Ebonite feed vs Plastic feed

[tommym]

I replaced the plastic feed on one of my stub nibs with an ebonite feed, and it worked as advertised. It was a simple 30 second swap and resulted in a much nicer and wetter flow of ink. I love it! I got to thinking, how much of this "goodness" is actually attributed to the ebonite itself. I noticed that the various ebonite feeds were upgraded with a wider feed channel, multiple feed channels, or a combination of both.  So, I am wondering if a plastic feed with the same modifications would give the same results? The skills to do so are beyond my capabilities in any case. Any insights are appreciated.

 

Thanks,

 

Tommy

[Ron Z]

Take a look at this site, and read the series of articles on Feed Design.  Second item at the top gives a drop down menu of articles on feed design.   Good information from a guy in the industry.... 

[es9]

That’s fascinating. Does that argue for slightly roughing the underside of a nib? I’ve noticed snorkel nibs have horizontal ridges which might serve a similar function? 

[Ron Z]

I don't know.  I do have a balky feed plastic feed that I'd like to grit blast with an extremely fine abrasive to see if it makes a difference.  Nice pen, nice nib, but I had to change the feed.  Nothing to lose by trying it.

[es9]

It seems like the author found that to be the case:

 

I had noticed that roughing a nib’s reduces the surface contact angle, making the metal appear/behave more hydrophilic, photo 1, in particular, on the underside, where attractiveness is not required.

 

Maybe I’ll try it on a nib headed for scrap. I have no idea how to conduct a controlled test, however. 

[Bristol24]

  On 10/3/2022 at 6:53 PM, Ron Z said:

Take a look at this site, and read the series of articles on Feed Design.  Second item at the top gives a drop down menu of articles on feed design.   Good information from a guy in the industry.... 

Expand  

This is an exceptional site.  It's Fountain Pen University.  If one truly wants to know the physics behind the function of a fountain pen this is the place.  Thank you for reminding me of Amadeus' site.

 

Cliff

[doriath19]

Nathan Tardif of Noodlers is very opinionated about ebonite being superior. However, I remember seeing somewhere that many modern plastic feeds are engineered quite well. I don’t know enough about this to really have an opinion.  I’ve certainly had my share of plastic feeds that perform beautifully. And I also love my ebonite feeds. I’m guessing it comes down to preference.

[arcfide]

Here's the way i look at it. In terms of wettability, both plastic and ebonite are now sufficiently well understood from a scientific perspective that we have good processes for producing very wettable feeds in either material. Thus, the potential flow from either is equivalent in terms of the materials being "wettable", which is the traditional argument in favor of ebonite. 

 

However, plastic feeds have the distinct advantage that you can use injection molding and all sorts of other techniques in combination to produce much more sophisticated and finely tuned feed designs than is possible with Ebonite, for a much cheaper cost, and with much less waste, and with much less variation. This means, for instance, that you have a wider range of techniques to apply for designing a feed that will both flow well, but also not burp as readily. 

 

Now, on the other hand, plastics are not, as a rule, easy to cut or modify without ruining the feeds. The designs are more sophisticated and have tighter tolerances, making it harder to tune or adjust the feed, if it is possible at all. Ebonite feeds don't have this limitation, and while the designs might be simpler, they are also easier to modify and change. This means that you have a very real chance to tune or tweak your ebonite feed if you so choose, while you probably can't make the same range of modifications as easily with a plastic feed. 

 

I wouldn't put it past Nathan to insist that the wettability of ebonite feeds is better, and I think that can be partly true, because it isn't clear that all manufacturers use the same high-end techniques for producing the best plastic feeds in terms of surface treatment. Thus, it is very possible that there are a wide range of popular plastic feeds out there which are not as wettable as the ebonite feeds are, even if there are plenty of plastic feeds which *do* meet those criteria. However, even if Nathan is willing to acknowledge that some plastic feeds are as wettable as ebonite feeds, there is no doubt in my mind that the fact that ebonite can be hand worked, modified, and tweaked, more than compensates for any other perceived weaknesses, and Nathan would still heartily prefer ebonite over plastic for this reason alone. The entire ethos that Nathan tries to create in his Noodler's line and with respect to fountain pens in general is a sense of self-agency and choice. Want to purchase an ink that is on the bleeding edge of suitability for fountain pens? Nathan thinks you *should* be able to do this, and thus makes such inks. The idea that you would be beholden on a company in order to choose the experience you wanted to have with your pens would be so against the mores of Nathan's company that I can't imagine he would ever go for it. Thus, ebonite is pretty much the only choice for Nathan's pens, IMO. Why would Nathan create a pen that requires most people to send in the pen for service? He certainly wouldn't want that. Instead, he'd make a pen that can be serviced, and then expect the user to get good enough to service the pen himself with his standard tools around the house. And that's exactly what he has done, I think. 

 

So, while celluloid and wood and ebonite might be fundamentally inferior in some sense to modern plastics for pens, on the other hand, there are lots of qualities to recommend them nonetheless outside of the raw technical features. 

[Karmachanic]

@tommym You may find the discussion in this thread from the India section of the forum helpful:

 

 

[doriath19]

  On 10/5/2022 at 10:49 AM, Karmachanic said:

@tommym You may find the discussion in this thread from the India section of the forum helpful:

 

 

Expand  

Very interesting thread. Thanks for sharing!

[Aravind_A_2310]

  On 10/5/2022 at 10:49 AM, Karmachanic said:

@tommym You may find the discussion in this thread from the India section of the forum helpful:

 

 

Expand  

Thanks for sharing this thread... Me and many others have debated on the use of plastic or ebonite feeds on eyedroppers as a optimal choice... As per the discussions on that thread and my experiences, I'd like to give you my 2 cents...

 

"From a strictly technical and design perspective, if we take the feeds in their stock forms, then sure, modern plastic feeds can match or even exceed the performance of ebonite feeds... But when it comes to user repairability and adjustability, a trait that's sadly becoming endangered nowadays, you can't beat the versatility of ebonite... Wether is deepening or widening the channel to improve wetness, cutting fins to decrease burps, or to simply put, use another nib on your pen thats not necessarily designed for your pen, the adaptability of ebonite is what makes it a superior choice for many. Even though on a purely technical, design and cost of production perspective, plastic feeds are superior for the most part...

 

I've found that most modern eyedroppers with plastic feeds have zero burps... Thanks to their superior design. However, I've also managed to modify an ebonite feed so that an eyedropper won't burp... Now granted my hackjob won't yield nearly as good a result as properly designed plastic feeds, but the fact that you can do such a thing on an ebonite feed and get satisfactory results is what makes ebonite feeds the preferred choice for many...

 

Ultimately it's your choice, if you'd like to have a perfect experience out of the box, then a well designed plastic feed is the way to go... If you're a tinkerer trying to explore the various ways a fountain pen works and make a pen work for you, it's hard to justify not going for ebonite "

 

Hope this viewpoint gives you another perspective to look at

 

Cheers,

Aravind

[LoveBigPensAndCannotLie]

I wonder if modern feeds are overengineered. All those feeds and tiny channels, it seems like they do a lot for reducing leaking (something old ebonite feeds were notorious for) and improving drying out time by holding ink better, but they don't help with flow. It may even hinder it?

 

I recently got a Wearever Pacemaker with a gold nib and one of their later clear plastic feeds. It's extremely basic and doesn't "hold" ink as well as modern feeds (i.e., way more prone to leaking if you jolt it) but it has better flow than any modern feed I've used. The nib is semi-flex and I can reliably flex it without starving the feed if I go at a reasonable speed, I've not been able to do that with any modern pens with plastic feeds. I don't think the nib itself is special in any way, it's not like Wearever had a reputation for high quality flex nibs.

 

And on the other hand, my Sheaffer pens with the "new and improved" comb feed from the late 1930's, early 1940's - those are comparatively dry. They are not as advanced as modern plastic feeds but they do have a ton of fins and more advanced ink channels compared to earlier more basic ebonite feeds. I haven't really had flow issues with them but writing with them feels a lot more like writing with a modern pen in terms of the ink flow experience.

 

So in short, and I am definitely pulling this out of my ass based on just my limited personal experiences, I think modern feeds can be made as wet (or nearly, not quite) as vintage ebonite feeds, but they're intentionally engineered to be "safer" writers. So, drier, better ink retention (but worse flow), less burping, etc. 

[arcfide]

  On 10/5/2022 at 4:12 PM, LoveBigPensAndCannotLie said:

I wonder if modern feeds are overengineered.

Expand  

 

I think we are so used to relatively high performance in terms of "leaking and burping" from many modern makers that we forget what the "old times" were like. I have relatives that talk about how they couldn't use their favorite fountain pens in various conditions because of all the leaking and burping. However, I've never had to worry about that. I can pretty much use my fountain pen wherever I want and with great impunity. 

 

I think it's easy to under appreciate a situation when it works so well to make things *not* go wrong, and thus, create a more boring, stable, predictable environment. 

[LoveBigPensAndCannotLie]

  On 10/6/2022 at 7:53 AM, arcfide said:

 

I think we are so used to relatively high performance in terms of "leaking and burping" from many modern makers that we forget what the "old times" were like. I have relatives that talk about how they couldn't use their favorite fountain pens in various conditions because of all the leaking and burping. However, I've never had to worry about that. I can pretty much use my fountain pen wherever I want and with great impunity. 

 

I think it's easy to under appreciate a situation when it works so well to make things *not* go wrong, and thus, create a more boring, stable, predictable environment. 

Expand  

 

Not sure I agree, I've never had significant issues with leaking or burping with my vintage pens and I use pens from the 1920's and 1930's regularly. They do leak into the cap a little more than modern pens which is a little annoying but I haven't had issues writing with them.

 

"Newer" pens from the 1950's/1960's (the Lamy 2000 hasn't changed much since its inception at all and that came out in the mid 60's) onwards have relatively modern feed designs and don't leak at all... I am a little curious what pens your relatives were using, they must have been using eyedroppers or very very old pens indeed.

 

My Pilot Metropolitan was one of my first fountain pen and still one of my favorites (nib punches far above its weight imo), but it's far leakier than any vintage pen I've ever used, and that's certainly not a vintage pen.

[Tony1951]

  On 10/3/2022 at 6:53 PM, Ron Z said:

Take a look at this site, and read the series of articles on Feed Design.  Second item at the top gives a drop down menu of articles on feed design.   Good information from a guy in the industry.... 

Expand  

Thank you Ron for posting this link. 

 

What an absolute feast of technical information that link leads to. I have spent a good while reading that site already and there is far more than I have got to already.

 

[Bo Bo Olson]

From reading Penengnieers blog....Ebonite is sawn, so is rougher (holding more ink) than pressed plastic.

PenEngineer was responsible for the acid bath making Lamy feeds rougher......if one looks at the bottom....(oddly never needed to take a Lamy nib off the feed so don't know how the top looks)..........but the Safari and Persona I have, look ever so '20's with no side, much less bottom combs. The combs slow down ink flow, on other brands.........

(Don't remember how the feed  my '50-60's Lamy 27  looked. It was in my hands for a vary short time, in I don't care for nails.)

So acid roughening seems to work very well, at holding ink.

It is possible that ebonite is even better than Lamy at being wet.

Many folks love ebonite.

I've been lucky and half of my pens are pre'70 German pens, so ebonite.  So I don't 'notice' how good ebonite is or how 'poor' pressed plastic with enough combs is.

Nor do I look for it; because of owning many ebonite feed pens, don't even think about it. 

If I had fewer ebonite feed pens, I'd notice it more.