What Liquefied This Sac?

[HLeopold]

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

 

One thing I might point out, I am a printer, and one thing I found was that I could not touch a latex sac unless I scrub my hands nearly raw or it would melt. I had 3 sacs melt, 2 of them never had ink run through them. I use Nitrex gloves at work when cleaning, working on the press, the blanket/roller wash kills these gloves really fast. But even before it makes the gloves fall apart the blanket wash goes right through them onto my hands.

 

This was not a problem when I worked on a press with standard ink, sacs I put in to my pens back then had no melting problem other than the one I used baby powder on, but 3 sacs in a row melted within a month or so after I started working with UV inks and the roller/blanket wash and replaced those sacs.

 

Now I admit that my situation is somewhat different then most, but lots of things are not good for latex and it can take only a very slight amount to do a sac in.

 

I was thinking, while reading this thread, about a set up that may, repeat, MAY be able to test sacs with various inks and still reproduce the environment inside a pen. Among those would be wetting of the sac, allowing air to the wetted portion, mechanical “handling” of the sac (the squeezing to fill or clean it), plus the addition of a hard rubber component and shellac to the mix to see if that has any effect with any particular ink.

 

Take a number of sacs, preferable the same size, cut them to the same size, roll each back on itself, like a sock and shellac in a short dowel of hard rubber with a small hole drilled through it length-wise in the middle of the sac. Unroll the sac and set aside to dry. Do the same to the rest of the sacs. Get glass tubing that with fit, with stretching, the end of the sac. Cut into 1 (or 2, your preference to how you mount them) inch pieces, heat smoothing the sac end of each before cutting it off. I suggest glass because as far as I know glass, unlike most plastics, does not outgas or react with latex. Get some kind of 1/4 inch board about an inch wide and however long you need it to hold your set up, drill holes just large enough to pass the glass tubing through, shellac the tubing into place so they stay in place with handling. Fix up some sort of support for your board and mount the sacs. Add ink. I suggest filling each sac the same amount, about 1/3 rd full. Now squeeze each sac to get the ink to be drawn down below the hard rubber in each sac.

 

I might suggest putting a small wad of cotton into each tube end to keep dust, etc. out. Keep some kind of cover over the entire set up to protect from light (and for additional protection, we don’t want the funkies growing in the sacs.

 

Each day squeeze each sac once, I suggest using disposable gloves each time just to prevent anything on your hands from contaminating the sacs. Observe. Report.

 

I expect that any softening/melting or even hardening of the sacs should be pretty noticeable since the sac is not only exposed to view when you daily squeeze them, but you would also be handling them as well.

Edited April 24, 2013 by HLeopold

[mhosea]

Without additional BSB, I cannot (re)test whether it is a sufficient factor, but I can test with BBH exposure alone. I am doing that now.

 

No change yet. Starting to look like BSB was a necessary ingredient (which wouldn't be all that surprising), but we'll see.

[mhosea]

I don't intend to post any more updates unless something happens. However, since my previous report may have been interpreted as putting BBH under some suspicion, I feel that it is my responsibility to report that as of the latest inspection, BBH alone has done nothing. I obviously do not know whether BSB alone could be responsible or if the residue of BSB (which is still visible on the damaged sac fragment) might have reacted with something.

[mhphoto]

Hmm, I've used Noodler's Black in a bunch of sac'd pens for extended periods of time with no issues. But sorry to see that happen to your pen!

[mhosea]

Just examined the sac fragments. The results so far are: no visible degradation, no gumminess, no apparent change in elasticity.

 

Inks in test:

Noodler's: #41 Brown, Upper Ganges Blue, North African Violet, Black, La Couleur Royale*, Bad Blue Heron, Blue*, Nikita*, Gruene Cactus Eel, Qin Shi Huang*

 

Sailor Sei Boku*

 

Inks with * have were added in June. Inks just added:

 

Noodler's Heart of Darkness, Bad Belted Kingfisher.

[mhosea]

Thanks to the generosity of another FPNer, I now have samples in BSB again. I even have some silicone sac fragments in BSB. I figured, why not?

[WirsPlm]

Are you sure you didn't get one of the defective sac batch?

 

A little bit ago, some sacs were made without a crucial ingredient, they look fine but liquify after ink is placed in the pen. I've heard this from Susan Wirth and from OldGrizz here on the forums. So it could well be that you got a defective sac and that's why it liquified.

[pajaro]

It seems that the scientific-minded go on about testing, trying to be objective.

 

It seems like the pen repair people all hang together and claim Noodler's ruins sacs.

 

Why don't all inks contribute to sac failure?

 

I think it's all rubbish.

 

I use Parker's black because it what Staples has. Saves shipping costs.

 

I do truly think that people who declaim against Noodler's ink, which a lot of people seem to use with no ill effects, are making themselves ridiculous.

[WirsPlm]

It seems that the scientific-minded go on about testing, trying to be objective.

 

It seems like the pen repair people all hang together and claim Noodler's ruins sacs.

 

Why don't all inks contribute to sac failure?

 

I think it's all rubbish.

 

I use Parker's black because it what Staples has. Saves shipping costs.

 

I do truly think that people who declaim against Noodler's ink, which a lot of people seem to use with no ill effects, are making themselves ridiculous.

 

Honestly, I think it's mostly sample bias.

 

1) Pen repairers only see problem pens.

2) Noodler's is a very popular US ink.

3) Ergo, pen repairers in the US will see lots of problem pens that use Noodler's inks.

 

Also, there's the fact that most regular users probably don't clean their pens as thoroughly as needed, just like most people don't clean out their PCs as often as they should, or wash their hands as often. So of course pen repairers are going to find bits of ink places it shouldn't be, especially for bright, vibrant inks.

 

Noodler's inks have more dye than more traditional inks. Those traditional inks lack features that lots of users need / want. If Noodler's inks really were a problem, either people would switch to other inks or someone would have come up with a better alternative. That nether has happened says that Noodler's really isn't such a problem to me.

[Ron Z]

Are you sure you didn't get one of the defective sac batch?

 

A little bit ago, some sacs were made without a crucial ingredient, they look fine but liquify after ink is placed in the pen. I've heard this from Susan Wirth and from OldGrizz here on the forums. So it could well be that you got a defective sac and that's why it liquified.

 

That fabled batch was about 10 years ago.

[mhosea]

 

Also, there's the fact that most regular users probably don't clean their pens as thoroughly as needed,

 

It is conceivable that in order to precipitate the problem (har har) the aspect of actual use in a pen that needs to be simulated in experiments is neglect.

[watch_art]

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.

[pajaro]

Many of the horror posts involve the Noodler's Bay State inks. The issues with them are fairly well known now. The other Noodler's inks seem harmless to me and I have used several, avoiding waterproof, etc. Do the complainers base their complaints on these inks?

 

If the inks are too saturated, the overage should precipitate out, wouldn't it? Somebody from Poland was writing a nice story about an old Polish pen repair guy, and throws in a dig about Noodler's. She can see the precipitate in the bottle, shakes it up and then bemoans all that crapola in her pen. Don't shake the bottle, then. I don't stir stuff like that into any ink.

 

I have run out of Noodler's anyway, and use Parker black. That's what they have at Staples.

Edited August 29, 2013 by pajaro

[WirsPlm]

 

That fabled batch was about 10 years ago.

 

Well, Susan Wirth specifically brought it up to me at the DC Supershow this August, so pen repairers are still concerned about it or about something like it happening again.

[79spitfire]

I just keep a box of latex gloves in the house, that way, my Noodler's inks can sneak around and eat them instead of the sacs in my pens.

 

That is when they aren't trying to cause the next Armageddon, or some such other act of villainy....

 

(one made a pass at my wife!!! )

[raging.dragon]

The one experiment that produced a degraded sac involved BSB followed by BBH. The methodology used cannot determine whether or not the other ink was significant. The most glaring obvious difference between BSB and most other inks is that BSB is highly alkaline.

 

The pen that started this thread was filled with Platinum Aurora Blue followed by Noodler's Black. I've read that Japanese inks tend to be alkaline. Platinum describe their Mix Free inks as "pH balanced", this is often assumed to mean pH neutral; however, I have not seen it stated that the inks are pH neutral nor what the actual pH is. So "pH balanced" could simply mean that the various inks in the line are close enough in pH to be mixed without issues. Thus I am left suspect that Platinum Aurora Blue may also be alkaline.

 

This leads me to wonder if the trigger condition might be one of the following:

1. using an alkaline ink
2. using an alkaline ink followed by a non-alkaline ink
3. using an alkaline ink followed by a cellulose reactive ink

Unfortunately I do not have the equipment and supplies to conduct an experiment to investigate these hypothesises myself.

Edited September 2, 2013 by raging.dragon

[raging.dragon]

No process has a zero defect rate. It is a certainty that some finite number of sacs are defective and will fail prematurely.

 

When looking at uncommon events, like defective sacs, a perfectly even distribution is highly unlikely. So seeing sac defect rates rise and fall over time is to be expected. The recent increase in sac failure rates noticed by various repair people may be nothing more than this. If the increase in sac failures is not simply an example of statistical clumping, the simplest explanation would be an increase in the rate of defective sacs.

 

Additionally, without knowing the percentage of non-failed sacs used with 'boutique inks' inks, there is little value in knowing the percentage of failed sacs used with 'boutique inks'. The relevant piece of data remains unknown: what is the difference in the rate of 'boutique ink' use for non-failed versus failed sacs? Without knowing this we cannot meaningfully comment on correlation, let alone causation.

 

Finally, this entire discussion has been largely based on the assumption that 'boutique inks' is a euphanism for Noodler's inks; however, that assumption isn't really valid. The boutique label could (and probably should) also be applied to: Private Reserve, Diamine, J. Herbin, De Atramenis, Callifolio, Organics Studio, Scribal Workshop, and other ink makers who don't manufacture pens. This large assortment of inks covers such a wide variety of different properties and compositions that the grouping is useless when considering the effects of ink chemistry on latex sacs (though the classification might be very useful when considering ink marketing strategies).

Edited September 2, 2013 by raging.dragon

[Vintagepens]

One of the most interesting posts in this thread, excerpt below, seems not to have received sufficient attention (full post here):

 

One thing I might point out, I am a printer, and one thing I found was that I could not touch a latex sac unless I scrub my hands nearly raw or it would melt. I had 3 sacs melt, 2 of them never had ink run through them. I use Nitrex gloves at work when cleaning, working on the press, the blanket/roller wash kills these gloves really fast. But even before it makes the gloves fall apart the blanket wash goes right through them onto my hands.

This was not a problem when I worked on a press with standard ink, sacs I put in to my pens back then had no melting problem other than the one I used baby powder on, but 3 sacs in a row melted within a month or so after I started working with UV inks and the roller/blanket wash and replaced those sacs.

Now I admit that my situation is somewhat different then most, but lots of things are not good for latex and it can take only a very slight amount to do a sac in.

 

This is relevant on several levels. If there are ingredients that can kill a sac that quickly in such low concentrations, and if those ingredients can so easily be transferred from surface to surface unintentionally, one wonders how many cases of sac failure may have nothing to do with ink, but are the result of this sort of inadvertent contamination. Or, since the killer compounds were found in certain specialized printing inks, is it possible that it some cases a tiny amount may have accidentally made its way into certain fountain pen inks, perhaps as a contaminant in a pigment or dye bought from an outside supplier?

 

best

 

David

[Vintagepens]

Finally, this entire discussion has been largely based on the assumption that 'boutique inks' is a euphanism for Noodler's inks; however, that assumption isn't really valid. The boutique label could (and probably should) also be applied to: Private Reserve, Diamine, J. Herbin, De Atramenis, Callifolio, Organics Studio, Scribal Workshop, and other ink makers who don't manufacture pens. This large assortment of inks covers such a wide variety of different properties and compositions that the grouping is useless when considering the effects of ink chemistry on latex sacs (though the classification might be very useful when considering ink marketing strategies).

 

I can't speak for others, but for me (and I think I was the one who coined the term), "boutique" inks are exactly those inks you cite: premium inks made by smaller companies, typically offering qualities and colors not available in mass-market inks.

 

As far as causality and correlation is concerned, it seems clear that the causes of premature latex sac failure are complex. At the same time, we'd be foolish to ignore patterns of correlation that may help us solve this problem. The important thing is to see these patterns as possible clues, not as definitive evidence.

 

best

 

David

[mrcharlie]

Or, since the killer compounds were found in certain specialized printing inks, ...

As I read the article you quote, he is saying it is the roller/blanket wash used to clean the press of the certain printing inks that is killing his gloves, and he believe the residue from that is also killing the sacs he has touched while repairing his pens. Not the printing inks themselves; the solvents used to clean them out of a press.