn't really there, and even scientists still manage to muck it up fairly often.

 

FWIW, I have no opinion, data, or evidence either way. I have one bottle of Noodler's and have never used it in a sac pen; I guess if Levenger (the 6 inks I have seem pretty saturated to me) and Organics Studio count as boutique I have used both without failure so far in sac pens, but not many times or in many pens, and a couple of them haven't been inked in a few months so maybe they are goo and I haven't discovered it yet ...

Edited April 2, 2013 by mrcharlie

[Richard]

Without taking sides one this, I'd just like to point out that such a statement cuts both ways. Professional pen restorers and manufacturers are de-facto in the business of selling expertly installed sacs, diaphrams, and bulbs. If you are selling badly made materials, it is to your natural benefit to see the problem as ink degrading the latex product rather than bad latex, isn't it?

I cannot speak for anyone else. but I can and will speak for myself. If I were to be put in the position of selling badly made materials, I would not be selling them at all. You may believe this statement or not, but I dropped one manufacturer because that manufacturer's quality had deteriorated to the point at which I was no longer comfortable selling the product. It's too bad, because the product was quite profitable. I am not saying that every instance of that product was unacceptable, but the taint was there, so I dumped the product.

 

As a restorer, I specifically declined to use the sacs from one well known maker because I knew of quality problems with them. I am not saying that every sac from that maker is defective, but again, the taint is there. This leaves me in the position of saying that the sacs I did use then and still use now on my own pens and those I restore for sale, and also sell, have never in my experience — let me reiterate that: in my experience — failed in the way I've described in this thread unless exposed to Noodler's inks. Just as with the product I described in the previous paragraph, I am not saying that every bottle of Noodler's ink is bad. I am saying that there is an empirical correlation of the same sort that might make you stop drinking Coke if the percentage of people developing stomach cancer were higher among those who drink Coke than among those who drink Pepsi. You reduce your risks. We all do. It's human nature.

 

There have been some people in this thread who've claimed to have goo sacs that haven't been inked, or have used only non-boutique inks, but you seem to disregard this.

Not at all. I specifically mentioned the gooey sac problem that is known to have occurred with the sacs of the maker I mentioned above. This problem — when it occurs — requires no ink. All that it requires is that the sac be kept in contact with anything metal for an extended period.

 

As a hypothetical, if some significant percentage of sacs are used with possibly "bad" inks without failure, and some significant percentage of sacs do fail, and the ones that do fail have all been exposed to the posited "bad" inks, does that mean the problem is necessarily the fault of the ink?

Please try to keep up. We have already agreed that we do not know the whole story. We do not know what specific Noodler's inks seem to be involved with the problem. We do not know if there is an interaction between these inks and the materials of which the pens they have been used in. We do not know whether different, but non-defective, latex formulations are part of the problem. All that we do know, or I should say all that I do know, is that there seem to be more sac failures in pens that are used with certain, as yet unidentified, Noodler's inks.

 

As to whether the ink should be held completely innocent — or guilty — the answer is, "not yet." I'll repeat the point that we don't have all the data yet. But bear in mind that Baystate Blue is known to destroy the feeds in Lamy and Pilot pens and the barrel walls of some piston-filling pens. Bear also in mind that this destructive tendency was discovered in the field, not in the supplier's testing process. The problem with urethane gaskets in Sheaffer plunger-filling pens, which has been cited as a similar case, was also discovered and pinpointed in the field. And do please note, since you have called business ethics into question, that when we were sure of the problem with the urethane gaskets, I did not try to hide it. I issued a warranty recall by email to every client in whose pen I had installed a urethane gasket, including purchasers of pens that I had sold.

 

Ethics aside, you might speculate that I'd like to see Noodler's go down for some personal reason. That speculation would be both true and false. I do not want to see Noodler's go away. I have known Nathan Tardif for many years. I like and respect him. He is a good and honorable man, and I want him to succeed. That's the false part of the speculation. The true part is that I'd like to see the inks that are participating in sac destruction identified and removed from his line because I don't enjoy witnessing the destruction of pens and because this whole dirty business is harming his business. The sad part is that I'm not in a position to conduct the extensive (and expensive) testing that would be required to nail down exactly what is the cause of the sac failures.

Edited April 2, 2013 by Richard