42 replies to this topic

[Hugh]

Adminstrative Interruption:

You might be wondering why the first post in this thread starts with a response to a quote not present within. This discussion of word counts, with focus on Snorkel, marked a significant deviation from a discussion of "SIgnificant 1940's Sheaffers" posted here:

http://fountainpenbo...1561#entry1561.

At request of one poster (no, not him), this discussion has been moved to its own thread, which not only frees the prior thread from a schizoid discussion, but gives this worthy discussion about Snorkel a place of its own.

Do continue, with Hugh's response to David.

------------------------------***-------------------------------

That aside, the wire filling system allows huge ink capacity vs touchdown system.

-d

David!! ...While this is a correct statement, it does not actually mean that a wire filler delivers more words per fill. The only words v capacity test I've seen would indicate that the touchdown delivers more words per volume of ink than a wire fill. Frank Dubiel did a word count per fill and this is documented in "Da book". Going from memory ( yes ,too lazy to actually go and look) a P51 Aero delivered on average ~4500, a P51 Vac ~4200, a snorkle~ 3900, a TM triumph touchdown~3600 and a wire fill triumph touchdown~ 2500. The test involved 2 pens of each model with medium nibs at 500 words a day using Carters B/B ink.

It would appear that the ink delivery system is more important than sheer capacity and the data would indicate that the snorkle and touchdown systems where by far the most economical of their day with the wire fill giving '20's "economy" (the "Big Red" delivered less..IIRC).

Another myth busted!! ......

Regards
Hugh

PS....I have no intention of verifing these results myself

[david i]

David!! ...While this is a correct statement, it does not actually mean that a wire filler delivers more words per fill. The only words v capacity test I've seen would indicate that the touchdown delivers more words per volume of ink than a wire fill. Frank Dubiel did a word count per fill and this is documented in "Da book". Going from memory ( yes ,too lazy to actually go and look) a P51 Aero delivered on average ~4500, a P51 Vac ~4200, a snorkle~ 3900, a TM triumph touchdown~3600 and a wire fill triumph touchdown~ 2500. The test involved 2 pens of each model with medium nibs at 500 words a day using Carters B/B ink.

It would appear that the ink delivery system is more important than sheer capacity and the data would indicate that the snorkle and touchdown systems where by far the most economical of their day with the wire fill giving '20's "economy" (the "Big Red" delivered less..IIRC).

Another myth busted!! ......

Regards
Hugh

PS....I have no intention of verifing these results myself

Hi Hugh,

While I am philosophically committed to being perpetually a Hack Amateur Newbie pen collector (though Binder gives me grief in that as I am not that new I should be only a Hack), it does seem that I'm at this point an old Hack Amateur Newbie pen collector.

I well recall the real time debates with Frank about the various word counts of pens, and vaguely recall (he can call me out if I'm off on this) Nathan waxing eloquent on the word count of a Sheaffer Thin Model Snorkel. Frank and I over friendly lunches at the pen shows occasionally touched on this subject. I still greatly regret his untimely demise in that snowstorm

But, my position remains sharply in disagreement with his... claims... about this word count business. My suspicion has been that arguments about high word counts for small-sac pens (eg. Snorkel) stem from mixing- rather than controlling for- multiple variables.

An extreme example. A big pen with a triple broad flex wet-writing nib very likely will write fewer words than a small lady's pen with ultra-fine dry writing accountant point. But, I'd hate from that observation to generalize and conclude, "smaller pens write more words than bigger pens".

While it has been a long time since I did science or academic math (I use math and science at work, but the math is basic and the science is the results of- not so much the process of- science). But, certain things seem basic. If two different volumes of liquid ooze at a fixed rate, the larger volume will last longer. If two different volumes of liquid ooze at different rates, then bets are off unless one knows those flow rates.

I admit I have tough time imagining that if two pens are adjusted to flow similarly (equally wet line with similar point) that a pen with the smaller capacity will out-write the pen with larger capacity. Call me silly...

If someone wishes to measure ink capacity on a fat wire pen that holds ink in barrel (eg, early Valiant 1945, Sheaffer OS Balance), measure capacity of a Snorkel or fat TD, adjust both pens to have same point and same ink flow, and then show that the smaller-sac pen (TD or Snork) writes longer than the larger-capacity pen...???... then we can talk.

My assertion-- and I am amenable to the math folk here offering counter points-- is that for a given ink flow, a pen with bigger capacity will out-write pen with smaller capacity. To use a more fine and more dry assembly in the smaller pen is cheating

Counter points anyone?

regards

david

[Gerry Berg]

I've been skeptical about word-count methods because of the wide variety of factors that "feed" into the ink capacity controversy.

Some help arises from separating questions about ink capacity from questions about the frequency of trips to the ink bottle for refills. Sure, the assumption that large capacity leads to fewer refilling trips is widespread, and I include my own claims for the efficiency of Sheaffer plunger-fillers ("wire" pens). But the test by word count doesn't help much to resolve the latter question, "how frequent are trips to the inkwell".

Even the attempt to control for nib size leads to tenuous results in practice. My favorite post-War plunger-filler, the Valiant II (94W), most often did NOT come with a "medium" nib (however you might wish to define "medium"- yet another problem! ). Most often they are fine or extra fine.

If one chose to test only the "medium" nibbed version, there are still other problems. In my experience, many of those that are "medium" got that way by what appears to me an after factory adjustment that very slightly spread the tines of the nib to INCREASE FLOW as well as increase the width of the line. (I assume similar techniques applied to other manufacturers products). Which "medium" was used in the word-count trials?? One with increased flow will, of course, increase refill trips.

All the variables might mean that we are better off collecting anecdotal evidence rather than trying to do "scientific" tests. I have a lovely P51 "vac" with a Pendleton-modified fine flex. I have measured its ink capacity at 1.2 ml (caution: these numbers should be used comparatively, not as absolutes). My favorite fine-nibbed Valiant II carries 1.8 ml. In my pocket in general use, I find that the Valiant outlasts the the P51 significantly, but not as much as the differing capacities may imply.

I can still claim that the plunger-filler holds a lot of ink, and that makes it an efficient daily work pen. I cannot however back that up with anything near "scientific" evidence.

Cheers,
Gerry

[Hugh]

Hi Hugh,

While I am philosophically committed to being perpetually a Hack Amateur Newbie pen collector (though Binder gives me grief in that as I am not that new I should be only a Hack), it does seem that I'm at this point an old Hack Amateur Newbie pen collector.

I well recall the real time debates with Frank about the various word counts of pens, and vaguely recall (he can call me out if I'm off on this) Nathan waxing eloquent on the word count of a Sheaffer Thin Model Snorkel. Frank and I over friendly lunches at the pen shows occasionally touched on this subject. I still greatly regret his untimely demise in that snowstorm

But, my position remains sharply in disagreement with his... claims... about this word count business. My suspicion has been that arguments about high word counts for small-sac pens (eg. Snorkel) stem from mixing- rather than controlling for- multiple variables.

An extreme example. A big pen with a triple broad flex wet-writing nib very likely will write fewer words than a small lady's pen with ultra-fine dry writing accountant point. But, I'd hate from that observation to generalize and conclude, "smaller pens write more words than bigger pens".

While it has been a long time since I did science or academic math (I use math and science at work, but the math is basic and the science is the results of- not so much the process of- science). But, certain things seem basic. If two different volumes of liquid ooze at a fixed rate, the larger volume will last longer. If two different volumes of liquid ooze at different rates, then bets are off unless one knows those flow rates.

I admit I have tough time imagining that if two pens are adjusted to flow similarly (equally wet line with similar point) that a pen with the smaller capacity will out-write the pen with larger capacity. Call me silly...

If someone wishes to measure ink capacity on a fat wire pen that holds ink in barrel (eg, early Valiant 1945, Sheaffer OS Balance), measure capacity of a Snorkel or fat TD, adjust both pens to have same point and same ink flow, and then show that the smaller-sac pen (TD or Snork) writes longer than the larger-capacity pen...???... then we can talk.

My assertion-- and I am amenable to the math folk here offering counter points-- is that for a given ink flow, a pen with bigger capacity will out-write pen with smaller capacity. To use a more fine and more dry assembly in the smaller pen is cheating

Counter points anyone?

regards

david

Hi David,

Nothing wrong with your logic, just how you apply it.

An analogy before I continue. Over the years I've had (and still do have) a number of cars (last count 8...) , one many years ago was an iconic Holden Kingswood 4.2l V8 , I now have a Volvo with a 2.4l ...the volvo is both more powerful and more economical, I also have a Mazda with a 1.6l engine, again the volvo is more powerful and more economical. What this shows is that different technology leads to measurable real world differences where a simply applied logic may arrive at the conclussion that the smaller engined vehicle would use less fuel and the largest produce the most power.

It is true that if the ink was delivered at the same rate/volume then a larger capacity lasts longer. The first problem is how is the flow set to be constant and how is it measured? This I suggest is not a simple task but rather a complicated process to achieve the "theoretical" result in the real world. I doubt there is any person involved in the pen industry that given two pens could achieve a flow with less than 10% variation between the two ( of course as nobody can accurately measure this I'm safe here....but possibly not correct..).

The amount of ink can not be set to a constant. So what does affect the flow to the nib? Surely not the ink reservoir, so that leaves the parts in the section ( I'll include breather tubes in this part), the delivery system. There is no doubt that similiar delivery systems will provide varying results and the sample size that Frank used is statistically (very) small. There is also no doubt that different delivery systems will provide markedly different results. In summary:

1. The statistical sample size is to small to be definitive.
2. It does show a trend.
3. It is not possible to deliver theoretical results in the real world regarding ink flow
4. Different ink delivery systems will provide different word counts in practice.

In the real world the statement "is that for a given ink flow, a pen with bigger capacity will out-write pen with smaller capacity" is not achievable because it is not possible to accurately adjust the flow to be identical. This leads to the conclussion that the assumption that "a pen with bigger capacity will out-write pen with smaller capacity" is open to question. The trend indicated in Franks results may not be as easily dismissed in practise as in theory.

Thats not to say what your point isn't correct, it just doesn't have any data to back it.....mine has some (how ever "rubbery)

Regards
Hugh

[Hugh]

I've been skeptical about word-count methods because of the wide variety of factors that "feed" into the ink capacity controversy.

Some help arises from separating questions about ink capacity from questions about the frequency of trips to the ink bottle for refills. Sure, the assumption that large capacity leads to fewer refilling trips is widespread, and I include my own claims for the efficiency of Sheaffer plunger-fillers ("wire" pens). But the test by word count doesn't help much to resolve the latter question, "how frequent are trips to the inkwell".

Even the attempt to control for nib size leads to tenuous results in practice. My favorite post-War plunger-filler, the Valiant II (94W), most often did NOT come with a "medium" nib (however you might wish to define "medium"- yet another problem! ). Most often they are fine or extra fine.

If one chose to test only the "medium" nibbed version, there are still other problems. In my experience, many of those that are "medium" got that way by what appears to me an after factory adjustment that very slightly spread the tines of the nib to INCREASE FLOW as well as increase the width of the line. (I assume similar techniques applied to other manufacturers products). Which "medium" was used in the word-count trials?? One with increased flow will, of course, increase refill trips.

All the variables might mean that we are better off collecting anecdotal evidence rather than trying to do "scientific" tests. I have a lovely P51 "vac" with a Pendleton-modified fine flex. I have measured its ink capacity at 1.2 ml (caution: these numbers should be used comparatively, not as absolutes). My favorite fine-nibbed Valiant II carries 1.8 ml. In my pocket in general use, I find that the Valiant outlasts the the P51 significantly, but not as much as the differing capacities may imply.

I can still claim that the plunger-filler holds a lot of ink, and that makes it an efficient daily work pen. I cannot however back that up with anything near "scientific" evidence.

Cheers,
Gerry

Hi Gerry,

In all fairness to Frank (my only contact being his book unlike David who new him personally) it appears to me he had an excellent working knowledge of pens. He states "close attention paid to matching nib style and ink flow as uniformly as possible", and he probably should be allowed the benefit of his expertise on this nor would there be any reason not to do the test as accurately as possible . The only data on hand does indicate a tend, it's not definitive of course but shouldn't be dismissed out of hand either. The possibles variables are so great as well, the uniformity of the paper is open to question, as is the effect of atmospheric pressure, humidity etc, variable hand pressure and the list could go on to make the results open to question.

Regards
Hugh

[david i]

Hi David,

An analogy before I continue. Over the years I've had (and still do have) a number of cars (last count 8...) , one many years ago was an iconic Holden Kingswood 4.2l V8 , I now have a Volvo with a 2.4l ...the volvo is both more powerful and more economical, I also have a Mazda with a 1.6l engine, again the volvo is more powerful and more economical. What this shows is that different technology leads to measurable real world differences where a simply applied logic may arrive at the conclussion that the smaller engined vehicle would use less fuel and the largest produce the most power.

Hi Hugh,

That is a spurious comparison, because again the variables are mixed. Your "more powerful but more economical" is at the very heart of multiple variables without controls. It is far less than saying "Snorkel is more efficient than Balance" and far more like saying that "fine point is more efficient than broad point".

It is true that if the ink was delivered at the same rate/volume then a larger capacity lasts longer.

And that is all that matters.

The first problem is how is the flow set to be constant and how is it measured?

It doesn't matter. One need not measure it. It is a mathematical given. I don't need to test a small sac pen vs big sac pen by controlling the flow of each for constant and exact flow. It is, i assert, obvious that a fixed ink flow will last longer from a larger capacity pen. That some might say a Snorkel with fine dry point outlasts a Balance OS Wire Pen with wet triple broad point is not the issue at hand. They are really claiming that dry points outlast wet points. Big shock

This I suggest is not a simple task but rather a complicated process to achieve the "theoretical" result in the real world. I doubt there is any person involved in the pen industry that given two pens could achieve a flow with less than 10% variation between the two ( of course as nobody can accurately measure this I'm safe here....but possibly not correct..).

Again, the task is irrelevant. One need not pursue it at all. If the smaller capacity pen happens to be tuned to higher ink flow it will last even shorter period than the big pen with dry flow. That a smaller pen with dry flow outlasts a big capacity pen wtih wet flow is no surprise, but has nothing to do with the old claims made about Snork and TD. I've seen no one claim that Snorks routinely write more dryly than Vacumatic, as a given, and if they did, it is merely an argument for dry writing, not for smaller ink sacs.

The amount of ink can not be set to a constant.

It does not have to be set to be anything. It's the math. No testing is necessary.

So what does affect the flow to the nib? Surely not the ink reservoir, so that leaves the parts in the section ( I'll include breather tubes in this part), the delivery system. There is no doubt that similiar delivery systems will provide varying results and the sample size that Frank used is statistically (very) small. There is also no doubt that different delivery systems will provide markedly different results. In summary:

The only claim to allow any small-capacity pen as a rule to out-write a large capacity pen would be that it is a more dry writer. I have pens of small and large capacity, some dry some wet writers. There is no need to test.

1. The statistical sample size is to small to be definitive.
2. It does show a trend.
3. It is not possible to deliver theoretical results in the real world regarding ink flow
4. Different ink delivery systems will provide different word counts in practice..

No need for sample size, no ned for analysis of systems save for some attempt to show that as a rule the smaller pen writes a more dry line. As I have dry writing fine point Balances and wet writing broad point Snorkels...

In the real world the statement "is that for a given ink flow, a pen with bigger capacity will out-write pen with smaller capacity" is not achievable because it is not possible to accurately adjust the flow to be identical..

Hugh, one does NOT have to adjust flow to be identical, though I assert that within certain reasonable tolerances flow can be so adjusted. The point is far more rudimentary. Unless you claim that all small-capacity pens have dry flow and all big-capacity pens have wet flow (and bigger point, perhaps), then we are back to my first point that, obviously a lady pen with accountant nib and dry line will out write (maybe) a Pelikan 800 with triple broad wet nib.

No one, including Frank TBONK has claimed that TD's, Snorks, etc are all fine dry writers. If there is lack of control in this analysis, it is that Frank did not offer up (iirc) details of the points being tested.

T his leads to the conclusion that the assumption that "a pen with bigger capacity will out-write pen with smaller capacity" is open to question. The trend indicated in Franks results may not be as easily dismissed in practise as in theory.

Really, there is no open to question element here. The only question is to poor control of variable. I'm more comfortable with the notion that " a really fine and dry writer might out write a really wet plump writer, even if the latter pen has somewhat larger ink capacity".

Thats not to say what your point isn't correct, it just doesn't have any data to back it.....mine has some (how ever "rubbery)

I fear my point really does not need testing. It is intrinsically so. How many seconds do two pens last when pen with X capacity loses y/second ink, vs another pen at X+A capacity loses y/second ink. There is no way the X will outlast X+A.

The only point that seems to have been raised here is that dry fine point (slower flow) can let a smaller pen outlast a larger pen, but that then is an argument for dry/fine points, not an argument that smaller pens outlast larger


regards

d

[david i]

Hi Gerry,

In all fairness to Frank (my only contact being his book unlike David who knew him personally) it appears to me he had an excellent working knowledge of pens. He states "close attention paid to matching nib style and ink flow as uniformly as possible", and he probably should be allowed the benefit of his expertise on this nor would there be any reason not to do the test as accurately as possible . The only data on hand does indicate a tend, it's not definitive of course but shouldn't be dismissed out of hand either. The possibles variables are so great as well, the uniformity of the paper is open to question, as is the effect of atmospheric pressure, humidity etc, variable hand pressure and the list could go on to make the results open to question.

Regards
Hugh

Hi Hugh,

I might be beating this to death, but hey that's ok

It might be myth but I have heard it say that the US Patent office does not take applications for perpetual motion machines, as such things are physically impossible. Similarly, one cannot drain fluid from a small store at same rate as from a large store and expect the small store to last longer.


Really, there are no "data" assessing various pens. for this issue, at least nothing scientific. There is a reason why even smart honest scientists are encouraged to do prospective blinded studies.

The flip side of not dismissing anything out of hand (which is not quite your point, I realize, but but serves purpose here in expanded form), is that it is that one should not embrace any random claim, either.

Putting aside that there is no serious look at the ink flow rates of various pens, we need to tease just what is claimed by "more words per pen" and then dissect why such claims might be right, and useful, right but unhelpful, or ... wrong.

The more anyone does pay attention to assuring uniform flow and point size when comparing pens for "word capacity", the more it is mathematically obligatory for the smaller ink capacity pen (eg. Snork) to generate fewer words per fill than will the heftier pen (eg. Wire-Filler 1945 Valiant).

Then of course, what is a "word". I will concede possibility that a typical Snork can write more of the word "the", than a Parker Vacumatic (much heftier ink capacity) will write the word, "Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis", the longest word in a major dictionary, per Wikipaedia. Again, controlling for and not muddling the multivariables is key.

The only data on hand does indicate a tend

There are no data. There is only an anecdote, an uncontrolled observation.

Look, if someone claimed "most Snorks are very fine point and tuned to dry flow, and that somewhat compensates on word-count issues relative to larger capacity pens with wetter, plumper points", then-- assuming Snorks are so empointed and tuned, and assuming the "other" pen is not, and assuming the same size words and letters are written with each pen-- then one can make a claim that Snorks match or outlast (per fill) on the word count against that unspecified other pen, but... at what cost? Is this a claim of superiority (word count) or the masking of a flaw (dry thin lines only)?

But, since we do not know that Snorks are particularly dry, fine writers relative to other pens, then we have grave doubts about that claim.

By muddling multiple factors, in this instance Frank- despite a well earned strong net presence in the hobby- rather obfuscated the issue rather than clarifying it.

Unlike the automobile example, I know of no "technology tweak" that allows a fixed amount of ink to reach paper at a greater volume from a smaller store of it than from a larger store of it.

The possibles variables are so great as well, the uniformity of the paper is open to question, as is the effect of atmospheric pressure, humidity etc, variable hand pressure and the list could go on to make the results open to question

All those variables at best affect ink flow, and boil down to "dry fine line" impacts word count (for fixed size words, letters, and pressure) in some cases as significantly as ink capacity in most pens. It has nothing to do with a Snorkel writing more lines than a 51.

regards

David

[Hugh]

Hi David

Beat as hard as you like!! I'm both thick skinned and love a good a argument.....

The comparison was to show simply applied logic is not always correct, my training in pure mathematics( albiet a long time ago) taught me this. It is a relevent exercise to look at such examples just to reinforce that all is not as it always seems.

Lets look at this:

Quote

It is true that if the ink was delivered at the same rate/volume then a larger capacity lasts longer.

And that is all that matters.

Quote


The first problem is how is the flow set to be constant and how is it measured?

It doesn't matter. One need not measure it. It is a mathematical given. I don't need to test a small sac pen vs big sac pen by controlling the flow of each for constant and exact flow. It is, i assert, obvious that a fixed ink flow will last longer from a larger capacity pen. That some might say a Snorkel with fine dry point outlasts a Balance OS Wire Pen with wet triple broad point is not the issue at hand. They are really claiming that dry points outlast wet points. Big shock



Of course it matters!! Really, the word count I've referred to wasn't comparing a BBB to an XF......it was like with like....and you know that!! and it's rather lame to pull that one... I've already agreed that at a constant, fixed rate a larger ink supply last longer.....because it's true!!....but this is real world stuff. There is no doubt ( in my mind anyway) that different ink delivery systems will deliver ink at different rates to the same sized nib. The variation in the delivery of ink may be obvious, it may not....at what point does the variation become obvious? The data (and yes it is....) indicates that it may be difficult to pick these variations accurately by visual assessment ( I'm assuming that the data was collected with no bias). In Franks word count it's clear he was unable to detect these differences in practise otherwise the large capacity pens would finish ahead. From that I would conclude that the snorkles and touchdowns managed to produce a visually similiar result with greater economy. So, yes, the ability to measure ink flow at the tip is relevent in being able to determine what flow rate creates a visible difference which in "real world" determines the word count.


The relevant point in all this is "why where the results Frank obtained possible?" I find them interesting as ,to me, they are unexpected. Rather than your approach of dismissing them, I look at them and say "why?" . The answer is, of course, simple because it's the only possible answer and that is that minor differences in ink flow are not visibly detectable to the eye, nor minor differences (ie 2 or 3 microns) in point size.


I don't disagree with your line of reasoning....which is sound...but look at why Frank achieved the results he did. As I've already said these are not definitive but do raise some questions. Of course your correct in a larger ink supply lasting longer at a given rate than a small....but if a certain ink delivery system creates the same visible result with less ink isn't that a technological advance?


I have no interest in defending the results ( and none in trying to replicate them!!) just exploring the reasons why they where obtained. The results would no doubt have a large "human error" factor, and that may be the most relevant issue but the trend indicates ink flow and nib size are difficult to visually measure.


Regards
Hugh

[Gerry Berg]

Dear Hugh and David:

I wonder if I can turn your attentions to a methodological problem on a much "lower" level of abstraction. How can an ordinary "pen citizen" measure the ink capacity of a pen. I have a system that I use consistently. It's fine for my own comparative purposes. I use it to see that my plunger-fillers I restore fill "properly" by comparing its performance my own figures for other examples of each model of pen.

The problem is that I cannot compare my numbers with anyone else unless he uses EXACTLY the same system I do.

Does any have suggestions that do not require expensive scientific instrumentation?

Gerry

[diplo]

I'm with Hugh here.

David is right when claiming that in a clean separated laboratory environment, when all others factors are the same, ink capacity is the key for the "word count" battle. I would even add that is an self-evident truth.

But Hugh is right in assessing that ink capacity is only one (albeit the most important and evident) of the factors that influence this particular performance (# of travels to the inkwell) of a pen. And this is even more true when considering the normal use of a pen in the real world, rather than an unlikely laboratory test.

I have one winning example that can be used: hooded nibs.

Assuming two identical pens (same ink capacity, same feed, same ink storage device) with the only difference being the nib, open in one case and hooded in the other case, and assuming same writing conditions (e.g. one person copying same text over same papers with same ink), then my speculation is that the hooded nibbed pen will write more words than the other simply because the share of the total ink used for writing on paper is higer. In the open nibbed pen the evaporation of the ink while on the feed will decrease the percentage of ink that will indeed write on paper.

I am so convinced by this speculation of mine that I am even ready to test it personally.... when I'll be retired!

[david i]

I'm with Hugh here.

David is right when claiming that in a clean separated laboratory environment, when all others factors are the same, ink capacity is the key for the "word count" battle. I would even add that is an self-evident truth.

But Hugh is right in assessing that ink capacity is only one (albeit the most important and evident) of the factors that influence this particular performance (# of travels to the inkwell) of a pen. And this is even more true when considering the normal use of a pen in the real world, rather than an unlikely laboratory test.

Probably not shocking at this point, but I think you guys are missing my point. Go figure

I am not claiming that all pens have identical ink flow and identical point width or that one should bother with this in the lab. But, I am glad that the first phase has been agreed to, that for any given net ink flow ( controlled for point width and wet/dry) the pen with the smaller ink capacity will write fewer words than the pen with the big capacity. So far I had not sensed that even this was being conceded

Next, I am not claiming that we have to adjust pens for testing to identical ink flow in a lab setting to prove... anything. Because, as Diplo has indicated, it is self-evident that for a given point grade and dryness factor, the smaller pen sac will write fewer words, eg. Snorkel vs post-War Valiant.

My point is rather the opposite of claiming need for lab testing. My claim rather is that in a world of pens of random mixes of ink flow and nib grade, that obviously there are going to be intra-series examples (meaning one Snork vs another, one Vac vs another, etc) with huge range in word count. A Pelikan M-800 with dry ultrafine point might write, oh, 5x as many pages (maybe more) than an M-800 with triple broad wet nib, and that these intra-model differences are far more signifcant than are inter-series (one model vs another) structural differences.

Since one Snork might be fine point dry and another broad point wet, and a 1945 Sheaffer Valiant pen (triple the ink capacity of Snork?) might be fine point dry or broad point wet, there is little to the claim that Snorks write more words than Valiant. Indeed, if anything, the best claim is that the bigger pen likely writes more words than the smaller pen, before running dry.

A historical anecdote from one person's writing sample about one Sheaffer Snorkel vs one Parker 51 leaves us with nothing more than a guess that one guy's dry writer outwrote a slightly bigger wet, broader writer.

Indeed, when one makes a positive assertion, claiming a new "fact", the obligation is on him to prove that assertion, not to challenge others to disprove it.

The claim that a Snorkel outwrote a Duofold Senior ... doesn't... mean...anything.

I do agree that "various factors" influence ink flow: warmth in hand, general arrangement/shape of feed, wetness (or is that wettedness) of ink, nib adjustment relative to the feed, etc. But those factors have far more pen-to-pen impact between individual pens-- whether of same series or of different brand/model-- than those factors contribute to one pen family consistently getting different word count than another pen family of different ink capacity... unless of course someone has good controlled lab data to prove otherwise, which we've agreed is both lacking and apparently unnecessary.

I have one winning example that can be used: hooded nibs.

Assuming two identical pens (same ink capacity, same feed, same ink storage device) with the only difference being the nib, open in one case and hooded in the other case, and assuming same writing conditions (e.g. one person copying same text over same papers with same ink), then my speculation is that the hooded nibbed pen will write more words than the other simply because the share of the total ink used for writing on paper is higer. In the open nibbed pen the evaporation of the ink while on the feed will decrease the percentage of ink that will indeed write on paper.

I am so convinced by this speculation of mine that I am even ready to test it personally.... when I'll be retired!

Ah retirement. After nearly forty 12-hour night shifts at hospital due to illness of partner at work, retirement seems more appealing, though I'd likely be bored.

Your example though is stronger evidence I believe for my position in all this than the opposition's

First, if I had to venture a guess as to how much ink is "lost" to evaporation in an open nib (that is, after all, capped between use and which typically does not see huge powder on it after finishing its fill of ink) vs a hooded nib is <2% of the ink used during that fill. Maybe much less. So, if one had a hooded pen and-- a lab controlled setting with identical ink flow, nib grade, etc-- then one rightly might expect the hooded nib to last something under 2% longer than an identical-size-sac pen without that "protective" feature, but the pen still would last far less long than an otherwise flow-identical and point-identical pen with open nib but with double the ink sac size, as the 100% greater ink capacity probably overwhelms the <2% or <<2% evaporation factor.

Second you seem to be trying to demonstrate that there are factors other than just ink-sac-size which influence word count. I agree that other factors influence, but I differ with you by asserting that such factors--- if unique to a given series-- still are overwhelmed by the simple factors of 1: Point Grade. 2: Dryness or Wetness of the ink flow and 3: Sac Size. Indeed, there is factor muddling, because if one pen is less sensitive to heat, humidity, nib-feed arrangement, one really is just identifying factors that make a pen wetter or drier in writing, which ultimately falls under the "Wetness or Dryness" factor I just mentioned.

And... I've seen no evidence offered-- save for an isolated claim by Frank-- that the Snorkel (or TM or "fat" Touchdown) offered consistently finer points and drier lines than do other pens with bigger ink capacities. And... even if those pens did offer that, then our only conclusion, again, is that the Snork (etc) is found with dry fine points. Not a powerful selling point to a broad selection of users

I remain with the following claims:

1) No one has offered fresh evidence that Sheaffer's Snork (TD, etc) offers consistently drier and finer point than pens of other makes, which is the only thing that would give them better word count than other pens with equal sac size and still probably not better word count than pens with much larger sac size.

2) I have noted wet writing broad point Snorks and ultra fine dry writing "other bigger pens" and I have seen the opposite. I find it is the ink capacity of the pen and the particular-to-the-given-pen wetness and point width that drives word count, not the brand name.

3) I remain with difficulty figuring why the intrinsic "Snorkel-ness" of a pen would contribute to random specimens writing longer than random examples of pens with heftier sacs.

I think this thing has blown to mythic proportions due to Frank's emphatic nature back in the day. I want to hear some actual evidence about the pens.

regards

-d

[david i]

Dear Hugh and David:

I wonder if I can turn your attentions to a methodological problem on a much "lower" level of abstraction. How can an ordinary "pen citizen" measure the ink capacity of a pen. I have a system that I use consistently. It's fine for my own comparative purposes. I use it to see that my plunger-fillers I restore fill "properly" by comparing its performance my own figures for other examples of each model of pen.

The problem is that I cannot compare my numbers with anyone else unless he uses EXACTLY the same system I do.

Does any have suggestions that do not require expensive scientific instrumentation?

Gerry

I would think some sort of volume marked graduated cylinder would allow filling or emptying to give a fixed volume.

regards

David

[david i]

Hi David

Beat as hard as you like!! I'm both thick skinned and love a good a argument.....

The comparison was to show simply applied logic is not always correct, my training in pure mathematics( albiet a long time ago) taught me this. It is a relevent exercise to look at such examples just to reinforce that all is not as it always seems.

Always glad to debate with someone who doesn't mind a focused eye on subject at hand. I don't wanna accidently offend anyone

But, keep in mind, you are preaching to the choir. I started my comments on this tangent on ink capacity in the thread on the 1940's special Sheaffer, by pointing out the perhaps apocryphal tale of the "wants direct evidence" kid getting thrown out of the ancient class on logic. Poor Spock gave people the idea that logic is more than it is.

In this discussion I am not using logic. I'm using math. I'm pointing out that you guys have made a positive assertion about Sheaffer's Snorkel, invoking really only an isolated (and uncontrolled) datum from a ghost and having done no testing of your own.

I've pointed out that math makes it clear that a small-capacity pen cannot out-write a large capacity pen, if point girth and flow-per-point-area are the same. It's not my obligation to disprove Frank's (and your) claim otherwise. It is the obligation of those who make specific claims about specific pens to back up those claims.

Lets look at this:

It is true that if the ink was delivered at the same rate/volume then a larger capacity lasts longer.

And that is all that matters.

Keep in mind, this is taken a bit out of context. You are swinging back and forth. First lab measurement is unnecessary, but now it begins to become necessary

I actually would not mind that we control for other factors, but to do so we need... control. And, you guys just finished giving grief for invoking the lab setting.

It doesn't matter. One need not measure it. It is a mathematical given. I don't need to test a small sac pen vs big sac pen by controlling the flow of each for constant and exact flow. It is, i assert, obvious that a fixed ink flow will last longer from a larger capacity pen. That some might say a Snorkel with fine dry point outlasts a Balance OS Wire Pen with wet triple broad point is not the issue at hand. They are really claiming that dry points outlast wet points. Big shock

Of course it matters!! Really, the word count I've referred to wasn't comparing a BBB to an XF......it was like with like....and you know that!! and it's rather lame to pull that one... I've already agreed that at a constant, fixed rate a larger ink supply last longer.....because it's true!!....but this is real world stuff.

Well now. It matters and it doesn't matter. You didn't go for my initial suggestion that rigorous control was necessary to support claims about flow and word count, but now you are objecting to non-rigorously controlled factors (eg. BBB vs XF) coming into play. My point sort of has been that we cannot have it both ways, and certainly those making bold sweeping claims about a pen they have not even tested should be careful making bold sweeping claims.

"Like vs Like" has little meaning if one does not *know* what is tested at all. I have dry medium writers and wet medium writers, and the wet mediums put down (it seems) far more ink.

So what does that "like with like" have to do with Snorks? Nothing. Unless you control for ink flow and point size, one can say nothing about word count, save for what has already been conceded quote correctly by Diplo, that a bigger ink sac will write more words than a smaller sac if the ink flow is identical.

There is no no "like with like" test that will allow a Snorkel to write more words than a 1940's Valiant wire pen with 3x the ink capacity.

There is only like vs NOT like. Some factor has to fudge. One MUST allow the Snork to be a more dry line, a finer point, something to alter that ink consumption rate, at which point one no longer has "Like with like".

What he then has is "like with not like" where he wishes to ignore the import of the part that is "not like", that is different. Or worse, perhaps, is to elevate that simple difference to something that is a benefit or bonus to the favored "not-like" item, in this case Snorks.

There is no doubt ( in my mind anyway) that different ink delivery systems will deliver ink at different rates to the same sized nib. The variation in the delivery of ink may be obvious, it may not....at what point does the variation become obvious? The data (and yes it is....) indicates that it may be difficult to pick these variations accurately by visual assessment ( I'm assuming that the data was collected with no bias). In Franks word count it's clear he was unable to detect these differences in practise otherwise the large capacity pens would finish ahead. From that I would conclude that the snorkles and touchdowns managed to produce a visually similiar result with greater economy. So, yes, the ability to measure ink flow at the tip is relevent in being able to determine what flow rate creates a visible difference which in "real world" determines the word count.

No we are... slowly.. .getting to crux of matter.

Different systems might (or might NOT) deliver ink at different rates via same size nib. Indeed the same "systems" all alone can deliver different ink rates depending on how the system is tweaked. I routinely watch in his lab as Ron Zorn makes a Snorkel and a Vacumatic write wetter or drier at will. Again, this points to my observation that pen-to-pen variation is more significant than series-to-series, regarding ink flow.

At risk of going all "debatey" here, I see this as a second concession (the first being that, obviously, if net ink flow is identical, a bigger pen will out last a smaller pen). This second point of agreement now is that, "here is no doubt ( in my mind anyway) that different ink delivery systems will deliver ink at different rates to the same sized nib"

So we agree bigger pens will outlast smaller pens, flow being equal. You agree that various ink-nib-feed arrangements can vary.

You have yet to offer evidence that As A Rule the arrangement on the Sheaffer pen offers proprietarily slower ink flow in some fashion that overwhelms the effect of its smaller ink capacity, relative to bigger capacity pens like SHeaffer Valiant (1945), Parker Duofold etc.

All we have is Frank's report via your record of it regarding some pen or another, with a rough aim of "like with like" but with no control for that, and with my objection that I have dry and wet "like width" pens even within a single given series.

The data (and yes it is....) indicates that it may be difficult to pick these variations accurately by visual assessment ( I'm assuming that the data was collected with no bias).

Data almost always is gathered with bias, thus the huge push in science to limit bias. Frank might not have had an agenda (or might have), but no doubt had bias, didn't have a scientific approach to the issue, and clearly did not have a large sample to test. At best you have asserted he had an eye to grabbing two pens of similar point width (even that unproven) and with obvious caveat that not all like-width points have same dryness or wetness of line, even within a series, never mind between series.

In Franks word count it's clear he was unable to detect these differences in practise otherwise the large capacity pens would finish ahead. From that I would conclude that the snorkles and touchdowns managed to produce a visually similiar result with greater economy.

One man compared two pens amongst millions, in unscientific fashion, even while having a stated (iirc) fondness for the pen he advocated. I would be... very... cautious... about "concluding" anything beyond the stated observation, that a single Snork tested compared to a single other pen produced more words, something that says... nothing... about Snorkel as a series.

So, yes, the ability to measure ink flow at the tip is relevent in being able to determine what flow rate creates a visible difference which in "real world" determines the word count

Which was, rather, my original point. It was only when people "raged" against my insistence that actually studying the pens in controlled fashion is only way really to prove any claims about systemic flow differences being in play, that I 'retreated" to math.

But either way, my points hold

1) There is no controlled scientific approach to claiming that Snorkel the series has disproportionately dry flow or fine point or both relative to other series to support the further claim that Snorks in general will write more words per fill than even another pen of identical small ink capacity, never mind the many pens with much larger ink capacity.

2) I think there is cult-of-personality in play. Had Frank cited the "Wearever Pacemaker" instead of Snork as having some monster word count ability, today people would be saying the Wearever Pacemaker had this remarkable feature, obviously true because Frank said it, and decrying objections that a simple observation hardly constitutes proof of trend.

3) The various soft features invoked (heat, humidity, different feeds, insulation of pen, etc) all feed (no pun intended) into the basic math of all this... ink flow.

4) Even if (and it is wholly unproven, not even supported really) Snorks consistently are drier writers than other pens, which is the only way they will jump in word count relative to other pens, all this means is that Snorks are dry writers.

The relevant point in all this is "why where the results Frank obtained possible?" I find them interesting as ,to me, they are unexpected. Rather than your approach of dismissing them, I look at them and say "why?" . The answer is, of course, simple because it's the only possible answer and that is that minor differences in ink flow are not visibly detectable to the eye, nor minor differences (ie 2 or 3 microns) in point size.

I am not dismissing Frank's observations. I fully can imagine the results, and can reproduce today, having a Snorkel out-write a much bigger Parker Vacumatic Maxima. I'll take out my Max with the flex broad stub nib, and my accountant nib Snork and have go at it...

As you have no access to the pens Frank used and have no way to observe how he (not everyone per se, just Frank) held or pressed the pen during use or so the random adjustment of ink flow on one or the other, you cannot comment other than to say that Frank reported- again- a pen that wrote more than some other pen.

Your ink flow point is used in something of a straw man fashion. It is not a 3% difference in nib girth that would let the imaginary Snork write more words than the imaginary Vacumatic Maxima. It is not "invisible" flow differences.

Rather, we conclude that an mathematically insignificant sample with no actual control for flow or nib in the hand of a biased observer with no external observers, with no documentation of the points of the two pens in play, let a Snorkel write more words than an other pen. And, in this setting, instead of Snorkel, it could have been Wearever or Greishaber or anything so trumpeted. We conclude that this issue has not been addressed rigorously, and that the bold claims of an individual regarding that limited analysis are taken by some as overwhelming evidence regarding an entire series of millions of pens... something that gives me great doubt.

I don't disagree with your line of reasoning....which is sound...but look at why Frank achieved the results he did. As I've already said these are not definitive but do raise some questions. Of course your correct in a larger ink supply lasting longer at a given rate than a small....but if a certain ink delivery system creates the same visible result with less ink isn't that a technological advance?

Any single observation can lead to hypothesis. That is a wonderful thing, really.

But, again, i don't need to explain why Frank claimed his findings. I do not attribute bad intent to those findings. I simply point out that his "findings"-- treated seemingly as of biblical import by some-- are just a random observation in an uncontrolled setting. The math does not favor his findings representing a "rule" for Snorkel. My observation that Snork-to-Snork comparisons or single Snork pen vs single non-Snork pen allows much larger range of variation than any claimed entire-snork-series vs entire-other-series comparision, regarding ink flow.

I have no interest in defending the results ( and none in trying to replicate them!!) just exploring the reasons why they where obtained. The results would no doubt have a large "human error" factor, and that may be the most relevant issue but the trend indicates ink flow and nib size are difficult to visually measure.
Regards
Hugh

That's the tough part. I suspect here you did back yourself into trying to defend his results, and I believe there is no evidence to defend them, as they ask for challenge. We've agreed that capacity rules in case of equal ink flow. All we are left with then is claiming Snorks have such limited ink flow as to overwhelm ink capacity differences with other bigger pens. I am much more comfortable with the idea that Frank tested a dry snork against a wetter pen and his dry snork happend to out-write that particular bigger pen.

All that said, rather than asserting-- essentially-- that, "well, Frank couldn't have erred", I'd rather someone grab a pile of pens and test 'em. I certainly don't plan to

-d

[Hugh]

Hi David,

Firstly, I'll have to do my reply over several sessions...you're a hard man to keep up with!!

The basis of what you say relies on a constant ink flow to the nib. So let's look at ink initially, ink isn't a pure liquid but rather a liquid with suspended particles of probably variable sizes. This will have an effect on flow, much as platletes affect blood flow .

If we look at the "dynamics" in a basic , say lever filled pen, there are a number of factors affecting the flow to the tip. As we write ink flows down to the tip, air makes its way up, forms a bubble and then floats to the top of the sac. At the same time a slight vaccum has developed in the sac, the bubble reaching the top relives the vaccum....for want of a better description the sac pulsates very slightly. This in it's own right leads to a variable ink flow at the tip. The ink also flows in a variable nature due to it's composition down the feed, again very minor effect. The next factor affecting ink flow is a "shunt" factor, when you raise the nib from the paper ink still travels down the feed resulting in a greater readily available supply when you next place the tip on paper, the same effect also happens during writing as the letter forming speed varies.

So when all these minor elements come to together the result is a variable ink flow at the tip. You mentioned earlier that two identical pens, one writing "word" and one writing "the', the latter would write more words than the former. Given the shunt factor this may , in practice, not occur ...just an observation.

Now, a fixed reservoir pen like a wire fill has one difference, when the air rises in the chamber the pressure is released without a the benefit of a "cushioning" effect of a sac, the result is a greater variation in flow at the tip.

The P51 has the benefit of a breather tube and an enhanced feed, in theory the ink flow (while still having a shunting effect) should be less variable than the two above. The P51 is considered a high capacity, high word writing pen and Franks results put it at the top which shouldn't surprise many people.

So between the 3 types looked at the main difference is the variablity of the flow. The wire fill will have the greatest variation, the P51 least. If we then compare this to
Franks numbers (even with a 30% +/- factor) the P51 is way ahead.

Why? The most likely reason is that the more consistent the flow the less ink is required to achieve a visibly similiar result. Obviously the wire fill pen was in fact a much wetter writing pen than was visually observed.

to be cont.....

Regards
Hugh

[Hugh]

back again....

Now the snorkle is a sac pen and must have the same basic dynamics occuring in the sac as a lever pen but Franks results indicate a higher word count than should be expected. It appears to me that the delivery of ink from the tube to the nib negates the expected variations in flow and creates a stable and (relatively) consistent flow to the tip, even better than the P51. If my assumption that less ink is required from a consistent flowing pen to create visibly similiar results to highly variable flow pen is correct then the snorkle must have a very consistent flow to achieve anywhere near this result. Even a 30% or 40% overestimation of the snorkle word count would have been a good result based on capacity.

Now to summaries this
1. It is clear to all that Frank did not actually use pens with similiar ink flow.
2. It would appear a reasonable assumption that visually the more stable the ink flow the less ink required to give a visibly similiar result to a variable flowing pen, noting the top word count pens would have had the most consistent flows of those tested.
3. While I may have forgotten to mention it earlier the ink used by Frank was Carters B/B.....and probably not the ideal ink to tell minor visible flow differences with.

So was Franks word count test fatally flawed?

From a technical point, yes, as it was an assumption that pens with like flow and nibs where used. From a practical point, not so much as it raised the distinct possability that a stable ink flow produces a visually similiar result to a variable flowing pen but using less ink. If there's any substance in Franks results it appears the most logical reason.

So yes David is correct regarding big v small capacity +1 David ( I never doubted this, just how the word count test came to it's results)
A consistent ink flow to the nib is not possible to achieve +1 Hugh
Franks test was flawed +1 David
Different ink delivery systems give different results +1 Hugh ( I needed that point....otherwise I might lose)

So have I been able to defend the results, as David believes I was trying to do, or shown them to be fatally flawed?

On that I think a bit of both, I've managed to come up with a possible reason why the seemingly undefendable results where obtained (....this may just be plain old fashioned wrong..) and in the same process why it was a flawed test.

Out of interest Franks test:

The following test was conducted 30 years ago by the author.Pens selected were determined by what was on hand with close attention paid to matching nib style and ink flow as uniformly as possible (All medium firm nibs). "Real World" use was simulated by writing an average 500 words per day. This allows for evaporation of ink stored in the pens. Ink used was Carter's Permanent Blue-Black. All pens had medium 14kt gold nibs and were in perfect working condition. Two models of each pen were used and the results averaged.

Words written Pen
4560 Parker Aero-metric 51
3920 Parker Vac-fill 51
3680 Sheaffer Snorkle, Triumoh nib
3600 Parker Maxima Vacumatic
3520 Parker Red Senior Duofold
3240 Sheaffer Touchdown TM Triumph
2840 Parker Major Vacumatic
2800 Sheaffer Piston fill Triumph
2800 Parker 61


Regards
Hugh

Edit to add: When you look at the results the only real odd ones are the snork and TM, with the 5 at the bottom all within ~10%.

[Hugh]

I'm with Hugh here.

David is right when claiming that in a clean separated laboratory environment, when all others factors are the same, ink capacity is the key for the "word count" battle. I would even add that is an self-evident truth.

But Hugh is right in assessing that ink capacity is only one (albeit the most important and evident) of the factors that influence this particular performance (# of travels to the inkwell) of a pen. And this is even more true when considering the normal use of a pen in the real world, rather than an unlikely laboratory test.

I have one winning example that can be used: hooded nibs.

Assuming two identical pens (same ink capacity, same feed, same ink storage device) with the only difference being the nib, open in one case and hooded in the other case, and assuming same writing conditions (e.g. one person copying same text over same papers with same ink), then my speculation is that the hooded nibbed pen will write more words than the other simply because the share of the total ink used for writing on paper is higer. In the open nibbed pen the evaporation of the ink while on the feed will decrease the percentage of ink that will indeed write on paper.

I am so convinced by this speculation of mine that I am even ready to test it personally.... when I'll be retired!

Thanks for the support, David's giving me a bit of "rough" up ....

Regards
Hugh

[david i]

Thanks for the support, David's giving me a bit of "rough" up ....

Regards
Hugh

Of course I'm not

It's my thesis that endeavors to rough up your thesis. I'll go yell at it

Will answer more later. Should be off. Another illness in the group. Been now on night shifts like 40 days straight. Getting punchy

-d

[diplo]

I remain with the following claims:

1) No one has offered fresh evidence that Sheaffer's Snork (TD, etc) offers consistently drier and finer point than pens of other makes, which is the only thing that would give them better word count than other pens with equal sac size and still probably not better word count than pens with much larger sac size.

2) I have noted wet writing broad point Snorks and ultra fine dry writing "other bigger pens" and I have seen the opposite. I find it is the ink capacity of the pen and the particular-to-the-given-pen wetness and point width that drives word count, not the brand name.

3) I remain with difficulty figuring why the intrinsic "Snorkel-ness" of a pen would contribute to random specimens writing longer than random examples of pens with heftier sacs.

I think this thing has blown to mythic proportions due to Frank's emphatic nature back in the day. I want to hear some actual evidence about the pens.

regards

-d

Can’t you just wait for 25-something years till I’ll be retired?

I stand by your points as quoted above, with the exception of the third (which is the more vague btw). I’ll try to put down better my points to see if we could agree.

My claims are:

• When assessing the performance of a pen, it’s important to measure how long the fill last (i.e. the so call “word count”) and therefore it is interesting to make some speculation on what pen could write more based on its characteristics;
• The Word Count is influenced by several factors, some of them are controllable, like point grade and the amount of ink stored, and others are not controllable (more on those later). Therefore it is impossible to come up with a valid rule (true for any instance of similar pens), but it is possible to predict which set up is more “ink efficient” or to justify some (even non-scientific) test that came with some non-expected result (like Frank’s test, in defense of whom we must agree that 1) he was a fair and honest person, even if he has some preference for Snorks he tried to work with a set of equal test conditions (nib grade, regular ink flow, same ink, paper and user…), 2) he had a long experience in pens, so we must concede that he not only wanted but even was able to create those equal test conditions, with the obvious limit of the empiric experiment; 3) the Snork did not win the test);

Now, the following is the list of the above mentioned factors, with a reference (in brackets) to the Sheaffer’s Vac-Fill vs. P51/Snork argument.

• Inefficient ink delivery system. As Hugh pointed out before, the 40’s Sheaffer’s still relied on an old generation simple feeder. The “younger” pens all had breather tubes (51 and Snork), collectors (51), and sacs (51 Aero and Snork) which better compensate for the ink loss when writing ensuring an even flow during the writing experience;
• Open/hooded nib. As I said before, (in my opinion) an open nib is more prone to evaporation both during the long writing sessions and when the pen is left for a long time unused (even capped; my Sheaffer’s FT all require some work in the morning to work as expected). In this case I believe there must be considered that a Triumph nib is somewhat in between an Open nib and a full hooded nib. (No big difference between Snork and Vac Fill here but clear advantage for P51). P.S. David is speculating less than 2% my guess is higher but…
• Ink temperature. Ink is a fluid, the more heated the fluid is, the more flowing it will be. The more flowing the more wet it will result the point, increasing the amount of ink left on paper, and more ink will go to the feed, increasing the evaporation rate. Anyhow this is bad because the pen can be adjusted for optimal flow only at one given ink temperature at times. So if the pen is adjusted for the “cold” ink it will not work optimally when the ink is warm and if it is adjusted for a warm ink, it will not work optimally when the ink is cold. Now the celluloid piston fill pens are prone to increase the ink temperature in long writing session because of the direct contact between the warmth of the hand and the liquid, only mediated by the celluloid that is a good conductor of warmth and thinner (compared to the polymethyl methacrylate resin used in 51 Vacs);

Finally:

• Do all P51 will outlast all Sheaffer’s VacFill? No
• Do all P51 will outlast all Sheaffer’s VacFill once granted that the nib grade is the same and the ink flow is as expected (standard for the pen)? No
• Do some P51 will outlast some Sheaffer’s VacFill once granted that the nib grade is the same and the ink flow is as expected (standard for the pen)? Yes, it is possible
• Will I provide some evidence for this? Yes, in 25 years or something

Agreed?

Ciao, Andrea

[Hugh]

Can’t you just wait for 25-something years till I’ll be retired?

I stand by your points as quoted above, with the exception of the third (which is the more vague btw). I’ll try to put down better my points to see if we could agree.

My claims are:

• When assessing the performance of a pen, it’s important to measure how long the fill last (i.e. the so call “word count”) and therefore it is interesting to make some speculation on what pen could write more based on its characteristics;
• The Word Count is influenced by several factors, some of them are controllable, like point grade and the amount of ink stored, and others are not controllable (more on those later). Therefore it is impossible to come up with a valid rule (true for any instance of similar pens), but it is possible to predict which set up is more “ink efficient” or to justify some (even non-scientific) test that came with some non-expected result (like Frank’s test, in defense of whom we must agree that 1) he was a fair and honest person, even if he has some preference for Snorks he tried to work with a set of equal test conditions (nib grade, regular ink flow, same ink, paper and user…), 2) he had a long experience in pens, so we must concede that he not only wanted but even was able to create those equal test conditions, with the obvious limit of the empiric experiment; 3) the Snork did not win the test);

Now, the following is the list of the above mentioned factors, with a reference (in brackets) to the Sheaffer’s Vac-Fill vs. P51/Snork argument.

• Inefficient ink delivery system. As Hugh pointed out before, the 40’s Sheaffer’s still relied on an old generation simple feeder. The “younger” pens all had breather tubes (51 and Snork), collectors (51), and sacs (51 Aero and Snork) which better compensate for the ink loss when writing ensuring an even flow during the writing experience;
• Open/hooded nib. As I said before, (in my opinion) an open nib is more prone to evaporation both during the long writing sessions and when the pen is left for a long time unused (even capped; my Sheaffer’s FT all require some work in the morning to work as expected). In this case I believe there must be considered that a Triumph nib is somewhat in between an Open nib and a full hooded nib. (No big difference between Snork and Vac Fill here but clear advantage for P51). P.S. David is speculating less than 2% my guess is higher but…
• Ink temperature. Ink is a fluid, the more heated the fluid is, the more flowing it will be. The more flowing the more wet it will result the point, increasing the amount of ink left on paper, and more ink will go to the feed, increasing the evaporation rate. Anyhow this is bad because the pen can be adjusted for optimal flow only at one given ink temperature at times. So if the pen is adjusted for the “cold” ink it will not work optimally when the ink is warm and if it is adjusted for a warm ink, it will not work optimally when the ink is cold. Now the celluloid piston fill pens are prone to increase the ink temperature in long writing session because of the direct contact between the warmth of the hand and the liquid, only mediated by the celluloid that is a good conductor of warmth and thinner (compared to the polymethyl methacrylate resin used in 51 Vacs);

Finally:

• Do all P51 will outlast all Sheaffer’s VacFill? No
• Do all P51 will outlast all Sheaffer’s VacFill once granted that the nib grade is the same and the ink flow is as expected (standard for the pen)? No
• Do some P51 will outlast some Sheaffer’s VacFill once granted that the nib grade is the same and the ink flow is as expected (standard for the pen)? Yes, it is possible
• Will I provide some evidence for this? Yes, in 25 years or something

Agreed?

Ciao, Andrea

Hi Andrea,

I must agree on most of the points raised by you. Although for the sake of correctness the Snork dosen't have a breather tube, the delivery of the ink to the feed being similiar to an ordinary saced pen, the real difference is in the delivery of the ink from the tube to the tip.

I hadn't considered the value of a hooded nib in delivering ink , even at 2% it equates to (on Franks results) about a 90 word advantage to the P51....interesting how these seeming little advantages can accumulate.

I'm not so sure that ink temperature will have as bigger an impact as you've indicated. Certainly by design the Snork has a well insulated sac, as does the P51 Aero. As ink contains mainly water I'm not so sure a change in ,say 10 degree celsius , will significantly alter the flow. I suspect the main impact heat would have would be on the air in the sac or resevoir and pens such as the vac-fill Sheaffer would show the greatest effect. That said, again I had overlooked this as a factor influencing word count and it's definitely a valid point that the initial flow rate of a pen may well change after some use due to heat. Interestingly hand heat has been cited as a cause for some older pens to "blob", one of the solutions is a smaller sac (reducing the amount of air to expand) and from experience it does work. On that observation it would mean that the vac-fillers flow rate would increase the closer to empty it became, at 2% (say) there's another advantage to more modern pens.

There are just so many factors in play !!

So we agree bigger pens will outlast smaller pens, flow being equal. You agree that various ink-nib-feed arrangements can vary. -d

To me it's clear that equal flow is not achievable over a test period in a "real world" situation, and that's the major weakness in Davids argument in applying a theory (as above) to a practical situation.
Regards
Hugh

[Hugh]

Dear Hugh and David:

I wonder if I can turn your attentions to a methodological problem on a much "lower" level of abstraction. How can an ordinary "pen citizen" measure the ink capacity of a pen. I have a system that I use consistently. It's fine for my own comparative purposes. I use it to see that my plunger-fillers I restore fill "properly" by comparing its performance my own figures for other examples of each model of pen.

The problem is that I cannot compare my numbers with anyone else unless he uses EXACTLY the same system I do.

Does any have suggestions that do not require expensive scientific instrumentation?

Gerry

Hi Gerry,

In all the "mayhem" I'd missed this. The simple answer is weight, weigh the pen empty then full. Using the same ink would be desirable ( I'm assuming different inks may have different weights but would probably be minor anyway). Of course this means everyone has to have accurate scales so may not be a practical solution.

Regards
Hugh