Experiments With Flex

[bobje]

TEST NO. 4 -- FPR NO. 6 FLEX NIB (VENT HOLE IN CENTER POSITION AND SIDE SCALLOPS) AND NO. 6 EXTRA FINE NIB (ENLARGED VENT HOLE AND SIDE SCALLOPS)

A. WRITING RESULTS AFTER MODIFYING BOTH NIBS WITH VENT HOLES JUST BEHIND THE SHOULDERS.

VENT HOLES ARE APPROXIMATELY 3/32 OF AN INCH IN DIAMETER

Click pen (gray) with enlarged-vent-hole and side scallops, no. 6 FPR extra fine nib, 6.3 mm standard ebonite feed

In comparison to the no. 6 FPR extra fine nib used in Test 3 (enlarged vent hole only), this wing-modified nib provides some line variation (approximately 2.5x, from a line width of about 0.5 mm to 1.25 mm), with a little more flexibility, and a smooth writing experience. The nib never railroaded. A conical-shaped Dremel grinder bit was used to enlarge the vent hole, which left crude workmanship. (Graphics 1 and 2).

Click pen (green) with no. 6 FPR flex nib, vent hole created in the center of the slit, approximately at the shoulders, and side scallops, with the 6.3 mm standard ebonite feed

A conical-shaped Dremel grinder bit created a vent hole at about the center of the nib, near the shoulders (Graphic yy), and side scallops. Line variation of about 3x (approximately 0.6 mm to 1.5mm) with some railroading. Smooth and comfortable writing experience. No flooding. Crude vent hole workmanship with this method. (Graphics 3 and 4).

CONCLUSIONS OF TEST NO. 4

Writing experience and degree of flex is improved over the second test, and the performance of the flex nib modification is approximately the same as the Test Three flex nib with the single enlarged vent hole at the end of the slit. However. with this test, the standard feed can be used, and the feed seems easier to adjust without flooding. Using a standard drill bit and drill will improve the aesthetics of the vent hole modification.

Test Four Writing Sample

Graphic 1 (side view) - FPR extra fine nib, with enlarged vent hole and side scallops

Graphic 2 (top view) - FPR extra fine nib, with enlarged vent hole and side scallops

Graphic 3 (side view) - FPR flex nib, with vent hole at center of slit, and side scallops

Graphic 4 (top view) - FPR flex nib, with vent hole at center of slit, and side scallops

[ReadyFireAim]

 

Writing experience and degree of flex is improved over the second test, and the performance of the flex nib modification is approximately the same as the Test Three flex nib with the single enlarged vent hole at the end of the slit. However. with this test, the standard feed can be used, and the feed seems easier to adjust without flooding.

 

I have wondered what a standard size vent hole at the end of the slit would do to the feed characteristics of a FPR of Noodler's flex nib.

 

Recently I had to go back to a plastic feed after converting a Singularity to eyedropper because the ebonite feed was making it too wet.

(It had worked fine before then & the plastic feed was the one starving the nib)

[bobje]

Bordeaux, you are raising precisely my point of difficulty with a vent hole at the end of the slit on a flex nib. It makes the nib/feed combination too wet. When I use a different feed (in this case, an ebonite feed designed for a standard fine Wality nib), I can get it to work properly.

 

During the weekend, I'm going to repeat placing a vent hole at the slit mid-point on a flex nib (Option B in this drawing, at about the position of the shoulders), and determine what impact that makes on splay, as well as the wetness of a standard feed.

 

[terim]

.......

 

I think Peyton Street Pens uses the Jowo #6 nib holder a lot with their branded nibs and the same plastic feed as the Edison.

 

Just to clarify ....Most of our Ranga pens are configured for #6 JoWo nibs, which we buy from Meisternibs aka Edison. When we experiment with vintage and flexible nibs on the pens, we pull the JoWo nib and see if we can get a nib to work with the JoWo feed and housing. We can't buy just the feed and housing, we have to buy the whole nib unit.

[bobje]

Teri,

it's great to have you weigh in here. A question: Ranga pens sometimes come equipped with Kanwrite flex nibs. What kind of experience have you had with adapting the Kanwrite flex nibs to the Jowo feed?

[siamackz]

Forgive my ignorance, but can you explain the variables that you are trying to manipulate in the experiments.

Vent hole size seems to be one.

Vent hole position as well?

Nib shoulder seems to be a variable too but I can't understand what exactly is being manipulated here - is it shape, and if so what about it?

Is nib material one too - are you consciously trying different alloys or something?

 

Thanks for educating me on this, I am very intrigued!

[ReadyFireAim]

 

When we experiment with vintage and flexible nibs on the pens, we pull the JoWo nib and see if we can get a nib to work with the JoWo feed and housing.

 

Yep...That's what I did also.

 

The stock #6 Jowo nib unit (nib holder + feed + nib) is on the left.

The stock FPR 6.3 mm Ebonite feed is in the middle.

The modified Jowo holder, modified FPR feed and Zebra-G are on the right.

As you can see the holder has been cut off just behind the threads.

BTW...I was the one who sent the section back for you to loosen the nib unit...Thank You!

The feed has been altered to fit into the #6 Jowo with the Zebra-G.

 

The Parker #51 sac is stretched over a plastic tube where the OD provides an interference fit into the section.

The ID of the plastic tube is 4 mm and there is no surface tension ball needed.

The modification turns it into a sac-dropper?

 

I prefer the Zayante-Zebra-G over the Desiderata for a reason that requires a long explanation.

I bought the Zayante because I believed it to be the perfect candidate for the Zebra-G modification.

The results exceeded my best hopes for the pen.

Edited July 22, 2017 by Bordeaux146

[Drone]

The nib never railroaded. A conical-shaped Dremel grinder bit was used to enlarge the vent hole, which left crude workmanship. (Graphics 1 and 2).

 

Ugh, that enlarged breather hole is a mess...

 

I never use a motorized hand tool (e.g., Dremel) to do fine work like what's needed on a nib or fountain pen. They are too big and aggressive. Instead I use a custom made hand vise that is essentially a straight turned handle attached to a 3/8" drill chuck. A hand vise has far more control compared with the brutish nature of something like a Dremel tool; plus you can re-use the Dremel attachments with the hand vise.

 

Remember: Work slowly, and let the tool do the work for you - don't work the tool.

 

The closest things to my hand vise that I've seen on the market are larger hand "Pin Vise" drills. One example that goes for around $5 on ebay with free shipping is linked below. Another example is to use a quick-remove chuck as a hand-held vise. Again, see below for an example (less than $3 for two pieces). Plug the end of the removable chuck into a screwdriver handle that takes removable bits. I recommend gluing the removable chuck into the screwdriver handle permanently, otherwise the chuck may tend to rattle around a bit during use.

 

* Details about Mini Micro Aluminum Hand Drill & Keyless Chuck &10 Twist Drills Rotary Tools Set

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Mini-Micro-Aluminum-Hand-Drill-Keyless-Chuck-10-Twist-Drills-Rotary-Tools-Set-/232235404446?hash=item36124f0c9e:g:ekQAAOSwjDZYmYbR

 

 

* 2pc Electric Drill Quick Change Converter 1/4-Inch Shank Keyless Drill Bit Chuck

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/2pc-Electric-Drill-Quick-Change-Converter-1-4-Inch-Shank-Keyless-Drill-Bit-Chuck-/122347992518?hash=item1c7c8235c6:g:x7AAAOSwfVpYnGXA

 

 

Best Regards, David

[ReadyFireAim]

Forgive my ignorance, but can you explain the variables that you are trying to manipulate in the experiments.

 

All of them

 

My perfect flex pen is probably different than someone else's.

 

In order of importance...

 

1) Snap-Back The ability of the tines to close quickly and go from a wide to narrow.

2) Hairline I want a tip that will lay down a hairline or about 0.1 mm

3) Flex My pen should go from 0.1 mm to 1.5 mm for my style of writing

4) Pressure I'd like to be able to feel the difference between .1 - .4 - .6 - 1.0 - 1.5 mm as a gentle progression.

5) Wetness I like about a 7/10 on wetness but I can tolerate just about anything.

6) Smoothness I don't care if it feels like dragging a cement block down a gravel road.

7) Life My Zebra-G nibs last a week if I'm lucky so it doesn't really matter much to me.

8) Material I don't care if it's made from old outhouse nails or Grace Kelly's fillings.

 

We can manipulate any of these variables but some have an effect on others and sometimes we must compromise.

The pursuit of the perfect pen

Edited July 22, 2017 by Bordeaux146

[bobje]

Siamackz,

Great question. Vent hole placement is the variable I'm most focused on, and how this compares to previously successful falcon wing modification. Size of vent hole, exact position, shoulder width, etc. -- these are experiments for someone else. I am trying to determine if flexibility in an FPR nib can be improved by a vent hole or enlarged vent hole, and whether this mod can be performed by a layman with simple tools.

[siamackz]

Siamackz,

Great question. Vent hole placement is the variable I'm most focused on, and how this compares to previously successful falcon wing modification. Size of vent hole, exact position, shoulder width, etc. -- these are experiments for someone else. I am trying to determine if flexibility in an FPR nib can be improved by a vent hole or enlarged vent hole, and whether this mod can be performed by a layman with simple tools.

Ah, got it. thank you

[bobje]

David, really useful looking tool -- thank you for that. Even using a regular drill bit helps. I hadnt thought of a tiny jeweler's hand drill.

 

A question about the micro hand drill you pointed out on eBay. Does it operate like a yankee screwdriver, spinning the drill bit through a push-pull motion?

[Drone]

A question about the micro hand drill you pointed out on eBay. Does it operate like a yankee screwdriver, spinning the drill bit through a push-pull motion?

 

The hand vise drills I'm referring to do not work like a yankee spiral-ratchet driver. However, most of them have one freely moving part at the top of the driver (farthest from the bit), it's the knurled finial on the tool shown in the top picture of Post #68 above. That knurled knob rotates. You rest it in the palm of your hand while rotating the tool with your fingers so your palm can freely apply downward pressure. However, I find the knob to be of limited use for delicate work.

 

One more thing, I no longer use a Dremel for cutting the scallop or bite-cuts from the nib wings. I find the Dremel to be too difficult to control when trying to get precise symmetrical cuts. Instead I use a small fine half-round hand file and clean up with a very fine jeweller's round file. When all is done, I'll take carborundum paper to the work in progressively finer grits until the work is essentially polished.

 

These slow approaches using hand driven tools produce production quality results, but are time consuming. For rapid prototyping with sacrificial nibs like it seems you are doing, the Dremel is much faster. But even then, I'd still resort to the hand vise for the breather holes, which need to be a bit more precise in my opinion.

 

I've enjoyed following your progress... Regards, David

[ReadyFireAim]

Does it operate like a yankee screwdriver, spinning the drill bit through a push-pull motion?

 

Page #2 post # 24

Works great!

[bobje]

Thank you David and Bordeaux for the details on tools.

[bobje]

TEST NO. 5 -- FPR NO. 6 FLEX NIB (VENT HOLE IN CENTER POSITION)

A. WRITING RESULTS AFTER MODIFYING FLEX NIB WITH 1/16 INCH VENT HOLE, DRILLED JUST BEHIND THE SHOULDER

Click pen with no. 6 FPR flex nib, 6.3 mm standard ebonite feed

This was an attempt to repeat Test No. 3 with more successful results. The vent-hole-modified flex nib provides line variation of approximately 3x, from a line width of about 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm, with less pressure, and provides a smooth writing experience. The nib never railroaded. However, ink delivery was too wet, and attempts to move the feed backward to reduce ink flow were only partly successful. A motorized hand drill was used to create the vent hole, which improved workmanship somewhat over previous attempts (Graphic 2).

CONCLUSIONS OF TEST NO. 5

Degree of flex is improved with less pressure, but an overly wet nib/feed assembly is difficult to control with any degree of consistency. This is essential in calligraphy. Drilling a hole along the channel of the FPR feed seems to encourage too much ink flow (Graphic 1). Using the stock feed from the standard Airmail Wality feed was extremely successful, however, when combined with a similarly modified flex nib in the Airmail Wality 71J.

Graphic 1

Graphic 2

[Plexipens]

Has any one attempted to write while the paper is on a digital scale to determine quantifiable pressure and its variations? If I get to the nib modding I've several scales to try that on ...... if .........

Edited July 25, 2017 by Plexipens

[bobje]

Plexipens, great question. Both Synnove and David Nishimura have done studies to quantify flex by amount of pressure.

 

Synnove

https://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/topic/320809-my-big-fat-grail-pen/

 

David Nishimura

http://vintagepensblog.blogspot.com/2015/07/measuring-nib-flexibility.html

 

https://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/topic/293267-measuring-flexibility-a-proposal/

 

Another, on video

[Mauricio]

Has any one attempted to write while the paper is on a digital scale to determine quantifiable pressure and its variations? If I get to the nib modding I've several scales to try that on ...... if .........

 

Absolutely. Using scales to determine the flexibility of a nib has been unsuccessfully attempted for many years. While I applaud the effort for those propositions, their results have failed tremendously because they provided inaccurate measurements. They are plagued with a lack of understanding on the fact it is extremely difficult to measure pressure accurately when someone is partially holding the pens on their hands, very high chances of lack of consistency among different users, assumption of too many other involved variables, etc.

 

The main objection is the fact that when you write with a flexible nib on top of a scale, a significant part of the pressure applied to the nib rests on the fingers, hand, arm and shoulders of the user. In other words, that amount of pressure not measured by the scale can be as close to zero or as close to all of the pressure applied to that nib, solely depending on how the user is holding it. It is like weighting a 50-pound suitcase on a scale while someone is partially holding that suitcase on their hands. The suitcase weight on the scale can be as little as zero or as much as 50 pounds, solely depending on how much weight rests on the hand, arm and shoulder of the person holding the suitcase.

 

Another major issue is if you use a BB stub flex nib. Let's say the line thickness to be approx. 1.5 mm when no pressure is applied, but if you applied maximum pressure to one of these nibs, that line can become 1.5 to 3-4 mm. Are you going to consider that BB stub to be a superflex or a wet noodle nib simply because it achieved the 1.5 mm mark from its get go with zero or very little pressure applied?

 

Different flex nibs have different lengths coming out of the section of the pen. In physics, pressure is affected by the distance to which a force is applied. The longer the distance the force is applied, the higher the pressure (torque, to be more precise). This means that two flex nibs with exactly the same degree of flexibility will give two completely different flexibility reads in that proposition: The larger nibs will erroneously provide a higher flexibility solely due to the longer distance between the section of the nib and paper Vs. the short nibs which will have a much shorter distance. Likewise, two different users hold their pens at a different height on the gripping section in relation to the tip of the nib. Two different pens have a different gripping sections and heights in relation to the tipping of the nib. Each one of these variables create all sorts of inconsistencies and do not allow for accurate measurements.

 

Different papers and different inks will also offer different degree of friction and lubrication in between the nib and paper, which will affect the weight measured on the scale. This is true even when using the same nib to make these measurements. How do you maintain consistency and accuracy across the spectrum with so many folks around the world making these calculations?

 

Like the issues raised above, there are dozens of additional issues related to these proposed methodologies and each one of them raises an additional sort of inconsistencies. There is another long and older thread here in FPN where I raised many of these questions and others about these propositions, but the OP in that thread failed to answer and address those questions. I can look for that thread if you are interested.

 

Bobje,

 

I applaud your efforts to come with more flex nib options and in this thread. I thank you for your hard work and wish you much success in your endeavors!

Edited July 27, 2017 by Mauricio

[birchtine]

Mauricio, I admit that my grasp of physics may be very basic, but what you write about forces and pressure just doesn't seem to make much sense. I guess you take metaphysics for physics.