42 replies to this topic

[Gerry Berg]

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

Yup: expensive equipment.

I simply fill the pen using its filler system, and then disgorge it into a graduated vial. Also not precise (drops left behind, how many drops make 0.1 ml?, etc), but quite inexpensive!

Gerry

[david i]

Yup: expensive equipment.

I simply fill the pen using its filler system, and then disgorge it into a graduated vial. Also not precise (drops left behind, how many drops make 0.1 ml?, etc), but quite inexpensive!

Gerry

Hmmm. graduated cylinder. Sounds familiar

-d

[Gerry Berg]

Hmmm. graduated cylinder. Sounds familiar

-d

It should. Is there a diff between a cyl and vial? Darn if I know? There was a long thread on this a while back with a lot of objections raised about accuracy. I keep coming back to this because the alternatives are expensive.
g

[david i]

It should. Is there a diff between a cyl and vial? Darn if I know? There was a long thread on this a while back with a lot of objections raised about accuracy. I keep coming back to this because the alternatives are expensive.
g

Seems that emptying a full pen into a graduated cylinder (thin, tall,with fine enough units to identify by 1/10 ml's, would give goodanswers.

regards

david

[Hugh]

Seems that emptying a full pen into a graduated cylinder (thin, tall,with fine enough units to identify by 1/10 ml's, would give goodanswers.

regards

david

Seems the most practical solution....might have to get one of those..

Regards
Hugh

[diplo]

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 stand corrected, thank you Hugh. My mistake, too many tubes and gaskets in a single pen...

Andrea

[david i]

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)

The fatal flaw is more with the assumptions given to Frank's work than with his individual observation, which-- as per our prior posts on word count- do recognize that it is possible for an individual small-capacity to outwrite an individual large-capacity pen, in cases in which the ink flow of the larger pen grossly is greater than the ink flow of the smaller pen.

The fatal flaws:

1. Assumption that Frank did a controlled blinded study with significant sampling with similar sized letters and letter-counts for words. There is no evidence he did so. The lack of control for ink-flow, perhaps point grade, etc does not mean he was wrong. It simply means one cannot assume anything about the test.

2. Attribution of anything more than isolated anecdote to one fellow mentioning how many words a given pen gave him.

3. An initial suggestion (feel free to correct me) that anything other than flow rate (result of adjustment of pen and various confounding factors mentioned at length) and of ink capacity guide final word count.

On this final point/flaw I think most have come around on this point to realize, that however one rationalizes the final ink flow for pen (wet, dry, benefitted one way or other by shape of feed, presence of breather tube, exposure of nib, etc), it all comes down for that to net ink flow.

Above, Hugh is- i believe- mistaken to give himself +1 for noting that different ink delivery systems give different results and the +1 for consistent ink flow to the nib is not possible to achieve.

Those two points are straw men. They might or might not be right, but whether or not they are right or not right has no bearing on the issue at hand. They might account for a given pen being hard to measure for ink flow per microsecond, but average ink-flow can be considered. And, however consistent or not ink flow is and however various delivery systems (perhaps) impact ink-flow all that can be boiled down to what was my earlier observation.. that very dry pens will write longer than wet writing pens.

No one here has asserted that Snorkel is a consistently more dry writer at same nib grade vs other pens. Indeed, I've pointed out that restorers can make a Snork (and most pens) write quite dry or quite wet fashion.

Barring a claim that Sheaffers are much more dry writing than other pens, there is no claim that Sheaffers can possibly out-write those bigger-capacity pens. We have, after all, agreed that ink-flow and ink capacity are the only two factors of significance. HOW a pen gets to have certain ink flow (delivery system) might be an interesting subject unto itself, but does not affect the only two factor in play here.

So have I been able to defend the results, as David believes I was trying to do, or shown them to be fatally flawed? onsistent ink flow to the nib is not possible to achieve

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.

Fatally flawed, I fear. Far too much assumption about his testing. Far too much hand waving about how different ink-flow systems contribute to dry or wet writing without recognizing that those systems do not matter, barring a claim (so far wholly unproven) that Sheaffer simply write in more dry fashion than other pens.

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%.

Observation always has value. But observation must be taken in context and not mistaken for proof.

At very least, I offer the observation that I bought a Parker 51 from Ron Zorn three years ago after one of our repair sessions at his shop. Smoothest writing 51 I've used and a quite wet writer. Have used it nearly continuously at work for three years. Actually have brassed the clip. How many of us today use a pen long enough to brass it. But, I have to fill it very often. It is a.... wet... writer.

I would not want to claim that 51's have poor word count simply on basis of this smooth wet writing medium point pen often needing refill

regards

David

[david i]

Hi Andrea,

Sorry slow reply. Just recovering from "summer with no night off"

I will address below...

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;

I don't know how important it is to measure the word count, but I certainly can understand that one might be interested in that word count. My core point on word count is that one must be very careful extrapolating much from a single pen and must be careful not to profess sweeping rules for whole series of pens.

On one hand, I think there is nearly no interest (humor me, i'll be gentler soon) in speculating how pens write more or less than others, as it comes down only to ink capacity and ink flow (one can treat point grade as part of ink flow or view it as slightly separate variable). Dry pen, narrow point, huge capacity.... MANY words. Small capacity wet flow, broad point... few words. Not much to discuss there.

However, the mechanics of how a pen becomes a dry writer or good writer (what makes smooth reliable flow, how pens are adjusted wet/dry, what factors might make pen have those features)... those are very interesting points, because they leave room for real discussion.

• 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);

I believe it is not impossible to come up with a valid rule or at least guide for determining heavy or dry ink flow. Restorers so adjust pens all the time to achieve that, independent of pen brand. And, again, the original and core argument here was whether Snorkel writes more words than pens of greater capacity. Clearly, all that matters is the ink-flow and ink-capacity.

My core point again is that it does not matter if Frank was fair honest and competent or was none of those things. Again, this is straw man. Arguing if Frank was all those things might yield an answer, but whichever way the answer went has nothing ultimately to do with word count being dependent only on ink capacity and ink flow. All this talk about Frank's qualities does not bear on this and serves only as distraction

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;

Again, it is a straw man. All the talk of delivery systems and ink-loss come down ONLY to ink-flow. Again, this is how straw man works... we can debate whether there is difference in mechanism between older or newer pens, but whether there is or isn't does not impact the final step, dry or wet flow. I have seen no evidence or even claim here that any claim about the old feed, breather tubes, hooded nibs, etc have rendered all those old pens wetter writers than Snorkel. Indeed, I have asserted that I have bone dry Vacumatics and wet lush 51's, Snorks, etc.

• 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…

Evaporation whether 1/10% or 3% will be dwarfed by ink-flow differences, either within or without a given series. Meaning dry line vs wet line, fine point vs broad point, makes far more difference for random Snork vs SNork, or Duofold vs Duofold or Snork vs Duofold than it will for entire Snork series vs entire Duofold series.

• 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);

Again, at risk of being blunt, this is a straw man. All those things might effect whether a pen has more dry or more wet line, but has not been proven to render an entire series of pens more wet writing than some other series, indeed given that factory (and later restorers) adjust pens via feed/tines for "good" flow, that final adjustment likely compensates for whatever other factors for the pens might lean them towards wet flow or dry flow. Again, we can debate the effects you cite above, and you might be right about them, but as with classic straw man, it matters not if you are right, as this does not affect the original point that only final/net inkflow and ink capacity affect word count.

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

I don't disagree, but really then there was no discussion to be had, never mind couple dozen posts

What you have just said, if i follow, is that looking at a pen by brand does not tell us anything about word count. With that I am happy to agree

david

EDIT- Misread your post. I do not agree that some 51 will outlast some Sheaffer Vac-Fill controlling for nib and inkflow, unless the P51 has larger ink capacity (I can imagine a Vac-fil 51 having more ink than a Tuckaway Sheaffer Vac-Fil, for example). There is no way, though, that a pen with smaller ink capacity will outlast pen with larger capacity once ink-flow and nib grade have been controlled for.

regards

-d

[Teej47]

This is all kind of interesting in an 'I should be working but I have ADD' sort of way.

Seems to me that the ethereal 'measure' of word count is, at the very least, highly subjective. If two of us sit down with exactly the same pen, with exactly the same volume of ink, and copy whatever text you like, we will not run out of ink at the same point. Like as not, we would have significantly different results. Each of us has our own unique physical mechanics we employ when writing, which I suspect have at least as much bearing as the nuances of ink delivery systems.

If we want a purely objective measure of word count... well, there's typing for that. My suspicion is that the whole idea of one pen producing a higher word count than another stems from nothing more than claims in advertising from days gone by. If you can make some attention grabbing claim in an add that can't be refuted... well, it's just clever advertising (so long as nobody realizes it can't be proven, either).

Realistically, there are no more than a couple objective ways to compare how much one line of pens will write compared to another (already addressed earlier in the thread)... and given that pens across the same line will display a variety of writing characteristics (wet, dry, broad, fine, etc.), there's really only one objective comparison. How much ink the pen holds.

Here's a thought... in Frank's test he got a higher word count out of a Snorkel than out of a "Piston fill Triumph". More than a third better, too. If you have a Snork with good seals and such (not hard to do) you're probably going to get a fill close to capacity for the pen. If you restore a '40s wire pen with the standard procedure of just a few years ago (poor replacement piston gasket and rubber washer shoved down the barrel) you're lucky to get the thing half full. There's the real deal about Frank's comparison, it exposes the difficulty of properly restoring a wire pen, not that it was somehow not as good as a Snork. Do the same comparison today with the same pens that have had attention from Ron Zorn (or a number of others, no doubt) and the results would be very different.

Tim

[Hugh]

Hi David,

1. Assumption that Frank did a controlled blinded study with significant sampling with similar sized letters and letter-counts for words. There is no evidence he did so. The lack of control for ink-flow, perhaps point grade, etc does not mean he was wrong. It simply means one cannot assume anything about the test.

2. Attribution of anything more than isolated anecdote to one fellow mentioning how many words a given pen gave him.

Lets clean this up and see what I have said;

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.

Of course it wasn't a controlled or remotely definitive test, as I've said it simply shows a trend based on one persons obsevations regarding flow and nib size. To me the real question is how some of these counts where achieved, clearly the snorks used had to be dryer writers otherwise the result isn't remotely possible, even if the snork came last by a couple of 100 words given it's capacity that would have been a reasonable result. There are two ways of looking at the word count, yours...that being it's a load of rubbish, and mine...that being was it achievable and if so how? As I've already said from a technical point the WC was flawed as it's clear ink usage wasn't the same across the pens, yet one point Frank did make was that he tried to pick pens with similiar nibs and flow. Clearly the flow is a visual appraisal.

3. An initial suggestion (feel free to correct me) that anything other than flow rate (result of adjustment of pen and various confounding factors mentioned at length) and of ink capacity guide final word count.

On this final point/flaw I think most have come around on this point to realize, that however one rationalizes the final ink flow for pen (wet, dry, benefitted one way or other by shape of feed, presence of breather tube, exposure of nib, etc), it all comes down for that to net ink flow.

All things being equal that would be correct, but as all thinks arn't equal this is a questionable assumption. The term wet, dry etc. for a nib is a visual observation, you have presented nothing but your own observations to back your claim that two pens with the same visible flow rate, the pen with the largest ink supply will last longer. There's a fair bit of straw in that ....I maintain that the consistency of the flow will impact on the visual assesment.....this has less straw in it.

Above, Hugh is- i believe- mistaken to give himself +1 for noting that different ink delivery systems give different results and the +1 for consistent ink flow to the nib is not possible to achieve.

Here we see another disturbing point, I generously give you points, you ruthlessly take mine away from me ( in bold to make it worse) ...it's a cruel world...

but luckily I'm not mistaken

Now we're at the crucial points of contention. So time to use basic fluid dynamics to prove my point. I will digress and use an example that can be tested at home by anyone. If you take a glass bottle, a plastic bottle (the softer the better) and a bottle with the bottom cut out all with as close as practical to the same diameter outlet, fill with the same volume of water and time how long it takes each to empty the glass bottle will be slowest and the one with no bottom the fastest. The next part is more difficult but you then put the lid on the two fastest and attempt to adjust the flow ( by putting a hole in each), the smallest hole will be in the free flowing bottle of course (accuracy,as such, isn't important in this) . Lastly take the bottles outside to a smooth concrete area and allow to drain as you walk along. You will observe that a different pattern is achieved for each bottle. This is as a result of the water flowing inconsistently from the glass and plastic bottles. In practise you should be able to walk the same distance which each bottle but can you tell by looking that the same amount of liquid was used? The answer is no and the glass bottle may well appear to have used less water due to the "burping" affect and the consistent even line from the free flowing bottle will appear to use more water. Visual observations can't be relied on for accurately predicting the flow rate.

The same principle applies to pens, as I explained in an earlier post.

Those two points are straw men. They might or might not be right, but whether or not they are right or not right has no bearing on the issue at hand. They might account for a given pen being hard to measure for ink flow per microsecond, but average ink-flow can be considered. And, however consistent or not ink flow is and however various delivery systems (perhaps) impact ink-flow all that can be boiled down to what was my earlier observation.. that very dry pens will write longer than wet writing pens.

This demonstates to me you haven't properly graped what I've been saying in relation to the WC (that's W(ord) C(ount)...not W(ater) C(loset) by the way) and how the anomaly with the snork could arise. To call the points "straw men" is incorrect for the simple reason that it is not possible to visually predict the flow rate, clearly the extremes of the range are easy to pick. An average ink flow is just that....that's like timing two cars, one not moving and one doing 200mph...the average is 100mph..means nothing (so both get booked for speeding?) .

Ink flow is a visual assessment, how that visual affect influences determining degrees of wetness is affected by a number of factors. One being consistency of flow and the other volume. From a technical point what you say is correct, practically it's not. Every thing I've seen ( including the only WC done...how ever rubbery) indicate to me that the more stable and consistent the flow the less ink is required to produce the same visual result as a pen that would have more variable flow.

Barring a claim that Sheaffers are much more dry writing than other pens, there is no claim that Sheaffers can possibly out-write those bigger-capacity pens. We have, after all, agreed that ink-flow and ink capacity are the only two factors of significance. HOW a pen gets to have certain ink flow (delivery system) might be an interesting subject unto itself, but does not affect the only two factor in play here.

From a technical point correct. Again wrong from a practical point as the perception of wetness is visual and not based on any hard data such as actual flow rates, it's a case of "what you see may not be what you get". How the ink delivery system delivers the ink is of vital importance in the visual determination of wetness, and this is where your argument falters somewhat. You only have to look at the automobile industry to see how technology can deliver better results with less fuel. In the case of Sheaffer it would appear that the snorkle system was a technical masterpiece at ink delivery ( I doubt it was ever realized by Sheaffer) in that it provides the most stable flow of ink to the tip thereby requiring less ink to achieve the visual result. I am rather sceptical though of the results Frank achieved with the snork though.

Still I'll stand by my claim that a smaller capacity pen can out write a larger capacity pen , delivering the same visual result, if it has a more stable and consistent ink supply to the tip. And specifically that the snork and P51 have the best ink delivery design, with the snork probably ahead .

At this point I can't see how you can still deny that consistency of flow is not a factor in the visual determination of ink flow, my thesis has yours in the corner now ...although I suspect it's a no win for either of us as neither point can be proven....

I take my 2 points back !!

Regards
Hugh

[Hugh]

Hi Tim,

Realistically, there are no more than a couple objective ways to compare how much one line of pens will write compared to another (already addressed earlier in the thread)... and given that pens across the same line will display a variety of writing characteristics (wet, dry, broad, fine, etc.), there's really only one objective comparison. How much ink the pen holds.

You need to look at this from a practical point rather than technical, clearly if 2 pens have the same average flow then the one with the biggest reservoir writes longer. From a practical view how that ink is delivered to the paper does influence the visual result upon which flow is then judged...the visual effect of the flow and the actual flow can lead to incorrect assumptions. A factor in this visual assessment is the consistency of the delivery of ink, IMO anyway!! Given a ~10% variation to the WC really means the bottom 5 pens are pretty similiar. The snork is out of place, to me the question is "is it a possible result?" . The sample is , of course, to small so it's only a possible trend. Do I think the results achievable, no not to the degree shown but I do believe a more efficient delivery system provides better economy and delivers the same visual result.




Regards
Hugh

[david i]

Hi David,

Lets clean this up and see what I have said; SNIP
Of course it wasn't a controlled or remotely definitive test, as I've said it simply shows a trend based on one persons obsevations regarding flow and nib size.

Hi Hugh,

You seem to say, "Of course it wasn't controlled or remotely definitive", but then you seem to ignore what "not controlled/not remotely definitive" actually mean. Indeed a trend of one or two or three is not much the trend

All that is left is isolated anecdote and- i assert- some degree of seduction (vs induction or deduction), as in, "since HE said it...".

Flip side of that is I have pointed out, and will make explicit, that I have Snorks that last very short time, indeed have PFM (similar tech, bigger capacity) that last VERY short time, due to flow rates. I'm amazed no one now is out all over the internet saying, "Snorks have terrible word count... Isaacson said so!" Maybe twenty years from now...

... anecdote... dangerous.

To me the real question is how some of these counts where achieved, clearly the snorks used had to be dryer writers otherwise the result isn't remotely possible, even if the snork came last by a couple of 100 words given it's capacity that would have been a reasonable result.

Each of course is allowed his questions/areas of personal interest. I'm all for "real questions", but we ought not let false assumptions or untested claims lead us to wild goose chase to pursue questions to explain "results" when the "results" themselves are wrong or questionable at best.

Again, Frank apparently had a Snork that wrote many words. Why now the real question is, "How does the SNorkel series consistently outperform other pens on word count...?" baffles me. Iinstead, the real question should be what can be derived from one guy making a claim about one or a couple isolated pens in uncontrolled setting...?

Too many in this chat started out invoking alternative notions besides simple point grade and flow. I'm fine (for sake of argument) with a claim that Snorks might out-write a slew of other pens with bigger capacity. If so, Snorks "do it" by being well more dry writers. As I don't find that to be the case, that they are not particularly dry, then the claim simply is mathematically impossible. Any attempt to prove otherwise is as if to prove a perpetual motion machine... any suggestion one is present is due to erroneous processing of data.

There are two ways of looking at the word count, yours...that being it's a load of rubbish, and mine...that being was it achievable and if so how?

This is unfair and indeed not true.

I don't assert that Frank getting good word count from a pen or two is rubbish or untrue. Rather, I assert that people extrapolating that uncontrolled anecdote and seemingly invoking a strong cult-of-personality (eg. if FRANK said it, it must...) to make an assertion that violates laws of physics is... unfortunate.

Furthermore, regarding claims I view the "high word count" of Snorkel as "Rubbish... not achievable", I observe that I readily embrace a possibility that Snorks out-write pens of larger ink capacity... they simply must write a well drier line. Along the way, folks have agreed that nothing matters but ink-flow (output rate from the ink store) and capacity, but then go to lengths to deny that Snorks write dry to as the explanation, talking about straw men such as breather tubes, nib shape, evaporation, barrel warmth/insulation... all of which-- while interesting in setting of how pens work-- all *must* boil down to how wet or dry the flow is since... (drum roll) nothing matters for controlled word count beyond ink flow and ink capacity. And, as I pointed out, independent of nominal factors that- each by itself- might tend to make pen write wetter or drier, pens are tuned at the feed/point level by factory and by restorers to write certain ways, compensating for those other factors, leaving often similar acceptable flow rates among different series.

What I find distracting (rubbish being a strong word) are attempts to work around the notion that ink flow is the key variable here. If someone wants to do a study showing that in general Snorks write dry line, then we can consider that they write more words than bigger pens that a study shows write a wet line. Beyond that, we have nothing.

And, to degree we invoke Anecdote, I point out that I have probably sold more Snorks during the last two years than anyone on the internet. Each one I test (save mint pens, tested only with water). I see no evidence that Snorks are consistently more dry than other series. Indeed, I have SNorks and Aero 51's that write far fewer words than many other pens, as they hold less ink and have been tuned the way I like them, for decently wet flow.

As I've already said from a technical point the WC was flawed as it's clear ink usage wasn't the same across the pens, yet one point Frank did make was that he tried to pick pens with similiar nibs and flow. Clearly the flow is a visual appraisal.

Again this points to views about Frank's intent, personality etc. All worthy of study unto themselves for those with interest, but distracting from actual issues of word count for whole series of pens (eg. Snorkel). Frank cited at best a few pens. He lacked sample size. He lacked all sorts of controls. His tale is an anecdote. Again, I have provided anecdote about word count in conflict. My Snork/PFM/Aero 51 at work write fewer pages than Vac Maxima or 1940's Sheaffer. Why are folks now not having detailed analysis of my observation, asking "To me the real question is how some of these counts where achieved" about my counts?

All things being equal that would be correct, but as all thinks arn't equal this is a questionable assumption. The term wet, dry etc. for a nib is a visual observation, you have presented nothing but your own observations to back your claim that two pens with the same visible flow rate, the pen with the largest ink supply will last longer. There's a fair bit of straw in that ....I maintain that the consistency of the flow will impact on the visual assesment.....this has less straw in it.

All things obviously cannot be equal. That's rather the point. Unequal inkflow will allow a smaller pen to outwrite a larger capacity pen. I've said this now what, 30 times? You guys are arguing two conflicting points in parallel! First, that the Snorks have some undefinable quality that lets them write longer than heftier pens, then invoking flow rate to explain things, as if I have not already said that flow rate indeed is the only potential explanation for backing up what even then at best is but an unproven claim, an anecdote, an observation made for a couple pens.

There is no observation behind my claim that when items storing two different quantities of liquid drain liquid at same rate, the item with smaller capacity will run out first. This is math and physics, not my "claim". Indeed, it seemed that Andrea and others had already recognized this point. I don't see how basic physics constitutes "straw".

Then a new hedge/twist is presented, "visible flow rate" as opposed to "flow rate". I'm not sure how to calculate "invisible" flow rate of ink. I have never seen ink flow invisibly. This sounds again to invoke "magic" when physics fails

Indeed one of the points made in favor of the "surprisingly high word count Sheaffer Snorkel" is that Frank was really good at controlling variables. Yet, if "visible" flow rate is NOT sufficient for you to accept as flow rate, proper, how can you imagine Frank could eyeball similar flow rates between pens, when "visible" was the only tool at hand??

Here we see another disturbing point, I generously give you points, you ruthlessly take mine away from me ( in bold to make it worse) ...it's a cruel world... but luckily I'm not mistaken

Until Ruth leaves, I am not ruthless.

But let us be careful here. I did not introduce "points" to this process, the +1 and -1 thing. I'm "merely" discussing pens and ink and seeking clarification. I don't see this as a contest of wills, a debate tournament, though I do enjoy the process. It was only when others started with the "Points to him, points to me", that I had to respond by posting where I think the claims of "points" are wrong. Frankly, I find the points things distracting. The bold-face print was to illustrate which details I had under contention.

Now we're at the crucial points of contention. So time to use basic fluid dynamics to prove my point. I will digress and use an example that can be tested at home by anyone. If you take a glass bottle, a plastic bottle (the softer the better) and a bottle with the bottom cut out all with as close as practical to the same diameter outlet, fill with the same volume of water and time how long it takes each to empty the glass bottle will be slowest and the one with no bottom the fastest. The next part is more difficult but you then put the lid on the two fastest and attempt to adjust the flow ( by putting a hole in each), the smallest hole will be in the free flowing bottle of course (accuracy,as such, isn't important in this) . Lastly take the bottles outside to a smooth concrete area and allow to drain as you walk along. You will observe that a different pattern is achieved for each bottle. This is as a result of the water flowing inconsistently from the glass and plastic bottles. In practise you should be able to walk the same distance which each bottle but can you tell by looking that the same amount of liquid was used? The answer is no and the glass bottle may well appear to have used less water due to the "burping" affect and the consistent even line from the free flowing bottle will appear to use more water. Visual observations can't be relied on for accurately predicting the flow rate.

The same principle applies to pens, as I explained in an earlier post.

I'm not trying to be dismissive, even as I quickly dismiss this point. It is again, a straw man, a diversion. Granting your point (regarding bottles) as being wholly true, just as for sake of argument I granted earlier for sake of argument that all those points are true regarding whatever was claimed about breathing tubes, heat conduction of barrels, feed arrangements, nib shape etc having some impact on flow... all of these things, including your last example only have impact via the final common pathway of altering... flow.

And, as we've established, duration of writing is dependent on flow and capacity, alone. This leaves us with what I started with, that which with folks continue to take issue... namely:

a) Snorks as a series don't write longer than pens of larger capacity as they have a wide range of flow as do pens from other series.

IF Snorks did, as a series, outwrite pens of greater capacity, it would only be because they are unduly dry writers... however they got that way.

c), This whole discussion only is occurring because a pen collector of strong personality made an isolated claim with limited sampele and no documented effort to control variables. This is cult-of-personality. Why not spend just as much time exploring my "claim" that all my Snorks and PFM's used at work write for shorter word counts than other pens I own? Because, you guys are caught up in the world of Frank. Had Frank not made his claim, had we had an open discussion about writing capacity of pens, no one would be trying to explain that which does not actually exist.

This demonstates to me you haven't properly graped what I've been saying in relation to the WC (that's W(ord) C(ount)...not W(ater) C(loset) by the way) and how the anomaly with the snork could arise. To call the points "straw men" is incorrect for the simple reason that it is not possible to visually predict the flow rate, clearly the extremes of the range are easy to pick. An average ink flow is just that....that's like timing two cars, one not moving and one doing 200mph...the average is 100mph..means nothing (so both get booked for speeding?) .

Hugh, I've "graped" it just fine

My first key point is there is NO ANOMALY with the Snorkel series.

There is only one guy once having said something about a Snork or two, that folks have latched onto to the point of trying to work around simple physics, as you are about to try again, in your next paragraph...

Ink flow is a visual assessment, how that visual affect influences determining degrees of wetness is affected by a number of factors. One being consistency of flow and the other volume. From a technical point what you say is correct, practically it's not. Every thing I've seen ( including the only WC done...how ever rubbery) indicate to me that the more stable and consistent the flow the less ink is required to produce the same visual result as a pen that would have more variable flow.

1. Consistency of flow can affect moment to moment flow but not average flow

2. To degree that you have doubts about reliability of visual assessment, you then should use your own doubt to readily dismiss Frank's claim, as you doubt the very mechanism he might (assuming he actually did even the slightest attempt) have used to control for ink flow amongst pens. You are arguing against your own claims, not so much against mine

3) I know of no study on micro-impact of flow variation on "appearance", as obviously this cannot affect net flow. I believe you lack studies for this too. But it is moot. The hand moves at a certain speed. Words are left behind. However they look once done, the act has been completed. It would take *very* rapid ink flow variation to cause difference, and that would appear as marbling of text, which happens with none of my pens.

And, to degree that you invoke this process of micro variation in flow, a so far imaginary thing, you should perhaps be using it to explain my observation-- what with my being the biggest mover or Snorks on Earth right now (eep!)-- that Snorks under perform other pens regarding page count. But, we have this apparent obsession over "the guy who said it ten years ago", which again points to cult of personality.

From a technical point correct. Again wrong from a practical point as the perception of wetness is visual and not based on any hard data such as actual flow rates, it's a case of "what you see may not be what you get". How the ink delivery system delivers the ink is of vital importance in the visual determination of wetness, and this is where your argument falters somewhat.

Besides that this essentially is a claim of magic, untested by any of us and invoked only to- in untestable fashion- justify an observation that one Snorkel outwrote one Vacumatic, why are you not invoking it to explain my observation that my Snorks and PFMs underperform my similar point similar wetness Vacumatic? RIght... because "Frank said it". There's science... not

You only have to look at the automobile industry to see how technology can deliver better results with less fuel. In the case of Sheaffer it would appear that the snorkle system was a technical masterpiece at ink delivery ( I doubt it was ever realized by Sheaffer) in that it provides the most stable flow of ink to the tip thereby requiring less ink to achieve the visual result. I am rather sceptical though of the results Frank achieved with the snork though.

Spurious comparison. I fear another straw man. Delivery of efficiencies of energy production due to minimizing losses due to inefficiencies, or by altering mass/resistance moved by the energy output, merely alter how fast gasoline is drained from the tank. It affects flow rate. It does not make a car otherwise *identical* in gas consumption but with smaller tank drive longer between refills than its larger tanked sib.

I don't need to invoke engine technology, or pen feed structure, or heat conduction in barrel or breather tube presence, to get any pen to write longer or shorter... I merely have my restorer adjust the ink flow to make it drier or wetter.

Still I'll stand by my claim that a smaller capacity pen can out write a larger capacity pen , delivering the same visual result, if it has a more stable and consistent ink supply to the tip. And specifically that the snork and P51 have the best ink delivery design, with the snork probably ahead .

No one alive actually have a claim to this. We have Frank's claim about a single pen or two, and we long ago agreed that a pen from one series can outlast a pen from another, if ink flow is different.

And, none have addressed my observation, probably made with more pens than Frank, that I find the opposite to be true. The lack of science in this approach is clear, because folks have taken as a given an outcome they have not tested and then tried to rationalize it, rather than prospectively approaching the problem. Indeed, opposite data, which have good chance of being correct, you seem unwilling to test with your own hypothesis.

All we are left with is that some woiuld... well... like... to think Frank's claim is true.

At this point I can't see how you can still deny that consistency of flow is not a factor in the visual determination of ink flow, my thesis has yours in the corner now ...although I suspect it's a no win for either of us as neither point can be proven....

So, you then believe that consistency explains why Snorks write disproportionately small number of words compared to other pens? Oh, you mean you have not actually checked? You just have hand-waved up a non-scientific explanation to embrace something "FRANK SAID"?

I take my 2 points back !!

Regards
Hugh

Points is why you are missing... the point. You have made it personal. Scoring rather than considering the issue.

I will leave us with the basics.

1) There is no evidence that Snorks as series outlast other pens.

2) Frank found a Snork that outlasted another pen. I have several Snorks that don't outlast other pens. This... is the basis for exotic claims about fluid dynamics?

3) There is no evidence that consistency of flow is better or worse in a Snork vs other pens.

4) There is no evidence that an imagined difference in "consistency" of flow, that would have to be on nearly micro basis (macro giving big blobs and big skips), would swing things one way or other.

5) That folks seem to be willing to take as gospel Frank's claim to high word count, based on tiny sampling in uncontrolled setting, but ignore my contrary observation dealing with these pens, belies any claim to science and reveals cult-of-personality.

6) That "visible" ink flow is denounced as measure of ink flow, and that 'consistency' is invoked, renders any claim impossible that Frank even could have controlled for ink flow.

7) Basic physics gives us capacity and flow rate as determinants.

8) All sorts of claims have been made as to features of pens that make them wetter or drier writers, all else being equal. I've noted that while these might be true, they are irrelevant, as final adjustment of flow occurs at the point/feed interface, and compensates for those differences, as otherwise pens would be impossibly wet or dry and essentially unusable.

That must be 10cents worth...

-david

[Hugh]

Hi David,

10c worth?...more like a couple of bucks worth !!

There are two ways of looking at the word count, yours...that being it's a load of rubbish, and mine...that being was it achievable and if so how?

This is unfair and indeed not true.

My apology on this point. I note you mention "rubbish" as a strong word, this is just a case of different intent in different countries.

Strangely I don't disagree with most of your points, this should have been fairly obvious.

I'm not trying to be dismissive, even as I quickly dismiss this point. It is again, a straw man, a diversion. Granting your point (regarding bottles) as being wholly true, just as for sake of argument I granted earlier for sake of argument that all those points are true regarding whatever was claimed about breathing tubes, heat conduction of barrels, feed arrangements, nib shape etc having some impact on flow... all of these things, including your last example only have impact via the final common pathway of altering... flow.

And, as we've established, duration of writing is dependent on flow and capacity, alone. This leaves us with what I started with, that which with folks continue to take issue... namely:

a) Snorks as a series don't write longer than pens of larger capacity as they have a wide range of flow as do pens from other series.

IF Snorks did, as a series, outwrite pens of greater capacity, it would only be because they are unduly dry writers... however they got that way.

c), This whole discussion only is occurring because a pen collector of strong personality made an isolated claim with limited sampele and no documented effort to control variables. This is cult-of-personality. Why not spend just as much time exploring my "claim" that all my Snorks and PFM's used at work write for shorter word counts than other pens I own? Because, you guys are caught up in the world of Frank. Had Frank not made his claim, had we had an open discussion about writing capacity of pens, no one would be trying to explain that which does not actually exist.

There's not much to question there.

Until Ruth leaves, I am not ruthless.

Say hello to Ruth for me

Hugh, I've "graped" it just fine

.....this needs a spell checker....

1. Consistency of flow can affect moment to moment flow but not average flow

2. To degree that you have doubts about reliability of visual assessment, you then should use your own doubt to readily dismiss Frank's claim, as you doubt the very mechanism he might (assuming he actually did even the slightest attempt) have used to control for ink flow amongst pens. You are arguing against your own claims, not so much against mine

3) I know of no study on micro-impact of flow variation on "appearance", as obviously this cannot affect net flow. I believe you lack studies for this too. But it is moot. The hand moves at a certain speed. Words are left behind. However they look once done, the act has been completed. It would take *very* rapid ink flow variation to cause difference, and that would appear as marbling of text, which happens with none of my pens.

And, to degree that you invoke this process of micro variation in flow, a so far imaginary thing, you should perhaps be using it to explain my observation-- what with my being the biggest mover or Snorks on Earth right now (eep!)-- that Snorks under perform other pens regarding page count. But, we have this apparent obsession over "the guy who said it ten years ago", which again points to cult of personality.

I thought I had already dismissed Franks claim that the pens had similiar nib size and flow. Clearly this was not the case and as you have pointed out , and I've agreed with, that all things being equal the pen with the biggest reservoir will last longer. You are correct about the studies, I doubt it will ever be done. My personal observation is that ink does deposit at different rates and this is more obvious with less technical pens, again this was by simply by examining through a loupe. I don't have an "obsession" over this , I found the result interesting and was it possible to achieve what would appear to be a visually similiar result with less ink. No more no less.

What I have done is assume there is some "fact" in the WC, that being it was done with best intention, with least bias possible. I've then explored how this might have arisen and reached the only logical conclussion that can be drawn. Namely the snorks used had to be dryer writers, but if they looked to have anywhere near a similiar flow to the other pens there could, again, be only one reason that being that consistency of flow gives a visually wetter look than it really is. At the end of the day that is simple logic and the only explanation if the WC is any guide. The assumption I have a "snorkle" fetish is wrong.

And, none have addressed my observation, probably made with more pens than Frank, that I find the opposite to be true. The lack of science in this approach is clear, because folks have taken as a given an outcome they have not tested and then tried to rationalize it, rather than prospectively approaching the problem. Indeed, opposite data, which have good chance of being correct, you seem unwilling to test with your own hypothesis.

All we are left with is that some woiuld... well... like... to think Frank's claim is true.

Obviously the lack of science is clear, of course I've taken a given outcome and then tried to determine how it could arise. Again, I've already said the WC was flawed, we both agree on that for the reasons you cited. What I have looked at is if it was possible to produce a visually similiar result( ie ink flow), how would it be achieved.

I will leave us with the basics.

1) There is no evidence that Snorks as series outlast other pens.

2) Frank found a Snork that outlasted another pen. I have several Snorks that don't outlast other pens. This... is the basis for exotic claims about fluid dynamics?

3) There is no evidence that consistency of flow is better or worse in a Snork vs other pens.

4) There is no evidence that an imagined difference in "consistency" of flow, that would have to be on nearly micro basis (macro giving big blobs and big skips), would swing things one way or other.

5) That folks seem to be willing to take as gospel Frank's claim to high word count, based on tiny sampling in uncontrolled setting, but ignore my contrary observation dealing with these pens, belies any claim to science and reveals cult-of-personality.

6) That "visible" ink flow is denounced as measure of ink flow, and that 'consistency' is invoked, renders any claim impossible that Frank even could have controlled for ink flow.

7) Basic physics gives us capacity and flow rate as determinants.

8) All sorts of claims have been made as to features of pens that make them wetter or drier writers, all else being equal. I've noted that while these might be true, they are irrelevant, as final adjustment of flow occurs at the point/feed interface, and compensates for those differences, as otherwise pens would be impossibly wet or dry and essentially unusable.

I have said already that I could be wrong. Still fluid dynamics are fundamental to how a pen works, as is its flow and the consistency of such and could well affect the visual result. Am I going to prove it, of course not!! Again I've examined a number of possabilities to explain the results, and I've reached the conclussion (whether correct or incorrect) that consistency of flow affect visual appraisal of flow. RegardsHugh

[david i]

I don't have an "obsession" over this , I found the result interesting and was it possible to achieve what would appear to be a visually similiar result with less ink. No more no less.

I withdraw the word, "obsession". Perhaps I should have said, "seemingly undue focus"


-d

[Hugh]

A Summary.

Is the statement that "flow and capacity are the only factors affecting how many words a pen writes" true?

If all factors where identical then if 2 pens had the same actual (or average flow) then the one with the larger capacity lasts longer, that's a simple fact.

If the opening statement isn't true then what other factors could come into play?

The previous posts mentioned a range of factors that could affect the performance of a pen, including hand heat, hooded nibs, filling systems, variable flow an so on. While all these will have some impact the WC that started this has only one possible answer for it to be even vaguely accurate and that is "economy affects visual appraisal of flow".

1. "Do different filling and ink delivery systems deliver ink in a physically different way"

An examination of several systems, to me, indicated that they do deliver ink with varying rates of consistence. In a "backyard" test I drew a number of lines with some of my inked pens, then examined them with an 8x loupe. Variation was seen in a number of pens, wasn't in some either. Very wet pens and dark ink didn't show any variation I could detect. Of those in the middle flow range only one didn't show a variable flow.

2. "Does variable flow rates affect visible results?"

The fundamental question. If we accept that ink flow is variable, then ink is deposited unevenly across the page. What you see is the result of the interaction of light with the ink particles at varying depths across the page. So is it possible that this is interpretted by the brain and a result that is different to what actually occurs reached? The brain does get tricked at times.
Examples:(a) A full moon looks much bigger when first rising than when in the middle of the night sky, caused by light refraction. ( b ) If you paint a wall with a spray painter then a similiar wall with a brush the one sprayed looks better, even if the same amount of paint is used.

3. "Does a more stable flow give the visible impression of using more or less ink than a less consistent flow"

Based on my experience with paint I lean to more stable flow using less ink.

4. "What variation in ink usage (economy) could a stable flow deliver?"

No idea, all I can say is that when dealing with small quantities the variation can be large before being obvious. What this means is that the drier writing the pens the greater the % variation could be before being detected. If I had to guess I'd say with middle range "wetness" pens 30% would be obvious, 10% wouldn't be.

What does this mean? It means that if there is another factor that affects visible appraisal of ink flow it's most likely consistency of flow and that the more stable the flow the better the"economy". If this is correct it's also likely the "economy" would be no more than 20%.

How does this relate to Franks WC. It shows serious flaws regarding the snorkle which would have had to obtain an economy in excess of 100% in relation to some pens. To me not possible. The WC, while interesting. is flawed

How does this relate to the opening statement in this post? Capacity and flow are physical characteristics and by definition the most important factors. Flow is a visual assement of the user, by virtue of that an error component is introduced. I think the statement is too simplistic as it does appear other factors may be in play when visually assessing flow.

Has all this proven a smaller capacity pen can out write a larger capacity pen with similiar nibs and (visible) ink flow? No, but it has shown the pathway by which it could occur.


Regards
Hugh

[Kirchh]

A full moon looks much bigger when first rising than when in the middle of the night sky, caused by light refraction [emph. added].

False. In fact, refraction causes the angle subtended by the moon when at the horizon to be slightly smaller in the vertical dimension then when higher in the sky.

--Daniel

[Hugh]

False. In fact, refraction causes the angle subtended by the moon when at the horizon to be slightly smaller in the vertical dimension then when higher in the sky.

--Daniel

The illusion ( to most people anyway) is that the moon is bigger, the reality is as you have said. What I have said is correct in what is visually observed, not what is factually correct. This was the point of using it as an example to illustrate that what is seen is not always what occurs. Whether light refraction is the cause of this illusion or just a mental adjustment ( or some other reason) is not relevant to point I was making.

Regards
Hugh

Edit to add: Of course the actual size of the moon remains the same regardless of how we observe it!!

[Kirchh]

The illusion ( to most people anyway) is that the moon is bigger, the reality is as you have said. What I have said is correct in what is visually observed, not what is factually correct. This was the point of using it as an example to illustrate that what is seen is not always what occurs. Whether light refraction is the cause of this illusion or just a mental adjustment ( or some other reason) is not relevant to point I was making.

Regards
Hugh

Edit to add: Of course the actual size of the moon remains the same regardless of how we observe it!!

No. What you wrote was "A full moon looks much bigger when first rising than when in the middle of the night sky, caused by light refraction [emph. added]." The explanation you provide (refraction) for the illusory larger appearance of the moon is incorrect. The illusion is not "caused by light refraction". That is the one and only point I made, and it was correct.

Furthermore, though the size of the moon does not change, the angle subtended by the moon at the horizon in the vertical dimension is, in fact, smaller than when it is high in the sky. This is not an illusion.

--Daniel

[Hugh]

No. What you wrote was "A full moon looks much bigger when first rising than when in the middle of the night sky, caused by light refraction [emph. added]." The explanation you provide (refraction) for the illusory larger appearance of the moon is incorrect. The illusion is not "caused by light refraction". That is the one and only point I made, and it was correct.

Furthermore, though the size of the moon does not change, the angle subtended by the moon at the horizon in the vertical dimension is, in fact, smaller than when it is high in the sky. This is not an illusion.

--Daniel

Ptolemy's refraction theory is certainly an old one and I accept that it is now regarded as incorrect, what I should have said is " most likely explained by the visual angle theory". What you said earlier regarding refraction isn't quiet correct as it affects the visual angle subtended, not the true angle subtended which remains constant. What you see is an illusion (caused by refraction) as the source object doesn't change, although it is ~2% further away when on the horizon than overhead.

Regards
Hugh

[david i]

Pholemy's refraction theory is certainly an old one and I accept that it is now regarded as incorrect, what I should have said is " most likely explained by the visual angle theory". What you said earlier regarding refraction isn't quiet correct as it affects the visual angle subtended, not the true angle subtended which remains constant. What you see is an illusion (caused by refraction) as the source object doesn't change, although it is ~2% further away when on the horizon than overhead.

Regards
Hugh

Pholemy?

-d