Not Aero-metric. Squeeze, not Aero-metric

[Rufus]

Hi,

 

In the overall scheme of things does it really matter.

 

Andy

 

 

Heresy, absolute heresy I tell ya.

[kiavonne]

Ok, I learned something new today. I appreciate the knowledge.

 

So, these converters should all be referred to as squeeze converters. Aero-metric does not refer to the converter, but the way the pen itself was made to handle pressurization during air travel. So, we have squeeze converters and piston-type converters (aka plunge and or twist converters?), and should not be confused with aero-metric (although they may use a squeeze converter), button-fill, lever-fill, crescent-fill, and piston-fill pens.

 

 

[dogpoet]

Fair enough, Richard. I'll shut up.

[thibaulthalpern]

YES SIR! No Aero-metric. Squeeze! YES SIR!

 

Can I graduate from the Richard Boot Camp now? I've learnt my lesson! :-)

 

[wish we had a salute emoticon here] ;-)

Edited October 15, 2008 by thibaulthalpern

[Richard]

You should also include the UK-made post-'52 Duofolds in that list. In these models, the lateral hole is provided in the feed just ahead of where the breather tube is fitted. I don't know whether this implementation is as effective as it is in the 51 or whether Parker just put it in to adhere to their own patent!

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. The Vacumatic, Skyline, and all other breather-tube pens, all the way back to the Dunn-Pen, Sager, and Postal, have a lateral hole in the feed so that the breather tube can communicate with the feed channels. There is no path for air trapped above the ink in the sac to escape except through the feed channels, however. The easiest path for pressure to escape is to force ink up the breather tube and into the feed, and thence onto your shirt.

 

The difference with the Aero-metric system is that there is a second lateral hole in the tube. This second hole, a very tiny one, provides a direct path for the trapped air, which flows up the breather tube until it hits the larger lateral hole, through which it exits into the space between the feed and the collector and can then escape. (The tiny amount of ink that might rise in front of the escaping air is absorbed by capillary action in the collector.) The key point, in addition to the presence of the second hole, is that the breather tube is smaller in size than the usual type, its inside diameter calibrated to produce enough additional resistance to fluid motion up the tube that the air will go through the lateral hole instead of pushing ink up the breather tube and into the feed.

 

This explanation should demonstrate that there is a SIGNIFICANT difference between an ordinary squeeze filler and an Aero-metric filler. Calling a dog a cat will not give the dog tree-climbing power, and calling an ordinary squeeze filler an Aero-metric will not keep the squeezie from leaking in your pocket. Or that of the person whom you might have misinformed, who could come back to inquire when you're going to pay for the ruined shirt.

[Col]

I love this type of thread. I can now regale my friends and aquaintances at cocktail parties and dinner parties on the intricacies of the inner workings of the Aerometric filler versus the squeeze filler. I kid you not, as I love doing this to see the looks on some of their faces not to mention their comments. Keep up the good work; it's great fun.

You do that and STILL get invited to parties... :roflmho:

 

I was going to say, you'd probably end up in the corner talking to yourself.

 

[kubalai]

Not Aero-metric. Squeeze, not Aero-metric.

 

I know I'm probably beating a dead horse here, but no squeeze converter is, or can be, Aero-metric. Nor are most squeeze-filling pens with fixed sacs Aero-metric.

 

The Aero-metric system requires a breather tube extending the length of the reservoir and fitted with a tiny lateral hole very near the feed to allow trapped air to escape when the pen is taken up in an airplane while being held nib upward (as when clipped in a pocket). The only Aero-metric pens ever made are the Parker "51" Mark I and Mark II, and certain Chinese pens such as the Hero 100 (but not the Hero 329, 616, etc.).

 

I'd really like to start here with correcting this horrible misapplication of the term "aerometric." FPN has enough membership to make an impact on the world. Who's with me?

 

As a newbie new to 51's and incidently in the market for one. I need to clarify what is the term for the squeeze filling pen. Also what model of 51 would I have to be looking for?

 

[twdpens]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

 

What I'm saying is that maybe I have inadvertently fallen into the trap I am trying to tell others to avoid . I had always assumed that British-made Parker Duofolds of the 1960's were true Aerometric fillers since they share many characteristics with their contemporary stablemate, the 51. So, using Parker's patent for the 51's filling system as the one and true definition, they are not Aerometric fillers since they lack the lateral vent hole. However, they are generally referred to as Aerometric fillers since they feature the combination of a sqeeze filler and a breather tube.

 

Martin

[Richard]

I need to clarify what is the term for the squeeze filling pen. Also what model of 51 would I have to be looking for?

Squeeze fillers are properly called squeeze, or "thumb," fillers. Before there were squeeze fillers with removable barrels, there were sleeve fillers, which have a sleeve that slides or screws along the barrel to give access to the pressure bar. Here's a Waterman 12 SF, c. 1906:

 

http://www.richardspens.com/images/collection/zoomed/12sf_capped.jpg

http://www.richardspens.com/images/collection/zoomed/12sf_open.jpg

http://www.richardspens.com/images/collection/zoomed/12sf.jpg

 

To get a true Aero-metric "51" you need to find a Mark I or a Mark II. Here's a link to my "51" profile, which identifies the differences for you.

[Johnny Appleseed]

I think the one question that remains with this definition of Aero-metric is whether Parker ever used "Aero-metric" (or Aerometric) terminology for any of the late English Duofolds, 21s or any other pen with a breather tube that was not vented as the orginal Photo-fill patent. I have heard that Parker did use the terminology for other pens, but I have never actively researched the subject. If Parker did use the term for pens other than the vented breather-style, then the Aerometric term could probably be applied to any squeeze-filler with a breather tube.

 

Did Parker ever use the Aerometric label for other pens? I keep seeing references to the existance of such ads, (by very knowledgeable collectors, no less) but have not actually seen one.

 

Either way, a squeeze-converter, which by it's very nature does not have a breather-tube, can't be considered an Aerometric by either definition.

 

John

[RevAaron]

My question is... who cares?! Not about terminology- I certainly prefer to stick to accurate words. But, why do people like aero-metric fillers?

 

I can see the need for an incremental filling system in a Vacumatic- it requires differential filling, or a diaphragm that extended down the entire reservoir. I see the worth of a breathing tube for equalizing air pressure, but beyond that I'm clueless. I prefer fillers other than aero-metrics because aero-metrics are a pain in the rear to expel and flush. Drives me nutters.

 

Since I'm airing out all of my aero-metric questions, I've got one more... I know many companies hopped on the bandwaggon and went for pens with squeeze fillers that, on the surface, look like aero-metric fillers. Why do the simple squeeze fillers like the Esterbrook M2 (among many others) say to squeeze 3-5 times like you would with an aero-metric? Is there any purpose in doing this, or is it just to complete the "Buy me! I'm like a '51!''" illusion?

 

Aaron

[Rufus]

My question is... who cares?! But, why do people like aero-metric fillers?

 

 

 

Aaron

 

For the same reason they like "precious resin" perhaps? :clap1:

 

[simonrob]

My question is... who cares?! Not about terminology- I certainly prefer to stick to accurate words. But, why do people like aero-metric fillers?

 

I can see the need for an incremental filling system in a Vacumatic- it requires differential filling, or a diaphragm that extended down the entire reservoir. I see the worth of a breathing tube for equalizing air pressure, but beyond that I'm clueless. I prefer fillers other than aero-metrics because aero-metrics are a pain in the rear to expel and flush. Drives me nutters.

 

I'm with you - sure, they're preferable to vacumatics inasmuch as they seldom need replacing/repairing, but few filling systems are worse when it comes to trying to clean them out. (But I guess this isn't a problem if you don't change ink colours in that particular pen.)

 

Simon

[penburg]

My question is... who cares?! Not about terminology- I certainly prefer to stick to accurate words. But, why do people like aero-metric fillers?

 

I can see the need for an incremental filling system in a Vacumatic- it requires differential filling, or a diaphragm that extended down the entire reservoir. I see the worth of a breathing tube for equalizing air pressure, but beyond that I'm clueless. I prefer fillers other than aero-metrics because aero-metrics are a pain in the rear to expel and flush. Drives me nutters.

 

Since I'm airing out all of my aero-metric questions, I've got one more... I know many companies hopped on the bandwaggon and went for pens with squeeze fillers that, on the surface, look like aero-metric fillers. Why do the simple squeeze fillers like the Esterbrook M2 (among many others) say to squeeze 3-5 times like you would with an aero-metric? Is there any purpose in doing this, or is it just to complete the "Buy me! I'm like a '51!''" illusion?

 

Aaron

 

The breather tube allows a greater reservoir of ink to be taken up (multiple squeezes). Perhaps a little harder to clean, but you don't have to fill as often.

[RevAaron]

The breather tube allows a greater reservoir of ink to be taken up (multiple squeezes). Perhaps a little harder to clean, but you don't have to fill as often.

 

I don't know if that's the case- with the squeeze fillers I use on a regular basis (Pilot 78g, Esterbrook M2) the sac fills up all the way in that one squeeze. Which is to say, the ink capacity is more limited by the size of the sac.

 

Aaron

[Dillo]

Hi,

 

I'm not sure what Richard thinks of what I wrote here, but this is my definition that I posted two years ago:

 

There are three fillers that look quite similar:

 

Press-bar

Press-bar pump

Aero-metric

 

Aero-metric fillers are very similar to the press bar pump filler except that the breather tube has a small hole in the side of it.

 

Press bar fillers have no breather tube, so just pressing it twice is enough.

 

Press bar pump and Aerometric fillers require about 5-10 presses. Keep on pressing until the pen stops pumping out air.

 

Examples of the press-bar: Pilot Con-20 converter, most if not all converters fall in this category.

 

Examples of the press-bar pump: Hero 616, Speeno, many other Chinese pens, essentially these pens have a breather tube in the sac, but lack a small hole drilled into the side of the breather tube.

 

Examples of Aero-metric: Hero 100, Parker "51" these pens have a breather tube just like the press-bar pump, but there is an addition of a hole in the breather tube.

 

The reason for the hole in the breather tube is to allow for air to escape during a rapid air pressure change such as in an airplane.

 

Here is a rough illustration. Wine/pink ink is the ink flow. Turquoise/light blue ink is the air flow. (No, I am not colorblind, got a perfect score on that test that someone posted. The computer doesn't always pick up color properly though)

 

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3059/2946168498_b7ac7c04c5.jpg

 

As pressure decreases outside, the relative internal pressure in the pen increases, causing the air flow as indicated by the blue lines. In the pen without the hole, note that the ink is pushed out of the pen. In the pen with the hole, note that the air escapes.

 

Dillon

Edited October 16, 2008 by Dillo

[Robert Hughes]

Thanks, Dillo. Now I understand where the hole is in the breather tube, and what it's good for. I suppose if I was looking for excitement I could cut or drill a tiny hole in my Skyliner breather tube and make it into an aerometric.

[MYU]

My question is... who cares?! Not about terminology- I certainly prefer to stick to accurate words. But, why do people like aero-metric fillers?

You raise an excellent point. I believe that, compared to other pens of the era when Parker introduced the aerometric design, pens of non-aerometric design traveling in the aircraft of that time tended to expel ink during the trip, often enough to leak out into the shirt of the owner. The aerometric design is superior for handling air pressure changes.

 

Now... I think a key question is this: Is the aerometric design a real advantage over other pens made in the 70's up until today? Well, not nearly as much as it was when it was first introduced. Cabin pressure in today's aircraft is well controlled. The chances of a pen expelling ink is much less, although some of that chance is affected by how much air is left in the ink reservoir (less air is better, unless the ink level is low enough not to become an expulsion risk).

 

If modern day pens of non-aerometric design were at a significant disadvantage for handling air travel, we'd see plenty of posts from members complaining about ink leaks during flights. I haven't seen any since I've been a member. So... maybe the aerometric design is not a real advantage over other pens today, but you could say its better insurance. I believe that the aerometric pen leakage risk is next to zero, irrespective of how much ink is contained in the bladder. Is that correct, Richard?

Edited October 16, 2008 by MYU

[Dillo]

One thing to note is that this Aero-metric only works in one direction: nib up.

 

I think it is an improvement over the press-bar pump system. I was toying around with it a lot two years back (2006 October).

 

This system though, is unneccesary for pens that do not use a breather tube.

 

Dillon

Edited October 16, 2008 by Dillo

[Richard]

Thanks, Dillo. Now I understand where the hole is in the breather tube, and what it's good for. I suppose if I was looking for excitement I could cut or drill a tiny hole in my Skyliner breather tube and make it into an aerometric.

Nope. As I wrote a few replies earlier, a key element is the inside diameter of the breather tube, and you can't change that without replacing the tube.