Inky Terminology

[TheDutchGuy]

12 minutes ago, A Smug Dill said:

Controlling the volume of ink is what would be difficult, especially when we only want a tiny volume.

 

Not at all (<—link). A 1mL one would be usabe.One has to learn how to use them correctly, which is easy and Google is our friend. For highly precise smaller volumes, even _much_ smaller ones, there are adjustable devices out there.

[A Smug Dill]

19 minutes ago, LizEF said:

But how do you measure the result?

 

You don't. All you or I would be doing is eyeballing the result for the physical spread and colour intensity, and make a very loose comparison against the results obtained with other inks, so put them on a less-saturated to more-saturated continuum (as opposed to a calibrated, uniformly spaced scale) relative to each other.

 

A low dye load of an intensely black dye will stay densely together at the top of the ‘column’ once the strip has been removed from the solvent, whereas a high dye load of a less intense colour may look similar to that while being pushed along the strip by the solvent while still partially submerged, but at the top of the column I'd expect to see more lateral/radial spread showing the dye's true colour.

 

16 minutes ago, TheDutchGuy said:

A 1mL one would be usabe.

 

Considering that a short ink cartridge holds ~0.75 ml of ink, we'd probably be looking at depositing a ink volume in the order of magnitude of 1 μl, and surface tension would be a problem one has to contend with.

[LizEF]

9 hours ago, A Smug Dill said:

All you or I would be doing is eyeballing the result for the physical spread and colour intensity, and make a very loose comparison against the results obtained with other inks, so put them on a less-saturated to more-saturated continuum (as opposed to a calibrated, uniformly spaced scale) relative to each other.

OK, that's what I figured, but wasn't sure if I was missing something.  This method would be easier and faster for the average reviewer, wouldn't require the sacrifice of as much ink, and would result in something that many of us find at least interesting if not useful (the chromatogram).

 

As to consistent volume and various options for pipetting, having spent just shy of 20 years working at a microbiological testing laboratory, I happen to know two things: 1) pipetters had to be calibrated per user (aka a person with university and job-training in this task) per day, and 2) per the lab director, it wasn't really the pipetter being calibrated - the user's ability to pipette accurately was being tested and documented.   Given these two facts, I'm thinking it might be tough to get ink reviewers properly calibrated....  (Of course, if we're eyeballing anyway, are we sure it's needed?  These pipettes happen to fit nicely into the opening of a standard international cartridge or converter, and it would be pretty easy to suck up a tiny amount of ink and let one drop out onto the filter paper...)

[A Smug Dill]

4 minutes ago, LizEF said:

it would be pretty easy to suck up a tiny amount of ink and let one drop out onto the filter paper...

 

The problem is that one drop that is heavy enough to fall from its own weight would be too much ink for a ~10cm long strip of filter paper I typically use, and surface tension of the particular ink will make a difference how large that drop would be. If, on the other hand, you mean a drop as in an almost spherical body of liquid — such that its volume can be approximately calculated from its diameter —  still clinging to the tip of the pipette, which you then touch to the filter paper, then wouldn't some of the liquid immediately inside the pipette at the rim also be drawn out and change the total volume of ink deposited?

 

9 minutes ago, LizEF said:

I'm thinking it might be tough to get ink reviewers properly calibrated....  (Of course, if we're eyeballing anyway, are we sure it's needed?

 

Well, we are trying to make an (albeit relative) assessment of dye load. A 50% larger drop of ink would contain more dye if they were just two trials with the same ink; and we wouldn't want to conclude that the ink used in the second trial has a higher dye load and is thus significantly more saturated than the ink used in the first trial, right?

[LizEF]

5 minutes ago, A Smug Dill said:

surface tension of the particular ink will make a difference how large that drop would be

This part I considered.

 

6 minutes ago, A Smug Dill said:

one drop that is heavy enough to fall from its own weight would be too much ink

This part I haven't tested and therefore wasn't sure either way - one drop from that particular pipette is awfully small (which isn't to say it's not too large, just that I didn't know either way).

 

8 minutes ago, A Smug Dill said:

Well, we are trying to make an (albeit relative) assessment of dye load. A 50% larger drop of ink would contain more dye if they were just two trials with the same ink; and we wouldn't want to conclude that the ink used in the second trial has a higher dye load and is thus significantly more saturated than the ink used in the first trial, right?

While we want things to be accurate, there's also the reality of whether we can reasonably expect any ink reviewer to do the things required to be accurate.  And if not, is close enough good enough?  It seems all we can do is the potential reviewer what the options are, the flaws and demands of each option, and leave it to them whether to be consistent and accurate, as well as whether to do it at all.

 

We might run into the occasional nerd with too much time and money (e.g. An Ink Guy) who will go to great lengths to produce accurate and at least semi-scientific results, but I kinda doubt it.

 

Still, we now have two potential methods of evaluating dye load type saturation and any given reviewer can decide whether to use them at all and to what extent to go to be consistent and accurate.

 

Or we just require ink reviewers to buy a micropipette and tips... 

[A Smug Dill]

1 minute ago, LizEF said:

While we want things to be accurate, there's also the reality of whether we can reasonably expect any ink reviewer to do the things required to be accurate.

 

Not so much accurate as methodologically consistent, if relative comparisons is to be made trial after trial between inks, I think.

[LizEF]

1 minute ago, A Smug Dill said:

 

Not so much accurate as methodologically consistent, if relative comparisons is to be made trial after trial between inks, I think.

I'm liking the micropipette idea more and more. And chromatography paper - cheaper to buy a 100m roll......

[I-am-not-really-here]

In my opinion, when ink reviews become lab experiments then we are lost.

 

 

[LizEF]

1 hour ago, I-am-not-really-here said:

In my opinion, when ink reviews become lab experiments then we are lost.

  Yeah, I'm not terribly serious beyond documenting that one really could do this kind of testing, if one wanted.  Who knows, there may be someone out there who's spent their whole life wanting a micropipette and they just didn't know it!   Or maybe some high-school FP-fanatic will turn into a college chemistry student after realizing their college training could turn them into the world's most precise and accurate ink reviewer!  They could be famous for decades to come!  Unmatched in the FP ink review community!  And all because curiosity forced them to figure out what that weird-looking thing does!   When they're old and grey, people will still be saying, "Sure, it's a good review, but it's no J. Jones review!"  (Where "J. Jones" is intended as a placeholder for the name of our future reviewer extraordinaire.)

 

 

 

 

(I went a little too far, didn't I?  Ah well, back into my head I go.  No one ever complains about going too far in there...)

[I-am-not-really-here]

8 minutes ago, LizEF said:

  Yeah, I'm not terribly serious beyond documenting that one really could do this kind of testing, if one wanted.  Who knows, there may be someone out there who's spent their whole life wanting a micropipette and they just didn't know it!   Or maybe some high-school FP-fanatic will turn into a college chemistry student after realizing their college training could turn them into the world's most precise and accurate ink reviewer!  They could be famous for decades to come!  Unmatched in the FP ink review community!  And all because curiosity forced them to figure out what that weird-looking thing does!   When they're old and grey, people will still be saying, "Sure, it's a good review, but it's no J. Jones review!"  (Where "J. Jones" is intended as a placeholder for the name of our future reviewer extraordinaire.)

 

 

 

 

(I went a little too far, didn't I?  Ah well, back into my head I go.  No one ever complains about going too far in there...)

Hmmm, sometime back I bought an inexpensive mechanical adjustable pipette (0.1 microliter to 2.5 microliter) for the intent of ink mixing, because my brain said "eyedropper?  where's the consistency and control over how much volume a 'drop' is??" but I've never used it.  
 

 

 

[LizEF]

28 minutes ago, I-am-not-really-here said:

Hmmm, sometime back I bought an inexpensive mechanical adjustable pipette (0.1 microliter to 2.5 microliter) for the intent of ink mixing, because my brain said "eyedropper?  where's the consistency and control over how much volume a 'drop' is??" but I've never used it. 

Now's your chance!  Grab the fame while it's still up for grabs!  You could be our J. Jones!  😈

[I-am-not-really-here]

I respectfully decline.

 

For less than $50 you can buy your own mechanical pipette.  Then realize (or maybe you know this already from prior work history) that the pipette is only the beginning.  There are pipette tips to get.  And then you are caught in another money trap.  Pens, ink, paper, and Pipettes!
 

Or buy an autoclave for extra bragging rights.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[LizEF]

27 minutes ago, I-am-not-really-here said:

Or buy an autoclave for extra bragging rights.

Go big or go home!!

[A Smug Dill]

10 hours ago, I-am-not-really-here said:

In my opinion, when ink reviews become lab experiments then we are lost.

 

I dunno. After going over this, interactively with others as well as introspectively with myself, again and again over the past couple of years, I think the information content (as opposed to selection of ink for review) of a particular reviewer's ink reviews boils down to two simple lines of inquiry: what he/she wants to know about an ink for his/her own purposes (in actual applications putting pen to paper, or to compile an information library for future reference), and what he/she wants to show and/or tell others about an ink, which may vary from ink to ink. There is, of course, significant overlap between them, and while generally the former would constrain the latter, although I'm sure there are some reviewers who look into aspects that don't interest themselves as ink users all that much but their readership (or target audience, or ‘followers’) are keen to know.

 

Perhaps sometimes what a reviewer personally wants to know about an ink requires ‘lab work’ to identify, assess or capture. I don't see how that would cause them, or ‘us’, to be lost. After all, an ink review is primarily about the ink as a product or thing, not so much the reviewer himself/herself and much less the faceless reader; and I personally don't think producing and publishing a product review is about either communicating joy or fostering it in fellow pen-and-ink users, although of course if one doesn't enjoy exploration and inquiry than one won't continue to do ink reviews when it isn't the manner of one's employment for material reward.

[bunnspecial]

On more or less a daily basis, I handle, measure, and delivery µL volumes of liquids using a syringe.

 

A Hamilton 80300 is a super common tool for this kind of work. It's not as convenient as a mechanical pipette, but should be more repeatable and accurate.

 

I have used syringes with total volumes of .5µL, and the general rule of thumb I learned was that a syringe can be used repeatably to deliver a volume 1/10 its marked volume. These size syringes get pricey, though. At my last job, in one particular lab, there were usually about 8 of the 80300 10µL syringes out, which were our standard one(4 out on the bench and 2-4 spares). The ones smaller and larger than that stayed in a cabinet in my office.

[LizEF]

2 hours ago, bunnspecial said:

On more or less a daily basis, I handle, measure, and delivery µL volumes of liquids using a syringe.

 

A Hamilton 80300 is a super common tool for this kind of work. It's not as convenient as a mechanical pipette, but should be more repeatable and accurate.

 

I have used syringes with total volumes of .5µL, and the general rule of thumb I learned was that a syringe can be used repeatably to deliver a volume 1/10 its marked volume. These size syringes get pricey, though. At my last job, in one particular lab, there were usually about 8 of the 80300 10µL syringes out, which were our standard one(4 out on the bench and 2-4 spares). The ones smaller and larger than that stayed in a cabinet in my office.

Excellent!  Now I'm envisioning an assembly line review process.   We'll assign you to do our chromatography.  An Ink Guy will do flow.  Someone with exceptional color perception and Adobe subscriptions and a massive calibrated monitor and an absurdly high-end camera will do our digitization.  Let's see, who are we lacking....?  A dry-timer. Someone to test the lubrication.  (Is anyone else feeling a need for something more scientific here, now?)  A calligrapher, or several.  An artist.  A check-washer / forger (to test bullet-proofness and such) - can people in prison test inks?   (Maybe we should go with MIT students instead...)  What am I missing?

[bunnspecial]

3 minutes ago, LizEF said:

Excellent!  Now I'm envisioning an assembly line review process.   We'll assign you to do our chromatography.  An Ink Guy will do flow.  Someone with exceptional color perception and Adobe subscriptions and a massive calibrated monitor and an absurdly high-end camera will do our digitization.  Let's see, who are we lacking....?  A dry-timer. Someone to test the lubrication.  (Is anyone else feeling a need for something more scientific here, now?)  A calligrapher, or several.  An artist.  A check-washer / forger (to test bullet-proofness and such) - can people in prison test inks?   (Maybe we should go with MIT students instead...)  What am I missing?

 

Hey, no arguments from me on that assignment! I've taught semester long courses on chromatography before.

 

I'm pulling some strings now and am hoping to have an HPLC donated to my work in the next few months. There are some good uses for it, but for check out and familiarization, I'm seeing some ink samples in its future.

[LizEF]

7 minutes ago, bunnspecial said:

I'm pulling some strings now and am hoping to have an HPLC donated to my work in the next few months. There are some good uses for it, but for check out and familiarization, I'm seeing some ink samples in its future.

Sweet!

[bunnspecial]

If it amounts to anything, I've tried to do a bit of GC-MS work on looking at volatiles in inks. It probably won't tell me much, but I have seen a few dyes.

 

I'll say that with the caveat that I just that one back online a few weeks ago, and my first few ink samples were done when I was trying to track down some other issues with it that were giving me a really nasty baseline. Fortunately it's cleaned up a whole lot, and I can probably see more on it.

This is the culmination of work since August, admittedly only in some spare time here and there and also with about a 3 month gap November-January when they basically shut us down almost completely again. I know these decently well, but that also involved some circuit board level repair and on the mass spectrometer some things in the manual that basically said "Don't ever under any circumstance consider doing this unless you never want it to work again. If you have to do it, have one of our guys come and do it for you." I was at the point of "what the heck, I don't have anything to lose" and it came to life. 

 

Sorry to ramble, but if you can't tell, chromatography is really a pet topic of mine. I learned a lot about it as an undergrad(by taking an interest and getting to learn some nuts-and-bolts) then ended up doing a whole lot of it getting my master's degree. For several years, this stuff was quite literally my full time job(not just instrument maintenance but also experiment design, training, and consultation for other users) and I've also have an active but very slow right now small business maintaining, servicing, and training these things. I'm at a school now that has a tiny budget relatively speaking but where I can make an argument that we're doing our students a disservice by not getting them hands on experience in this stuff.

[LizEF]

24 minutes ago, bunnspecial said:

...Sorry to ramble, but...

  No worries.  Your photos brought back memories of the I-Chem lab (instrument chemistry) where I used to work.  (I was in IT, not the lab, but I designed apps for the lab to record their data and to automatically generate the needed reports to the customer, so I learned quite a bit about their work - though more the microbiology side than the chemistry stuff.)