Feeds-Simple And Complex

[Pen Engineer]

  On 9/22/2016 at 1:41 PM, Tinjapan said:

Do you think that the pen makers who first added fins to their feeds did?

No idea

[Tinjapan]

"The temperature variation from inside to outside a house should not be great unless you are waving pens around in snowy air then rushing into a hot room. On the other hand (literally) body temperature is usually significantly greater than ambient. Picking up a pen and writing with it will heat the pen and do it quite quickly. Pressure requires variations in altitude and also enters the area of tensions which I will not."

 

I have doubts that this is actually how pens were used around the time more complex feeds were first being tested. I have come to the belief that a large number of fountain pen users actually used the pocket clips that they paid extra for. If so, then for them, the in the field reality would be from prewarmed in a pocket to use in the hand. The temp. difference would thus be far less great than that from outside to inside and visa-a-versa and not very great at all.

 

Where are the complaints about temp differences causing flow problems?

 

"I do not regard ink deceleration as 'a thing' for practical purposes. Using the proverbial back of the envelope, one can work out that the flow speed and volume of ink is as nothing compared with capacity in the nib-feed interface even without fins. Otherwise, would not your finless pen blob every time you lifted it? Mine characteristically blob during writing or when just filled or running out of ink. Never does it happen simply when I lift the pen. This is not good data for an ink inertia theory.

 

 

Use of my simple early Conklin feeds take extra care to prevent blobbing when lifting. They sometimes blob during writing but do so usually when pausing for a sip of coffee or lifting to turn the page. As this sometimes happens when I have carried them in my pocket or in my brief case, it seems that heat can not be a major factor. The most constant occurance is when I stop writing, regardless of being carried in my pocket (prewarmed) or in my brief case (ambient temp).

 

As my observations are what you say would be observed if my model were correct, how is my model incorrect?

 

"The function of the fins is to capture overflow caused by conditions other than writing."

 

How and when was this known? If caused by conditions other than writing, why does it occur during writing or during pauses in writing?

 

"But, things in motion tend to stay in motion. So true, the law of inertia. however, the balance of forces in the ink system is finely tuned and in much harmony. " The forces, weights, volumes are minute and are counteracted continuously by capillary forces. "

 

Thus only minute changes are required to upset this delicate balance.

 

"Is it only capilary action that gets ink to paper or is it also the air that feeds from say 1880 on allowed to get into the "storage reservior" to "force" ink out? In order to keep this harmony it is mainly the capillary force that carries the ink to paper, a small amount is added by the hydrostatic pressure of the ink column. "

 

 

This small amount makes a world of difference, don't it? It took mankind eons to stumble upon its significance. Without it, the capillaries ain't a capilallating. Capilallary forces would also have been present in earlier feeds that did not allow air behind the column to aid in getting the ink in motion. And they did not work. Seems to me that the statement that it is capillary forces that get the ink on the paper is akin to saying that it is the transmission that propels the motor vehicle. While not entirely incorrect, it ignores the motive force behind the transmission.

 

"IF this is the case, then.... That's when tuning comes into the play. The variation of pressure during normal writing is compensated for by the capillary forces. As ink is drawn out the pressure drops, never increases .... just read above. "

 

Doesn't need to increase for my model to work, it only needs to REMAIN greater than the decrease in demand for a very short time.

 

'The pen blobs because of increase pressure due to increase of temperature of the air pocket above the ink or the hydrostatic pressure of the ink column from nib to top of the ink level in the reservoir."

 

The problem with these physics arguments is that they ignore the WHY. Pen makers eighty years ago were not solving for X, they were solving for Y. If their solution to Y also solved X and Q, and Z, well that was fine and well, but their motivation was to solve for Y. In my reading on the developement of the fountain pen, I have never run across a contempory account of temperature or pressure in the pen as a motivation for a single change in pen design up until at least the second world war. As pen makers were not motivated by the temps and pressures with in the pen, they were not solving for them (X), thus temps and pressures are not (Y) and thus not WHY they started making more complex feeds with combs/fins.

 

As I recall when in the history of pen design I have read about temperature as a factor, it was not even with feed but the rubber ink sac. The purpose of the ink sac was not to solve the problems associated with temp/pressure. The ink sac was needed to solve the problems with filling the pen. If it also helped out with temperature, then that was a positive byproduct of the ink sac, not why the ink sac was adopted in pen design. I believe is was the same with changes to the feed.

[Tinjapan]

I did some searching through old ads for FPs and found some items of interest. I provide two here with comments. Bold, Italics and underlining provided by myself.

 

The first is from a 1912 The Saturday Evening Post Parker Lucky Curve ad.

 

"Three Things Make a Fountain Pen Leak.

 

They are: 1st, a straight or blunt feed tube; 2nd, ink remaining in the feed tube after you stop writing; 3rd, heated air that expands and goes up.

 

The straight or blunt feed tube holds ink even when the pen is upright in your vest pocket.

 

The air in the pen gets warm from the heat of your body-98 degrees. The heat makes it expand. It expands up through the inky feed tube. It pushes ink up and out and splatters it all around the writing end of the pen."

 

Break

 

"The curve of this Lucky Curve feed tube touches the barrel. This touch starts Capillary Attraction. This Capillary Attraction wicks the ink down out of the feed tube before the air heats up."

 

Here we do have a contemporary reference to the problem of body heat. However, it is very different from arguments presented in this thread. First, the pen is heated by carrying in a pocket, not while writing.

 

Second, the symptom of this heating is not blotting, but ink in the cap.

 

Third, the expansion of air affecting writing is not at all mentioned.

 

Fourth, capillary action is cited as the solution to the heat problem, not the grooves of the 'Christmas tree, feed shown in the illustration within the ad.

 

The heat problem Parker sought to correct with its Lucky Curve is not at all like the heat problem given by others in this thread.

 

Below is the second, it is from a 1936 Parker Vacumatic Pen ad. Bold, italics and unlining provided by myself.

 

"And a third great difference is the Parker "breather tube". This deflates air pressure in the barrel when the warmth of the writer's hand expands the air. By thus relieving the pressure on the ink, this exhaust prevents flooding and blotting."

 

Hmm, seems like I am defeated....unless we read on. And read on we shall.

 

"It's the only invention known that vanquishes this foe of sacless pens."

 

AND, when I look at the feed of a Parker Vacumatic like the one featured in the ad, I find fins on it. As fins on feeds were known to pen makers of this era, it can not be said that heat from the writer's hand is the "why" for the fins.

 

As the ad states "foe of sacless pens", and not 'foe of fountain pens' then if the "why" for fins on feeds was to fight this foe, why are they found on pens with sacs?

 

Should we take cartridge/converter pens to be sacless or pens with sacs? They should be taken as pens with sacs. It is not the material of the sac that made them less susceptible to this foe of sacless pens, but the air between the sac and the inner surface of the barrel. Air is also present between concerters/catridges and the inside of the barrel. However, C/C pens were not in the field at the time of this ad and were thus unknowable to the admen. However, as the same applies to C/C pens as pens with sacs, heat from the writer's hand is not a foe of C/C pens any more than it is for pens with sacs.

 

Therefore, if fins on the feeds is to fight the heat of the writer's hand, their presence in pens with sacs, converter or cartridge is fixing something that ain't broke, a Cardinal Sin for the maintenance man and, one would hope, for the design engineer. Fins on pens with sacs and C/C pens are either fixing something that ain't broke OR fixing something else that is broke. So, why did pen companies first begin using these more complex feeds? It was NOT to solve problems with heat.

 

Vintage ads feature flow issues, not heat issues occuring during writing being solved by the fins on a feed.

 

Tell me again why my initial statement, "As I understand, the fins allow a place for ink to go, other than on the paper, if you set down your pen after a period of writing to grab a sip of coffee. They also provide a reservoir closer to the nib tip reducing dry starts.", is incorrect.

[praxim]

There is no doubt that the fins act as a reservoir; that is their purpose so there is nothing wrong with saying so.

 

The basis of ink flow and reasons for needing a reservoir have been mentioned and discussed including by a professional pen engineer. I think that back when planes were flying and quantum physics germinating, it was possible for engineers to work out both the rationale and utility of an accumulative reservoir comprising multiple small slots, or fins. This did not include inertial flows of ink, assuming you do not bump or shake the pen in which case centrifugal forces intervene.

 

Please tell me where any of this is incorrect? If your position is that these things must have been understood in some other way with serendipitous effect then I shall not join you in idle conjecture.

[Pen Engineer]

Advertising as a source of technical discussion? I do not agree.

 

... cars were praised because they removed the problem of horse pooh in the streets (contemporary advertisement)

 

.... even Bernoulli's law was known, many early aircraft builders did not know it and still constructed aircrafts which could fly. It is not uncommon that inventions were not completely understood or instigated by a rational we would dismiss today. This did not make them stop working.

 

Luck favours the sedulousness... which is my experience

 

I agree with praxim totally, utterly and completely

[Tinjapan]

Facts about how something works found out after that something is created can not be the reason (the "why") it was created.

 

"assuming you do not bump or shake the pen in which case centrifugal forces intervene."

 

Of course, THAT never happens.

 

The first reason given by pensmith Kawakubo when I asked what causes the flow problems that fins on feeds were first intended to solve.

 

The facts that other things of much greater complexity were in use has no bearing to this discussion. Steam propelled, steel hulled ships, electric lighting, the Trans-Atlantic cable, telephones and many other advanced tech items were in use long before dip pens, eyedroppers and self filled FPs with leaky feeds disappeared from daily use.

 

"it was possible for engineers to work out both the rationale and utility of an accumulative reservoir"

 

No doubt, but it wasn't engineers who came up with the ideas. The early pen makers at first tinkered on their own and then later sought out more experienced designers and engineers to help turn their ideas into reality. Yes, the principles you mention were known to engineers, yet it took non engineers to present engineers with an idea for a pen for the engineer to put these principles to work in pen design. Engineers didn't invent much of what went in to the first successful fountain pens, they designed features to fit the inventors' ideas.

 

Was Waterman an engineer? Parker (of a type useful to pen developement)? Were the engineering principles you refer to known to them? Who were the engineers who came up with the ideas that would become the next better pen? Who were the engineers who saw the need for the improvements before they would be asked to design them? Unless it was the design engineer that came up with the idea for something new, the answer to why that something came to be can not be answered by the design engineer. In this case, the design engineer is the facilitator, not the originator.

 

As for "inertial flows of ink", that is only part of what I said. I believe that the residual pressure behind the ink column provides that little extra that forces ink out, just as it does to get the capillary action in motion. So, it is the inertial flow plus the residual pressure in the pen that under certain conditions forces ink to blob. But if you want to fixate on one leaf on one tree in the massive forest, go ahead.

 

"Advertising as a source of technical discussion? I do not agree."

 

The technology did not drive the innovations of the fountain pen. Non engineers dealing with their customers discovered the needs and first came up with the ideas that engineers would then use technology to make reality. Trying to understand why a certain piece of technology came to be with out taking into account what was known by the inventor, what problem/s the inventor was trying to solve, what the realities faced by the inventor and their contemporaries will lead to incomplete or just plain incorrect conclusions.

 

Advertisements are, among other things, a method for companies to communicate to thier costomers that the company has heard them and are responding to their needs. Trying to determine why a company or industry adopted any new feature without using advertising as a source is likely to fail. Ads provide a method of learning information crucial to understanding the context in which a new feature was designed. The ads tell a very different story than presented by the design engineers. And why would they not?

 

Among my many aquaintances are businessmen and engineers at a various levels of huge mulitnational corporations. From them, I could distill the the reasons why any design engineer designed anything into this one statement. In answer to the question, "Why did you design X?", the answer is, "Because those idiots in marketing promised our customer that we could do it.".

 

Thus, the answer to the question, "Why did pen engineers develop feeds with fins?", is "Because marketing told them to.". But the OP did not ask this question. They asked "what is the reason for all of the "feed elaboration". The pen engineers correct answer is, "Because we were told to design one.". To find the reason behind this, we must look at what consumer need the company was trying to meet. Advertising helps in this. So would consumer complaints to the company, something that would probably be much harder to find than the companies communication with its customers.

 

"cars were praised because they removed the problem of horse pooh in the streets (contemporary advertisement)"

 

Did they not accomplish this?

[Tinjapan]

To distill it to it further, pen engineers can answer "how" but not "why" a new innovation came about and was adopted for use.

[praxim]

  On 9/24/2016 at 2:26 PM, Tinjapan said:

To distill it to it further, pen engineers can answer "how" but not "why" a new innovation came about and was adopted for use.

 

but you can?

 

 

  Quote

As for "inertial flows of ink", that is only part of what I said. ... But if you want to fixate on one leaf on one tree in the massive forest, go ahead.

I quoted your post in which you agreed with my representation of your thoughts with only a minor change. I am sorry if your words misrepresent you but there is not a heck of a lot I can do about that. In any event, you summarise in the same way in these next words:

 

  Quote

I believe that the residual pressure behind the ink column provides that little extra that forces ink out, just as it does to get the capillary action in motion. So, it is the inertial flow plus the residual pressure in the pen that under certain conditions forces ink to blob.

I do believe that you believe it. I do not find it consistent with physics nor with the principal symptoms resolved by the creation of finned feeds. If you read the original patent you will find heat specifically mentioned as a source of problems, but not some flowing stream of ink rather than capillary behaviour.

 

By the way, anyone can do engineering to some degree if they have the appropriate modes or discipline of thinking and background in the subject matter, especially when they are applying skills to a new area. Notice that Waterman undertook his work "in his brother's workshop" so he was not an alien to mechanical work and design.

 

Re-reading one of your more recent posts, I noticed that you appear to be attributing finned feeds to a Mr Waterman or a Mr Parker and ask this:

  Quote

Who were the engineers who came up with the ideas that would become the next better pen? Who were the engineers who saw the need for the improvements before they would be asked to design them?

 

Answer: Russell T Wing in 1937, an independent inventor, although arguably the European Frederick Fölsch came up with the necessary concepts over a hundred years earlier.

[praxim]

Caveat: When I wrote "anyone can do engineering to some degree [etc]" then I was far from disparaging the discipline (my father was one and my son is, in different fields).

 

Rather, I reject the apparent notion that an engineer sits in a small box with "build this" shoved in one slit and a working item shoved out the other. Often, engineers (and people in my own former line of work) are given crudely stated problem symptoms sourced from a customer and without understanding of the underlying issues. The engineer[ing team] must first properly characterise the problem before designing solutions. That characterisation can well be the harder part, and they be the first to know the real 'why'.

 

Editing to add: if you read Peningeneer's blog then you will see part of his commission, as happens in innovative companies, was to find improvements where no problem as such had yet been defined. See also: Apple. One could Google it.

Edited September 25, 2016 by praxim

[Pen Engineer]

I agree with you

 

Thanks for mentioning my blog (and work) together with Apple.

 

....can we talk about something else?

[Tinjapan]

Yes, the customer may not give the design engineers all the information needed to for them to do their thing, but without the customer giving the design engineers a problem to solve, no solution will be found. Why would there be? The design engineers have no way to know of the problems the customer has unless the customer communicates this to the company. In fact, my statement, "In answer to the question, "Why did you design X?", the answer is, "Because those idiots in marketing promised our customer that we could do it.". ", covered your comments here.

 

My comments are not disparaging towards engineers either. They are aessential part of the equation, but they are not the only part of the equation.

 

I do not credit Waterman or Parker with the invention of the finned feed, just used them as examples, BTW. Bringing up "arguably the European Frederick ? (typo, can't read name) came up with the necessary concepts over a hundred years earlier.". makes my point. If the design engineers know the why fins on the feed came in to use, why were they not incorporated into pens at that time? There are a lot of great ideas patented just sitting in patent offices around the world waiting to be matched with a need that society is ready to have filled and technology able to produce.

 

Frederick ? came up with the necessary concepts in the early 19th century or earlier. Why were they not then incorporated? If the design engineer is the one who drives innovation, then they would have been. But the deign engineer does not. A need to be satisfied is the "why". He had the "how" but no need to satisfy.

 

"If you read the original patent you will find heat specifically mentioned as a source of problems, but not some flowing stream of ink rather than capillary behaviour."

 

From the abstract of the patent aplication. "to maintain a constant and uniform flow of ink to the pen point at all times, when the pen is in use, regardless of the particular position, or the amount of ink in the well, or temperature variations."

 

The purpose is to maintain flow at all times when in use regardless of position, which is my original point, "As I understand, the fins allow a place for ink to go, other than on the paper, if you set down your pen after a period of writing to grab a sip of coffee. They also provide a reservoir closer to the nib tip reducing dry starts.". That has been my actual experience and I have read a bit on the problems faced by early early pen makers and how the set about solving them.

 

As far as my model is concerned, it does not matter what I believe nor does it matter what you believe, it does not even matter what the physics say. The only thing that matters is what the people who first came to use fins on feeds believed. However, the patent application does indeed lend credence to my model as we shall see below. Additionally, Russell T Wing did NOT invent the finned feed in 1937. If one reads the entire patent application, many statements of interest are to be found.

 

Have you read the patent application? It is not as you represented it to be. It is NOT a patent for the fins on a feed, rather the SPACING for the fins, amoung other things.

 

"The novel spacing of the walls I4 is important in that it assures a uniform and constant flow of ink' from the barrel 21 to the pen point, when the pen is in use, without danger of flooding. "

 

Another statement from Mr. Wing's patent application.

 

"In conventional fountain pens, the comb or gills formed on the sides of the feed bar or other ink collecting devices, are equally spaced apart and are necessarily of undersized capacity, and function substantially as gravity collectors of ink, rather than capillary absorbers of surplus ink. Such conventional ink collecting devices serve the purpose intended only to a very limited degree, and have ink collector pockets, of necessity of such equality and larger size and of open or exposed construction, as to allow the ink to drain back into the well from their collector spaces when the pen is capped and placed in an upright position."

 

Again from the patent application. "The disks or wall elements I4 are spaced relatively close together at the inner end of the governor, and are spaced relatively farther apart in a progressive manner, whereby the capillary spaces I9 provided between the walls I4, progressively become wider in a direction towards the pen point, as clearly illustrated in Figure 3. The novel spacing of the walls I4 is important in that it assures a uniform and constant flow of ink' from the barrel 21 to the pen point, when the pen is in use, without danger of flooding. "

 

Thus, Mr. Wing did not invent the finned feed, but inproved upon it with his novel unequal spacing of the fins. Additionally, his patent application is for a lot more than just fins. It includes a system of channels, ducts and air vents that have a varity of uses all for the purpose of ensuring proper flow of ink.

 

Under "Claims" we find this, "22. In a fountain pen, a barrel having an ink reservoir therein, means for controlling the flow of ink from the reservoir including a hollow member having one end mounted in said barrel and communicating with the reservoir and its other end projecting therefrom, a pen point carried by said other end of the member, means providing an ink duct in and extending substantially throughout the length of the projecting part of said member and through which ink from said reservoir is delivered to the pen point, and chamber means associated with said member and connected to said duct substantially throughout the length of the projecting part of said member for receiving and storing ink, when the amount of ink flowing through said duct is in excess of that required for writing purposes.". How does this differ from my model? Not that it really matters, for as I already pinted out, this application is NOT for the fins on a feed. HOWEVER, an ink flow greater than demand was clearly a concern for even this design.

 

Through out the entire application: the word "heat" is used once, in reference to the writer's hand; "temperature" is found twice, refering to changes in temperature and the phrase " when the amount of ink flowing...is in excess of that required for writing purposes". The words "fin" or "fins' are not found.

 

Again, I ask, what is the fault of my original statement, "As I understand, the fins allow a place for ink to go, other than on the paper, if you set down your pen after a period of writing to grab a sip of coffee. They also provide a reservoir closer to the nib tip reducing dry starts."?

[praxim]

  On 9/25/2016 at 1:48 PM, Tinjapan said:

Again, I ask, what is the fault of my original statement, "As I understand, the fins allow a place for ink to go, other than on the paper, if you set down your pen after a period of writing to grab a sip of coffee. They also provide a reservoir closer to the nib tip reducing dry starts."?

Answered both clearly and fairly. Shall we rinse and repeat?

Russell T Wing wrote about air and atmosphere, but not about inertially potent streams of ink, in Patent US2187528

  Quote

In normal use, the capillaries or spaces 19 of the governor are usually empty, whereby they are always ready to take up any overflow of expelled ink from the well, should any air which might be in the well, when the latter is only partially filled, expand from the heat of the hand, or lowered external air pressure as is experienced in air travel, when the pen is in use, and thus cause a slight pressure on the ink, which might momentarily force an excessive supply of ink into the duct 26. Should the air in the well 21 expand and cause an excessive flow of ink from the barrel into the duct 26, such excessive ink, instead of flowing directly to the pen point, as in ordinary pens, will thus be attracted into the capillaries of the governor. Variations in atmospheric pres sure, as experienced in air travel, may also at times, cause an excessive amount of ink to be forced into the feed duct 26 from the well 21. Such excessive ink is immediately absorbed by the governor H, as above stated, whereby it will be seen that variations in altitude will not affect the operation of my pen.

 

 

  On 9/25/2016 at 11:20 AM, PenIngeneer said:

 

 

....can we talk about something else?

 

I was wondering how many replicas of the ghost of Louis E could dance on the tipping of a Waterman No 2 nib? We could go on for pages about that.

[Tinjapan]

1. One must read the ENTIRE patent application to learn of All it was to fix.

 

2. His was NOT for fins on the feed.

 

3. His novel design is NOT merely for controlling flow issues linked to the heat of the writer's hand.

 

1. Details.

 

Yes, he does indeed write about air and atmosphere, but he also wrote about many other issues, each seperately, in his application, including this, "22. In a fountain pen, a barrel having an ink reservoir therein, means for controlling the flow of ink from the reservoir including a hollow member having one end mounted in said barrel and communicating with the reservoir and its other end projecting therefrom, a pen point carried by said other end of the member, means providing an ink duct in and extending substantially throughout the length of the projecting part of said member and through which ink from said reservoir is delivered to the pen point, and chamber means associated with said member and connected to said duct substantially throughout the length of the projecting part of said member for receiving and storing ink, when the amount of ink flowing through said duct is in excess of that required for writing purposes.". As none of the several other reasons which he gives for his design are mentioned here, demand less than supply IS what he is refering to here. This is given a seperate mention, seperating it from other issues.

 

2. You are wedded to your belief, fixated upon this one point and ignore the others. I describe why new ideas end up in the hand of the writer and you offer a patent for something that is not for what you say it is as proof of your theory. This patent is for novel spacing of fins, not the fins, and for a system of channels, ducts and vents, not for the fins. It is for refinements in a complex feed, not for a complex feed. True, these refinements make the feed more complex, the key word being "more".

 

3. The patent's one and only reference to heat from the writer's hand is as follows,

"In normal use, the capillaries or spaces 19 of the governor are usually empty, whereby they are always ready to take up any overflow of expelled ink from the well, should any air which might be in the well, when the latter is only partially filled, expand from the heat of the hand, or lowered external air pressure as is experienced in air travel, when the pen is in use, and thus cause a slight pressure on the ink, which might momentarily force an excessive supply of ink into the duct 26. ". "might momentarily force an excessive supply of ink into the duct" Mr. Wing seems a lot less sure of this than you are. It is also a very similar statement to mine in my model which you continue to be fixated upon.

 

Other reasons for his design include,

 

"If the pen is dropped or disturbed, any ink shaken down within the pen section adjacent the pen point is quickly drawn back into the governor capillaries by capillary attraction, as hereinbefore stated."

 

and

 

"22. In a fountain pen, a barrel having an ink reservoir therein, means for controlling the flow of ink from the reservoir including a hollow member having one end mounted in said barrel and communicating with the reservoir and its other end projecting therefrom, a pen point carried by said other end of the member, means providing an ink duct in and extending substantially throughout the length of the projecting part of said member and through which ink from said reservoir is delivered to the pen point, and chamber means associated with said member and connected to said duct substantially throughout the length of the projecting part of said member for receiving and storing ink, when the amount of ink flowing through said duct is in excess of that required for writing purposes.

23. In a fountain pen, a barrel having an ink reservoir therein, means for controlling the flow of ink from said reservoir including a hollow member having one end mounted in said barrel in communication with the reservoir and its other end projecting therefrom, a pen point carried by the other end of said member, means providing an ink duct in said member and through which ink from said reservoir is delivered to the pen point, and means associated with said member and connected to said duct substantially throughout the length thereof for receiving and storing ink, when the amount of ink flowing through said duct is in excess of that required for writing purposes."

 

Why do you continue to misrepresent what this patent is for? I was prepared to believe that it was due to the same error most make, not actually reading the source cited in a given work. But after your last post, it is clear that you have read read it. Perhaps, though, you did not actually read but only scanned it for key words and phrases, cherry picked the bits that suit your argument and ignored the rest. Am I being charitable?

 

Again, in answer to the OPs question, the only thing that matters is what need the people who first started using more complex feeds were trying to meet. If you were to read the entire patent application that you offered as evidence, then you would know that everything in his novel feed design was for the purpose of delivering ink when and where and only when and where, the user wanted it. Regardless of air, atmosphere, ink volumn, temperature, pressure, demand, flow, agitation from the wrtier's hand or dropping the pen. Which again, is what my first comment said.

 

Most importantly, the point you refuse to address , whatever Mr. Wing did or did not write about does not answer why more complex feeds found acceptance and their way to the hand of the writer. That answer MUST come from the need that users had and the design engineer was able to work out how to meet.

 

Why do we have cruise control on modern auto mobiles when vintage ones did not? Your answer, 'Because physics....

 

BS

 

Why do we have space craft that can be reused when early ones could not be? Because physics...

 

BS

 

Physics is NOT the answer to "why" we have any thing. Physics can only answer "how".

 

Sure, after you "call me out" for my simple explanation of the need the user had and misrepresent the evidence you offered as proof, ignoring the history of the of the developement of the feed to met user needs, for which I call you out, sure let's talk about something else.

[milkb0at]

Golly, what an awful lot of effort and emotional energy being expended. Just admitting that you weren't 100% correct would be much easier.

 

I think we all agree that the feed is there to handle things like differential in air pressure (from e.g. heat or air travel), being knocked etc. I don't think we agree that "inertial ink flows" are a problem (other than when the pen is knocked) or that the feed is to deal with the extremely simple situation where "you set down your pen after a period of writing to grab a sip of coffee".

 

I must admit I get lost in your wordy arguments about patent applications and whether it's the engineer or marketing who come up with ideas. As long as someone noticed that fountain pens can blob and someone decided to fix it, I'm happy.

[Tinjapan]

It's really simple, really.

 

1. Events today can not explain why someone did something yesterday.

 

2. When the doctor asks, "Why did you come in to see me today?", the patient does not answer, "I have avian influenza.". Their answer is more along the lines of, "I have a fever and head ache."

 

3. When citing a source, first make sure it is relevent to the conversation, see 1. above.

 

4. When citing a source, make sure it is as you represent it to be.

 

All else discussed really has no part, just got distracted hoping it might lead somewhere constructive. Obviously, it did not.

Edited September 26, 2016 by Tinjapan

[pen tom]

  On 9/26/2016 at 8:34 AM, milkb0at said:

Golly, what an awful lot of effort and emotional energy being expended. Just admitting that you weren't 100% correct would be much easier.

 

I think we all agree that the feed is there to handle things like differential in air pressure (from e.g. heat or air travel), being knocked etc. I don't think we agree that "inertial ink flows" are a problem (other than when the pen is knocked) or that the feed is to deal with the extremely simple situation where "you set down your pen after a period of writing to grab a sip of coffee".

 

I must admit I get lost in your wordy arguments about patent applications and whether it's the engineer or marketing who come up with ideas. As long as someone noticed that fountain pens can blob and someone decided to fix it, I'm happy.

 

AMEN. I originated these posts and I can hardly remember what it was about anymore, Oh yea. Are elaborate feeds necessary or are they mostly marketing? I now think that they are a bit of both

[pepsiplease69]

  On 9/26/2016 at 5:17 PM, pen tom said:

 

AMEN. I originated these posts and I can hardly remember what it was about anymore, Oh yea. Are elaborate feeds necessary or are they mostly marketing? I now think that they are a bit of both

 

 

I'm having a hard time tuning this out.

 

On the one hand it's about feeds, something I genuinely want to learn more about.

 

On the other hand, this has turned into a semi-personal rant which serves no real purpose than to vent on others. I cannot say I gained any knowledge from trying to read this topic.

[praxim]

  On 9/26/2016 at 8:34 AM, milkb0at said:

Golly, what an awful lot of effort and emotional energy being expended. Just admitting that you weren't 100% correct would be much easier.

 

I think we all agree that the feed is there to handle things like differential in air pressure (from e.g. heat or air travel), being knocked etc. I don't think we agree that "inertial ink flows" are a problem (other than when the pen is knocked) or that the feed is to deal with the extremely simple situation where "you set down your pen after a period of writing to grab a sip of coffee".

 

I must admit I get lost in your wordy arguments about patent applications and whether it's the engineer or marketing who come up with ideas. As long as someone noticed that fountain pens can blob and someone decided to fix it, I'm happy.

 

Thank you for your succinct summary milkb0at.

 

I have not enjoyed this thread. In my experience it has been well outside what I have known and like at FPN. By way of personal explanation, I have tried hard to stick to a critical point and have not fisked posts.

Should any person whatsoever believe there is something I ignored and to which they believe I should make some reply, then PM me only. I will answer plainly and cover any previously omitted detail, but only by private message, not here.

 

Here, now, I am leaving crickets to chirp.

[Tinjapan]

Imagine if I were extended the same courtesy.

[praxim]

"...any person whatsoever...PM me"