Wetness Kaweco vs Diamine blacks

[Nightjar]

I like Kaweco "Pearl Black", I think it's a blacker denser black then my other inks, Diamine "Jet Black" and Pelikan "Brilliant Black".

 

However, the Kaweco is too wet for some pens (swamps the line), and in these cases the Diamine works much better.

 

Which is sort of surprising, because various sources online seem to suggest that the Diamine is wetter than the Kaweco. My own experience is the other way round, is there some explanation for this?

 

I've just got the Pelikan, reportedly dry, though I haven't tested carefully yet.

 

[LizEF]

Several thoughts:

 

First, I think "wetness" (or flow) is the most poorly understood and least consistently evaluated ink property.  The only two sources I would trust for this property are An Ink Guy on YouTube and @InesF here - who did such serious scientific measurements that it ended up as a published paper.  If the two disagree (such as with Pelikan Edelstein Tanzanite), I go with what Ines says.

 

Second, line width is not guaranteed to directly correspond with ink flow.  While generally speaking, dry inks will write a finer line, that does not appear to be the only factor in determining line width.  My own shared ink spreadsheet includes line width measurements (measured via a microscope) and may help you find a black ink that writes a very fine line (which may or may not be a very dry ink.  Just for fun, here are all the black inks I've reviewed, from finest line to widest.  The number is the line width in microns (put a . in front for mm), which is only valid for my pen and paper, but it gives you an idea of the relative widths:

• 245    Lamy Black
• 248    Nemosine Black (unobtainium)
• 248    Platinum Chou Kuro
• 262    Noodler's Raven Black
• 263    Noodler's X-Feather Black
• 270    Sailor Black
• 276    Graf von Faber-Castell Carbon Black
• 276    Ohto Black
• 279    Rohrer & Klingner Leipziger Schwarz
• 280    Noodler's Heart of Darkness
• 281    Rotring Brillant (Black)
• 283    De Atramentis Archive Ink
• 287    Aurora Black
• 288    Diamine Night Sky
• 290    Diamine Jet Black
• 292    Pilot Mixable Colour Black
• 296    De Atramentis Document Black 2
• 300    Pelikan 4001 Brilliant Black
• 300    Waterman Intense Black
• 305    Koh-I-Noor Document Black
• 306    Sailor Kiwaguro
• 312    Cross Black
• 315    Platinum Black
• 318    Jinhao Black
• 320    Kaweco Pearl Black
• 320    Private Reserve Infinity Black
• 325    Sheaffer Skrip Black
• 326    Rohrer & Klingner Ebony
• 330    Pilot Black
• 330    Platinum Carbon Black
• 335    Herbin Perle Noire
• 340    Noodler's Borealis Black
• 352    Rohrer & Klingner Document Black
• 355    Noodler's Black

Hope that helps!

[Nightjar]

Wow, that's a fascinating and helpful response @LizEF, thank you so much!

 

Your fabulous data confirm my own unscientific experience that Kaweco "Pearl Black" gives a fatter line than Diamine "Jet Black": I'm not mad after all! [Though interestingly, neither ink is at the extremes of your tested range: if we consider Lamy Black as "0% = very fine" and Noodler's Black as "100% = very fat", then the Diamine is at 41% and the Kaweco at 68%.]

 

On the wider issue: I'd guess (?) that what we perceive as "wetness" (of different inks in same pen on same paper) will depend on multiple things perhaps including line thickness, glossiness, and flow rate (volume/time). And we will perhaps each perceive "wetness" in different ways (some influenced more by line thickness, some more by glossy wet appearance, etc).

 

Entirely plausible that line width is much more affected by surface tension than by viscosity. Superb science by you and Inés, wow!

 

But is it really the case that flow rate (ink reaching paper, volume/time) doesn't vary substantially between pens of same [nominal or actual] nib width? Nor between different inks in same pen? This seems harder to swallow... though recognising that you and Inés have done rigorous experiments, I haven't!

 

Thanks again Liz, that's really fascinating, response massively appreciated!

 

Edited 14 hours ago by Nightjar
Added some perhapses!

[LizEF]

1 hour ago, Nightjar said:

Wow, that's a fascinating and helpful response @LizEF, thank you so much!

You're welcome!

 

1 hour ago, Nightjar said:

I'm not mad after all!

Nope!  There's a distinct difference between them.

 

1 hour ago, Nightjar said:

On the wider issue: I'd guess (?) that what we perceive as "wetness" (of different inks in same pen on same paper) will depend on multiple things including line thickness, glossiness, and flow rate (volume/time). And we will perhaps each perceive it in different ways (some influenced more by line thickness, some more by glossy wet appearance, etc).

Perception of wetness is definitely a very different thing from "flow rate".  IMO, "flow rate" is the relevant factor that people want to know (how readily will this ink flow from my pen with too-tight tines and stingy feed channels?).  Unfortunately, what we often get is the visual perception of wetness, or the tactile perception of lubrication - and both of those are misleading when it comes to the flow rate.  Glossiness (once an ink is "dry") would be another form of deception altogether and I have no idea whether it relates at all to the reality of flow rate.

 

Some conclusions I have drawn (not entirely certain they're correct, but I think they are):

• Dry inks look wetter than wet inks.  That is, the high surface tension keeps a "bead" of ink piled atop the page and visibly "wet" for longer, whereas a low surface tension leads to the ink spreading out and soaking in (and chemically reacting over a larger area and therefore presumably faster) and therefore looking dry sooner.
• Dry inks take longer to dry (on the same principle as above).
• A lot of reviewers say an ink is wet if it looks wet, rather than if it flows rapidly from the pen (which they could only measure in some more scientific way rather than by simply looking at ink on paper).  This is what I did in the beginning, which means my "flow" evaluations are bad in the beginning (but have improved over time and are now as accurate as they're going to get).  You have to evaluate many reviews from a reviewer to figure out if this is what they're doing, and if it is, it probably means that their "wet" inks are actually dry, and their "dry" inks are actually wet...
• Lubrication plays into all this in two ways.  First is that many reviewers will assume that if an ink makes their nib feel smoother, the ink is wet.  Certainly, the more ink you have under your nib, the more lubricated it's going to feel, all else being equal.  But flow rate and lubrication are not the same thing and do not necessarily go together.  Dry inks can be lubricated, and wet inks can have horrible lubrication.  But those are the exceptions, I think.  Usually, wetter inks do tend to be better lubricating and dry inks not as lubricating.
• The second way lubrication plays is that question of how lubricants impact the ink in ways other than providing lubrication between nib and paper.  I remember someone somewhere on FPN suggesting that (some?) lubricants may in fact reduce flow rate (presumably either by increasing surface tension or viscosity) - but this was an untested theory.  Lubrication may also impact the appearance of "wetness" - this is just a theory of mine, but lubricants are often "shiny" and may add to the shiny, wet look of ink.

FWIW, I now measure flow using the following:

• Data from Ines
• Data from An Ink Guy
• Observation of how rapidly ink gets used up in my review pen
• Line width
• Dry time
• Appearance (looking for it not to appear wet for long)
• Evaluations from other reviewers
• ETA: Behavior of the ink in the sample vial - does it cling to the walls (assumed lower surface tension) or does it quickly bead together (assume higher surface tension). I'm sure there's more to this than surface tension, but I consider it along with the other factors.

The combination of those things (especially in the absence of the first two) are considered as a whole.  Secret tip: in the absence of those first two, especially if the other observations don't seem conclusive, instead of saying in my review "flow is a little wet", I will say, "flow seems a little wet".  I throw "seems" in there as my indicator that it's my impression and less certain than when I can get data from the scientists.    (I can't guarantee I've always done that since adopting above technique, but I try to.)  I justify being rather indifferent to flow by the fact that a Japanese EF nib really doesn't care - it's so un-demanding that even dry inks are fine in it.

 

And just in case you haven't fallen asleep, I'll add my newest theory: People often suggest a dry ink for a wet pen and a wet ink for a dry pen.  My latest theory (based on my newest ink, which I think is absurdly dry), is that a dry ink can be just fine for a pen with a fine enough nib, even with dry flow, and be too dry for a wet pen (even with a somewhat fine nib)!  That is, the wet pen is trying to dump out gallons of ink and the ink refuses to give gallons and so the wet pen runs dry or refuses to keep up with the writing.

 

So, if you want to "tame" your firehose of a pen, you may find that it's not the driest ink on the planet that you want, but rather one that's just "on the dry side".  And you may find that to get that absurdly dry ink to flow well, what you need is not a wetter pen, but a pen that doesn't demand a high flow rate.

 

1 hour ago, Nightjar said:

Entirely plausible that line width is much more affected by surface tension than by viscosity.

Instinctively, this seems correct - obvious, even.  However, I'm not convinced it's the only factor, since there are inks that seem to have a high flow rate (low surface tension) and yet form a wider line - and I don't know why.  I don't even know whether it's just that the inks seem wet or whether they actually are...

 

1 hour ago, Nightjar said:

Superb science by you and Inés, wow!

Indeed!

 

1 hour ago, Nightjar said:

But is it really the case that flow rate (ink reaching paper, volume/time) doesn't vary substantially between pens of same [nominal or actual] nib width? Nor between different inks in same pen? This seems harder to swallow... though recognising that you and Inés have done rigorous experiments, I haven't!

All experiments were done by Ines.  I was just trying to keep up and comprehend at some level.

 

I believe that there are multiple factors at play: first, the ink itself does have a flow rate (or attributes that are used to measure flow rate) independent of the pen.  But the pen also has various measurable attributes which impact the flow of ink - dimensions and number of ink and air channels, tightness of tines and other "fits", materials used and the "finish" (polish) of those materials, etc.  And so I assume a pen can constrain an ink or not - in other words, I don't think a given ink's rate of flow across pens is a constant.  But I'm not entirely certain of that - I definitely don't have the education for this stuff.

 

1 hour ago, Nightjar said:

Thanks again Liz, that's really fascinating, response massively appreciated!

You're very welcome!  I'm now looking forward to the scientists coming to correct all my mistakes and mistaken ideas!

[Nightjar]

I'm not going to attempt any sort of reasoned reply, this is getting out of my league... just to say that your area of research is fascinating, and your knowledge spectacular. Long story short, I'm sure you're right: multiple factors at play, multiple careful definitions and careful experiments required to really understand what's going on. Perhaps one day I will get some Lamy Black and some Noodler's Black. I might even dance with the devil and get a colour that isn't black. Nah, probably not 🤣

 

Thanks again Liz!

[LizEF]

11 minutes ago, Nightjar said:

I might even dance with the devil and get a colour that isn't black. Nah, probably not 🤣

You're welcome to my share - I never use black ink.

 

11 minutes ago, Nightjar said:

Thanks again Liz!

You're most welcome!

[Dillo]

I did enjoy reading that @LizEF treatise on ink flow. I can't say that I've ever thought about it in an as organized way.

 

I can't really add much of anything valuable to it, but will just say that flow and interactions with the ink on paper is a very complex topic that has a lot to do with surface tension, the wettability of the ink to the nib and feed, and other things. Flow isn't even consistent across all the colors of a single brand, so it's hard to say that one brand makes "wet" inks or "dry" inks. The formulation of the ink (additives) and dye in the ink change the way the ink flows and wets. Each ink color has to be formulated separately to work properly.

 

The other things I say is that I don't think of brands of pens as necessarily "dry" or "wet" pens. They all can be adjusted to whatever flow for the most part with nib tuning. Many modern feeds are capable of delivering a fair amount of ink, generally enough for a decent stub. I can take the TWSBI pens for example that someone on the internets complained are dry. I've tuned some for people who like really wet flow, and the feed is more than enough to keep up with that. The ink interacts with whatever the current tuning of the nib is to get the flow you're getting. Most of my pens are tuned to what I consider a "happy medium." Pretty much all my inks work happily across everything I have.

 

Generally speaking, I use most of my pens with most inks. When I notice issues is if the ink stops flowing in the pen or it becomes unreliable. Aurora Blue Black and Diamine Bilberry are two of these inks. I have only been able to use them reliably in some of my pens. They generally flow fine initially when the pen is first inked, but as time goes by they stop flowing well or the pen acts as if it has dried out when I uncap it.

[Nightjar]

"I did enjoy reading that @LizEFtreatise on ink flow"... me too, and your additional insights @Dillo. The world possibly has more important challenges than understanding "ink wetness", but fascinating nonetheless.

[Bo Bo Olson]

First off Liz what a hell of a list of blacks.

And then the testing. Cubed.

 

15 years ago, when I came back to fountain pens after 40 years in the ball point desert, I ran out and bought the inks I used when I was still in the States in 1963...Pelikan Blue and Pelikan black. With an artificial low DM to Dollar set (same with the yen), Pelikan was sold in the States cheaper than Parker and Shaffer.

 

The black was quite black enough for me (had been second-blackest black for decades before the Black Hole Noodlers took over blackest from Aurora.). 

Seemed quite right...wet or dry was a question I never needed to ask myself. 

Some 15 years later, I was able to give that 2/3rds of a bottle of that 4001 Brilliant Black to a noobie.

 

Some 15 years ago, after discovering Waterman South Sea Blue, I never went back to that black. Because I was caught in an avalanche of color. ....and didn't need black for office work.

[Lithium466]

16 hours ago, LizEF said:

You're welcome!

 

Nope!  There's a distinct difference between them.

 

Perception of wetness is definitely a very different thing from "flow rate".  IMO, "flow rate" is the relevant factor that people want to know (how readily will this ink flow from my pen with too-tight tines and stingy feed channels?).  Unfortunately, what we often get is the visual perception of wetness, or the tactile perception of lubrication - and both of those are misleading when it comes to the flow rate.  Glossiness (once an ink is "dry") would be another form of deception altogether and I have no idea whether it relates at all to the reality of flow rate.

 

Some conclusions I have drawn (not entirely certain they're correct, but I think they are):

• Dry inks look wetter than wet inks.  That is, the high surface tension keeps a "bead" of ink piled atop the page and visibly "wet" for longer, whereas a low surface tension leads to the ink spreading out and soaking in (and chemically reacting over a larger area and therefore presumably faster) and therefore looking dry sooner.
• Dry inks take longer to dry (on the same principle as above).
• A lot of reviewers say an ink is wet if it looks wet, rather than if it flows rapidly from the pen (which they could only measure in some more scientific way rather than by simply looking at ink on paper).  This is what I did in the beginning, which means my "flow" evaluations are bad in the beginning (but have improved over time and are now as accurate as they're going to get).  You have to evaluate many reviews from a reviewer to figure out if this is what they're doing, and if it is, it probably means that their "wet" inks are actually dry, and their "dry" inks are actually wet...
• Lubrication plays into all this in two ways.  First is that many reviewers will assume that if an ink makes their nib feel smoother, the ink is wet.  Certainly, the more ink you have under your nib, the more lubricated it's going to feel, all else being equal.  But flow rate and lubrication are not the same thing and do not necessarily go together.  Dry inks can be lubricated, and wet inks can have horrible lubrication.  But those are the exceptions, I think.  Usually, wetter inks do tend to be better lubricating and dry inks not as lubricating.
• The second way lubrication plays is that question of how lubricants impact the ink in ways other than providing lubrication between nib and paper.  I remember someone somewhere on FPN suggesting that (some?) lubricants may in fact reduce flow rate (presumably either by increasing surface tension or viscosity) - but this was an untested theory.  Lubrication may also impact the appearance of "wetness" - this is just a theory of mine, but lubricants are often "shiny" and may add to the shiny, wet look of ink.

FWIW, I now measure flow using the following:

• Data from Ines
• Data from An Ink Guy
• Observation of how rapidly ink gets used up in my review pen
• Line width
• Dry time
• Appearance (looking for it not to appear wet for long)
• Evaluations from other reviewers
• ETA: Behavior of the ink in the sample vial - does it cling to the walls (assumed lower surface tension) or does it quickly bead together (assume higher surface tension). I'm sure there's more to this than surface tension, but I consider it along with the other factors.

The combination of those things (especially in the absence of the first two) are considered as a whole.  Secret tip: in the absence of those first two, especially if the other observations don't seem conclusive, instead of saying in my review "flow is a little wet", I will say, "flow seems a little wet".  I throw "seems" in there as my indicator that it's my impression and less certain than when I can get data from the scientists.    (I can't guarantee I've always done that since adopting above technique, but I try to.)  I justify being rather indifferent to flow by the fact that a Japanese EF nib really doesn't care - it's so un-demanding that even dry inks are fine in it.

 

And just in case you haven't fallen asleep, I'll add my newest theory: People often suggest a dry ink for a wet pen and a wet ink for a dry pen.  My latest theory (based on my newest ink, which I think is absurdly dry), is that a dry ink can be just fine for a pen with a fine enough nib, even with dry flow, and be too dry for a wet pen (even with a somewhat fine nib)!  That is, the wet pen is trying to dump out gallons of ink and the ink refuses to give gallons and so the wet pen runs dry or refuses to keep up with the writing.

 

So, if you want to "tame" your firehose of a pen, you may find that it's not the driest ink on the planet that you want, but rather one that's just "on the dry side".  And you may find that to get that absurdly dry ink to flow well, what you need is not a wetter pen, but a pen that doesn't demand a high flow rate.

 

Instinctively, this seems correct - obvious, even.  However, I'm not convinced it's the only factor, since there are inks that seem to have a high flow rate (low surface tension) and yet form a wider line - and I don't know why.  I don't even know whether it's just that the inks seem wet or whether they actually are...

 

Indeed!

 

All experiments were done by Ines.  I was just trying to keep up and comprehend at some level.

 

I believe that there are multiple factors at play: first, the ink itself does have a flow rate (or attributes that are used to measure flow rate) independent of the pen.  But the pen also has various measurable attributes which impact the flow of ink - dimensions and number of ink and air channels, tightness of tines and other "fits", materials used and the "finish" (polish) of those materials, etc.  And so I assume a pen can constrain an ink or not - in other words, I don't think a given ink's rate of flow across pens is a constant.  But I'm not entirely certain of that - I definitely don't have the education for this stuff.

 

You're very welcome!  I'm now looking forward to the scientists coming to correct all my mistakes and mistaken ideas!

Fantastic post @LizEF 👍 This should be made a sticky!