Pigment Black ink that is pigment only, no dyes?

[arcfide]

It is also worth noting that Cellulose Reactive dyes are a real thing:

 

Reactive dye - Wikipedia

[Gomer]

10 hours ago, arcfide said:

 

Have you done this with Pilot's Blue Black ink as well? I would be interested to know if there is any pigment in it, since they also claim to use Cellulose Reactive ink in their formulation. 

I'm new to fountain pens.  My collection of inks is small, and doesn't include any Pilot ink.  And, I know that cellulose reactive dyes are a real thing.  Noodler's black was one of the first inks I bought, based on recommendations and price.  I could see the bottle was filled to the top, so I transferred it with a glass eyedropper.  Afterwards, I noticed a black film in the dropper.  I tried rinsing with water and it was still there.  I tried household spray cleaner and even straight ammonia and there was still some film.  I had to physically swab it out.  I figured if this was true for a glass eyedropper, it would also be true in my pens.

 

So, I became interested in what the film was and out came the microscope.  It was obvious that it was a pigmented ink, most likely carbon black.

[Karmachanic]

Sorry.  Don't recall where I found this:

 

 

 

[TSherbs]

15 hours ago, Gomer said:

Noodler's black is nothing more than a pigmented black ink.  

 

I'm just not convinced that this is true merely because it has a different looking paper towel spread and looks clear under a microscope. That's why I asked, what does Noodler's claim. I'm not sure that these two "tests" mean that there is no dye at all. I don't even really care, but I also think it's important to know what the manufacturer states. 

[Gomer]

1 hour ago, TSherbs said:

 

I'm just not convinced that this is true merely because it has a different looking paper towel spread and looks clear under a microscope. That's why I asked, what does Noodler's claim. I'm not sure that these two "tests" mean that there is no dye at all. I don't even really care, but I also think it's important to know what the manufacturer states. 

I don't really care if I convince you.  I just stated what I found.  You can do your own research on what Noodler's claims.  I was responding to a statement by another poster.  Make of it what you will.

[TSherbs]

1 hour ago, Gomer said:

 You can do your own research on what Noodler's claims. 

 

I think that I will.

[TSherbs]

17 minutes ago, TSherbs said:

 

I think that I will.

I just wrote Gouletpens a product question about it, and I sent a query about it to Luxury Brands USA, their American distributor (I guess). 

[TSherbs]

The landing page for noodlersink.com leads to this comment about their bulletproof inks: 

Quote

The waterproof/fraud proof line cannot be altered on a check or envelope by rain or bleach/ammonia. They consist of over 97% water content…and rinse (or simply rub) off lucite/celluloid/acrylic rod stock testing and ebonite testing stock…and if dried in the bottle it can be reconstituted with tap water…but once on cellulose paper they stay on it as a bulldog biting the leg of the enemy despite rain/soaking and the soaps of a check forger. One word of caution – if mixed with conventional ink the fraud proof ink WILL REVERT TO CONVENTIONAL INK and all those properties will be lost. It is a delicate formula best left alone if one wants the features to remain constant.

 

That last part is curious to me, but I don't know what bearing it would have on whether the original Black has any dye in it or not.

[TSherbs]

It's my understanding that pigments do not actually bind to the substrates (and dyes do), so this language on the distributor site seems to suggest the behavior of a dye. But maybe Mr. Tardif found a way to bond a pigment to the substrate. I'll see what I hear back. 

[dipper]

11 years ago Bruan Goulet said the Noodlers Black is dye based.

See at 7min 30sec in this review video.

Brian also mentions that Noodlers Black is not easy to clean out from inside a pen. It tends to "hang around".

[TSherbs]

Thanks for posting that. Yes, BG calls it a dye based ink (as opposed to the other pigment inks in the same shot). We'll see what gouletpens responds to my query more specifically. 

[Gomer]

1 hour ago, TSherbs said:

It's my understanding that pigments do not actually bind to the substrates (and dyes do), so this language on the distributor site seems to suggest the behavior of a dye. But maybe Mr. Tardif found a way to bond a pigment to the substrate. I'll see what I hear back. 

Did you ever get soot on your hands?  It's hard to wash off.  It's really really fine.  Consider the black ink used by Japanese calligraphers.  They rub a carbon block with a little binder of some sort against a rock and mix with water.  It seems to hold up pretty well.  Consider also that other ink manufacturers that advertise their black inks as pigmented must have found a way to make it bind.

 

Black is not a color.  For something to appear black it has to absorb most wavelengths of visible light.  Some forms of carbon are pretty good at that.  That's why carbon black is commonly used as a colorant.  Dyes have been developed that absorb some wavelengths.  You can mix them and get something that appears pretty black.  Maybe we have a chemist on the forum who can correct me, but I doubt that there is a dye that is truly black.  If there were, surely some of the big ink companies would be using it rather than mixing colors.  Of course, maybe they do and I'm just ignorant of it.

 

If you looked at a dye based ink under a microscope, you wouldn't see little specks of color.  No matter the magnification, it would appear smooth.  You can't see the individual molecules of dye.  They are way too small.

[arcfide]

40 minutes ago, Gomer said:

If you looked at a dye based ink under a microscope, you wouldn't see little specks of color.  No matter the magnification, it would appear smooth.  You can't see the individual molecules of dye.  They are way too small.

 

This just isn't true. If you look at the work @LizEF has done to record interesting microscopy of various inks, most of which are water soluble dyes, you'll see that very often they show particulate of various shapes and sizes and they are very often not smooth in color or texture. Many of them are relatively smooth in appearance and boring, but definitely not all of them, even those that show color in the "smooth" areas. 

[TSherbs]

52 minutes ago, Gomer said:

 

If you looked at a dye based ink under a microscope, you wouldn't see little specks of color.  No matter the magnification, it would appear smooth.  You can't see the individual molecules of dye.  They are way too small.

 

Interesting claims. Does dye in ink actually break down to a *molecular* level? I don't know, but for your statement to be accurate, the answer must be "yes."

 

Like I said, I have written to Gouletpens and to Noodler's for their responses. I will post here what I get back. 

[TSherbs]

16 minutes ago, arcfide said:

 

This just isn't true. If you look at the work @LizEF has done to record interesting microscopy of various inks, most of which are water soluble dyes, you'll see that very often they show particulate of various shapes and sizes and they are very often not smooth in color or texture. Many of them are relatively smooth in appearance and boring, but definitely not all of them, even those that show color in the "smooth" areas. 

I forgot about those. Some interesting images, for sure. 

[LizEF]

23 minutes ago, arcfide said:

This just isn't true. If you look at the work @LizEF has done to record interesting microscopy of various inks, most of which are water soluble dyes, you'll see that very often they show particulate of various shapes and sizes and they are very often not smooth in color or texture. Many of them are relatively smooth in appearance and boring, but definitely not all of them, even those that show color in the "smooth" areas. 

When I first saw this thread, I went back and looked at my microscope picture of Pilot Black.  There are two.  They're awful.   As I recall, I couldn't get much of anything in focus at once - the layer was too thick.  I do still have a cartridge of it, so maybe one day I'll try to get a better image.  But, there were "specs" scattered throughout.  Noodler's Black is yet to come (I have a sample, but it hasn't been voted to the top of the list yet).

 

And yes, inks that claim nothing but dye can have some really complex patterns in them.  Here are two of my favorites:

 

Monteverde Moonstone @ 400x:

 

Pennonia Zöldike:

 

As far as I know, these are just dye-based inks.

[Gomer]

Those structures are really strange, but beautiful.  I wonder what could cause fibers like that.  Could there be some sort of chemical reaction going on?  Dyes are commonly used in microscopy to stain specimens and bring out details.

[LizEF]

17 minutes ago, Gomer said:

Those structures are really strange, but beautiful.  I wonder what could cause fibers like that.  Could there be some sort of chemical reaction going on?  Dyes are commonly used in microscopy to stain specimens and bring out details.

No idea what's going on, but what we're seeing are the inks as I received them - no contamination.  I doubt they are fibers so much as patterns - chemical bonds that form shapes.  A lot of (other) inks form geometric structures - squares, spikes, and snowflake patterns - clearly chemical bonds happening there.  Most inks aren't anywhere near this interesting, even the ones that are interesting.

 

Some pigment inks have an obvious "sandy" appearance, like silt in a river delta.  Not sure that all pigment inks have that, since I haven't done that many.  Iron gall inks seem to have dark particles "peppered" throughout.

[arcfide]

I also wonder how much of this is related to inks that are in the process of drying out or, in the case of iron gall inks, oxidizing, versus their "pure" state. 

[Gomer]

@LizEF  I'd like to make sure we are doing the same thing.  Are your photos taken wet under a cover slip or dry?  I want to look at a few more of my small selection of inks.  Maybe I will see some of the weird patterns you found.

 

Thanks