Ink Delivery – Ink Set Time – Ink Drying Time

[txomsy]

Added: no wonder it may be easier to just write and see what happens, accepting the "surprise" factor as a fact of life.

[txomsy]

On 1/12/2024 at 11:16 PM, LizEF said:

I recognized this immediately, of course.  And while I use my middle finger instinctively (I assume because it's the longest)

In my case it is because I use the index and thumb to hold the pen: using the index would stain it and also the pen section. Using one different from index and thumb will not stain the pen.

[LizEF]

3 hours ago, txomsy said:

The Hitchiker's Guide To The Galaxy describes a Total Perspective Vortex which places you as the center of the Universe to give you a view in perspective.

Apparently it's been too long since I read it (of course, I think I was around 14 - and I'm decades past that now).

 

3 hours ago, txomsy said:

One needs to consider the factors involved. ... And I leave out the issue of smearing for now.

I think I'm left speechless.   Holy science lesson, Batman!  I'm hoping the dude who invented the first fountain pen wasn't thinking all that - it would have paralyzed him with measurements and calculations.   Probably better to just give it a go and hope it works.

 

Thank you, @txomsy, for taking a deep dive into all the things that might go into fountain pens.  I think even if we're not sure and can't measure everything, it helps us to know just how complicated it all is (or might be).  This is the sort of post I want those folk over on r/fountainpens to read every time they formulate a complex list of ink, paper, or pen requirements - asking us to help them find one that is just so.  I mentally roll my eyes thinking, "Chemistry's a thing, people!  Just because you can imagine it doesn't mean some company can make it (at a price anyone other than Bill Gates can afford)."

[LizEF]

3 hours ago, txomsy said:

Added: no wonder it may be easier to just write and see what happens, accepting the "surprise" factor as a fact of life.

[LizEF]

3 hours ago, txomsy said:

In my case it is because I use the index and thumb to hold the pen: using the index would stain it and also the pen section. Using one different from index and thumb will not stain the pen.

Ah, yes, good point.  I do the smearing while still holding the pen, duh!

[txomsy]

My most heart warm thanks to you for bringing this all up.

 

18 hours ago, LizEF said:

I'm hoping the dude who invented the first fountain pen wasn't thinking all that - it would have paralyzed him with measurements and calculations.   Probably better to just give it a go and hope it works.

 

There is no need to consider all this. That is what all the fuss about AI is about (plus a dung load of misleading marketing).

 

Current AI is not about "intelligence" at al. It is about looking at vast amounts of data and trying to spot conserved patterns. Not much intelligence there, not even spontaneous trial and error.

 

Oh! and pyramids and megalithic monuments were built by humans, not by some non-human, metaphysical force as tricksters, crazies, swindlers and their croonies would rather make us believe to their own satisfaction.

 

Previous to the first FPs almost everybody had a cart load of experience using dip pens, very often making their own inks and, as a result, a lot of intuitive information on how different combinations worked and how each part could be tuned to adapt to the others. That was an integral part of writing itself.

 

So, no need to consider any physics or chemistry (other than their own experimental experience). All they needed was the idea (which wasn't new when the first modern FP was patented) of having an ink reservoir and ink tuned to not dry and flow well with the materials chosen (something everybody did on a daily -well, maybe monthly or yearly depending on ink quantity made and preservation- basis.

 

At the time, the required practical knowledge on how to tune ink, paper and nib/reservoir was pervasive and common. That after the advent of FPs and industrial, commodity FP-tuned ink we no longer needed to do it ourselves and as a result the huge, vast majority of us have forgotten the details does not mean they didn't know their technology. Or that our ancestors wouldn't know how to build a pyramid or a megalithic monument.

 

Not everyone is as ignorant as the modern world is keen on making us (which BTW makes us more gullible, odd, isn't it?).

 

At the time the difficulty was not in tuning pen, ink and paper -which was common practical knowledge among literate people-, but on devising a reservoir system that was practical and a production chain to make the new pens affordable and profitable. It was more a mechanical engineering problem than an ink flow problem.

 

In the mean time, ink and pen making companies must have kept that knowledge, but mostly as trade secrets (which makes it seem more mysterious, magical and difficult --and allows premium prices) although by the number of new one-man boutique ink companies, it must not be that difficult to regain (yet).

 

And that is what, in my most humble opinion, we are trying to systematize in these threads. The practical knowledge is -as we can see- not that difficult to come by (just start from any old recipe pre-19th/20th century and experiment with some new pigments). Interpreting the underlying mechanisms is.

 

Quoting Democritus "By convention sweet is sweet, bitter is bitter, hot is hot, cold is cold, color is color; but in truth there are only atoms and the void."

 

We would have the same difficulty if we were to describe what causes the subjective sensation of sweetness, bitterness, warmth, coldness, or color in terms of atomic (or rather quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, neurosensory, thought and communication) processes.

 

As I said, no wonder it is easier to try and see what happens. Despite contradictions and surprises it will often be faster (albeit blissfully blind) than trying to actually understand the complex mechanisms of reality, where often marginal, apparently insignificant/unrelated factors may play a major role.

 

E.g. color.

 

That is a subjective, perceptive, simple and very well and commonly understood shared word. But we see only wavelengths that were evolutively convenient for our preservation (propagated in water and air). In order to see, we need sensors that rely on heavy metals. This dependence comes because the sheer number of electrons pushes and accelerates inner ones to relativistic speeds and this changes their mass and the atom behavior facilitating detection of photons of the appropriate wavelength emitted by excited electrons in other atoms and conversion into chemical energy. Something as "trivial" as "color" now depends on Quantum Electrodynamics and Relativity, Chemistry, Evolution, wavelength transparency of water, and a host of esoteric science to name but a few.

 

But painting or writing? You do not need that much. Just a tiny little bit of "color theory" to mix pigments. At most you want to know we actually see only three colors and all the others are combinations of these three sensations. All the rest is -to start with- needless.

 

So, why do I keep posting in these threads?

 

Because, for me, going beyond the basics requires understanding the underlying processes: the neurological processing is what defines great sensorial effects, tromp d'oeil, perspective perception, feeling associations, sensorial synergies, vital experience of Nature processes defines great composition, etc... You don't get the Golden Rule, "amazing" hues, warm/cold colors, iridiscence, reflections, inks that make you feel (cozy, angry, crazy, whatever), shading, sheening, from "color theory" alone.

 

And producing those effects requires either an artistic genius or -for the boringly unimaginative rest of us (YMMV)- an understanding of the underlying mechanisms and derived rules.

 

And getting those effects into existence further requires that we be aware of details such as the effect of viscosity, different pigments, component interactions, acidity, microorganisms, additive particles, reactivity, etc... on pen, ink and paper, to select appropriate pigments, biocides, lubricants, etc. because we do not have the experience (or the time and tools to acquire it) that experts working full time do have.

 

That, or we try and accept the surprise factor and learn to live with it.

[InesF]

21 hours ago, txomsy said:

Added: no wonder it may be easier to just write and see what happens, accepting the "surprise" factor as a fact of life.

Hi @txomsy. Thank you for your much deeper dive!

I read both your extended entries, but cite the short as it summarises the whole excerpt to the most precise advice you can give.

 

I agree with all you said and I congratulate you for writing it in the post and for sharing your thoughts! You demonstrate quite well that the behaviour of the already deposited ink on paper is dependent on a lot of factors we user do not know and will not be told. I would even go so far to guess, that even the paper and ink producers did not know everything and some compositions (both, paper and ink) are optimised empirically by try and error.

 

@LizEF: when Mr. Waterman invented the fountain pen, he had the empirical expertise of many centuries of ink and paper use. Both, historical paper and ink compositions were way less complex as they are today, so the number of variables was lower and even empirical testing was doable in due time.

 

And to @txomsy, @LizEF and all the other readers: before doing the empirical testing you can guess, you can build up empirical knowledge and you can talk about your individual experience. After empirical testing, you can be sure that there are too many factors to build a universally valid model that is able to predict.

[txomsy]

Thanks.

 

And if you let me add, any testing should be designed after a theoretical model of reality, which should be built from experience.

 

For some of us, long time users of FPs, inks and papers, all these threads are -to some extent- moot, or just a dilettante's exercise in serendipitous discussion, as we have already developed and instinctive "feeling" for what we want to look for and how to detect it, and typically habits that keep us in the -maybe unconscious- safe track.

 

Still, it is interesting to delve into all the gory details: it helps us express (and explain) our experiences and can help others whose view has not yet been so tailored by experience and may hold unsustained expectations.

[LizEF]

Meanwhile, Liz is sitting at her computer with a purring kitty between her and the keyboard, thinking, bring on the variety and surprises!

 

Though I don't understand it all, I do appreciate both of you ( @txomsy and @InesF ) taking the time and effort to explain the science to us.  I hate not understanding why some inks stop smearing faster when I test them than when I review them (always on different days), and also the fact that my stop-smearing-time results often seem to be much longer than that of others, even on Rhodia dot pads.  So for me, this exercise is an effort in eliminating a point of annoyance.   Were it not for my reviews, I would not be able to care less about how long it takes ink to quit smearing on paper...  But since I'm doing reviews, I want to be able to give people useful information, and it seems to do that, I need a couple of really smart scientists to do some experimenting and explaining!

[txomsy]

Thanks, @LizEF.

 

I think it is also relevant that we all understand at least a few take-away points, namely, that what we see in reviews is merely orientative and approximate and defines only the particular set of conditions at the point and time of the review (which usually elides the "YMMV", taking it for granted by default).

 

Often, we see comments complaining that an ink does not behave as in a given review, and asking whether the ink formulation has changed or explaining it as batch variety or differences only in the pen/ink/paper combo. While these conditions certainly exist, my guess is that they are not as relevant as many make them, and that many differences are more readily explained by other conditions.

 

Not to mention production tolerances (as in nib width) in the elements involved (which we haven't touched here yet). Pen, feeder, nib, inks and papers also have their within-model (and environment-dependent) variation: the same pen model may be a gusher in some cases and drier in others, we all have seen different behaviors in paper sides or page sections that change for each page, ink viscosity changes with temperature (which justifies e.g. Noodler's Polar line), etc... or personal differences (hand oils, emotional changes in speed, shakyness, warm-up, etc...).

 

Knowing the extent to which these factors can "naturally" modify the user experience may help us all be more realistic when criticizing the tools we use (and their makers) and be happier with them.

 

So, yes, in my most humble opinion, in a culture of over-measuring, where we are unrealistically pushed by aggressive marketing to build unsupported expectations of ultra-high precision and ultra-low variability using absolute statements, there is a need for all of us to be aware of uncontrollable factors and the extent of their impact to know when differences do actually exceed expected normal behavior and do really warrant a disgust and/or a complaint.

 

 

[A Smug Dill]

3 hours ago, txomsy said:

there is a need for all of us to be aware of uncontrollable factors and the extent of their impact to know when differences do actually exceed expected normal behavior and do really warrant a disgust and/or a complaint.

 

Disappointment or even disgust is fine, on the part of the individual consumer or user; I certainly wouldn't want to insist on, or even try, making them feel differently about what they spent their money on, i.e. less disappointed or less disgusted, as if they were being wrong or improper in doing so.

 

But some individuals take it very badly when they cannot reconcile with or face, even when confronted with the official product description and/or technical specifications published by the manufacturer, the conclusion that the error is theirs when the product they received demonstrably delivers on what was promised on paper. Their misplaced ‘trust’ in reviews and information from non-authoritative sources online, including and especially if they wanted to know more than the manufacturer has chosen to release/publish/‘promise’ about the product, has to be their own fault, not that of the manufacturer's.

 

It makes me think of that iconic scene in When Harry Met Sally. “I'll have what she's having,” when deciding on one's order is not a reasonable way to put the onus on the diner or restaurant to deliver an orgasmic experience, even if as a customer you see a peer in comparable circumstances having one and want one for yourself.

[LizEF]

5 hours ago, txomsy said:

So, yes, in my most humble opinion, in a culture of over-measuring, where we are unrealistically pushed by aggressive marketing to build unsupported expectations of ultra-high precision and ultra-low variability using absolute statements, there is a need for all of us to be aware of uncontrollable factors and the extent of their impact to know when differences do actually exceed expected normal behavior and do really warrant a disgust and/or a complaint.

[txomsy]

You are totally right @A Smug Dill, and that's a well-known cognitive bias. People is more prone to assign credibility to what they would like to believe or to what matches their expectations.

 

As I see it, just pointing to makers' specifications is of limited help, as it leads easily -through another cognitive bias- to conspiracy theories where "bad" makers unjustifiably and unreasonably conspire for their own selfish interest to rob oneself of an imaginary divinity-granted right to get whatever one wishes without even needing to state it.

 

Left alone, the snowball tends to roll down the slope and grow.

 

That's where these threads, providing some solid, scientific or reasoned ground to dispel myths, may -IMMHO- add and contribute to explain the most reasonable among us what we can sensibly expect. There will be always people who will refuse believing what they do not like in face of all contrary evidence. And worse, vested interests fueling this irrational behavior for spurious interests.

 

But if we can reduce the amount of unreasonable expectations -even though we cannot eradicate them and know they are the expectant one's own fault- by increasing knowledge and awareness, we may at least help some people to be happier in the confidence that there are no monsters out there on the lookout to chase after them and to be content and enjoy what they get -when reasonable-, and avoid getting misled or ripped off.

 

No need to, I know, but sometimes it feels warm being able to help others.

 

For, to re-use a post in the pen-art thread...

 

The sleep of reason produces monsters

 

Not that Illustration is enough alone to dispel obscurity. But, hopefully, every little helps.

[yazeh]

Many thanks @InesF for doing all this hard work and others contributing. 

 

First I'll try to answer your questions: 

1) Is the structuring into three sections helpful for you or does it make the understanding of ink behaviour unnecessarily complicated?

It makes it slightly complicated but quite interesting. 

2) Which alternative terms would be best explaining each of the stages? Examples: ink delivery, ink deposition; set time, curing time, smearing time, stabilisation time, solidification time, …?

I think I'll stick with: Wetness (Ink delivery /ink deposit on paper)

3) Does the outcome of this measurement satisfy you?

Sort of. 

 

Questions:

As a user / reviewer I'm more practical and wonder how all this info can be used. 

1) What is the role of "lubrication" in ink dry time? For ex. IG inks, low lubrication traditionally dry fast, yet Kakimori pigment inks (deposit a lot of ink on paper, hence wet) but low in lubrication take eternity to dry. 

What I've noticed in reviewing over 100 inks:

 

2) I understand the nuance between Ink set time on paper and Ink drying time, however in practical terms what difference does it make to the user reviews. 

 

3) What is the role of colour in dry times? Can certain colours be more prone to drying faster or not? I'm asking this as certain colours are often more difficult to clean (pinks/ reds / purples) and have the tendency to stain. 

 

 

[XYZZY]

@InesF thank you so much for this information.  I'm glad I stumbled across this thread, usually I don't peruse "Ink Comparisons".  To answer your questions:

 

1) The format is a bit complicated, but I don't have a concrete suggestion on how to improve it.  Perhaps some of the complication is because I was struggling to find the pattern, only to give up, and then after reading the rest of the post realized I wasn't missing anything.

 

2) Which alternative terms would be best explaining each of the stages? Examples: ink delivery, ink deposition; set time, curing time, smearing time, stabilisation time, solidification time, …?

 

I understand what you mean by "set time" and think it's a good term, but I do not think this or anything else is going to replace "drying time": that's too entrenched, too simple, and good enough for what people care about.  I will try to use set time here in this thread where you're trying to address a specific thing that is different from the other thing. 

 

3) Does the outcome of this measurement satisfy you?  

 

Outcome in the sense that you did all this and put it in a format I could figure out and wrote it up?  Yes, the outcome is jawdropping.  If you mean "outcome" in the sense of whether or not I think you've discovered the secret to set time, then no.  

 

As @txomsy and others have written, the whole thing is complicated.

 

A couple of comments about methodology.  And to be clear, I think these are nitpicky (as in, I don't think anything here is "wrong" enough that it messes up your results).

 

I've always been concerned about repeatability or accuracy of using a fingertip for attempting to smudge the ink.  I know my own skin varies: oils, moisture, it's a constantly moving target.  The mere act of washing my hands might remove some oils, but also adds water that is absorbed into the skin.  And even using a fingertip to smudge some ink changes things: how long do I need to wait until things are normalized and I can smudge a different ink?  Maybe a tool like the edge of a silicone spatula would be better?  I can't argue with the convenience of a fingertip, though.  I don't even know what properties would effect the "smudginess" of the tool, and fear that could be an entire research rabbit-hole of it's own.  Also, as a left handed overwriter I care about set-time more than many people, specifically in how long until it's safe for the side of my left hand to rob over the fresh ink, so there's skin again.  From that standpoint a silicone spatula is probably a worse proxy for my hand than a fingertip.   

 

<anecdote>Drying the paper:  In the 90s I was friends with an engineer/entrepreneur who made good money doing disaster recovery for businesses whose paper had been subject to water damage.  This was the 90s, companies still needed their paper records, and insurance companies would pay big money when a records room (or warehouse) got soaked by fire sprinklers.  He bragged that he had the country's largest vacuum chambers outside of NASA, and regularly had tractor-trailer rigs delivering containers full of paper cross country to vacuum dry them.  So why vacuum?  He would go on and on about how bad it was for paper to be heated, how it destroyed such and such properties of the paper.  He knew details, but apparently at the time I didn't care enough to remember those details.</anecdote>

 

I like that you're trying to get the paper to a fixed humidity level.  I don't doubt that it's important.  But have you thought about measuring (or minimizing) the impact you're having on the paper by baking it?  If you have access to other methods of drying it out (vacuum chambers, desiccants) it could be interesting to compare.  In your copious spare time, of course 😉  Or at the very least, are you baking the paper only after you have finished us it for the normal samples?

[yazeh]

@XYZZYloved the anecdote 👍

[LizEF]

1 hour ago, XYZZY said:

So why vacuum?

To get the cat hair out of the carpet?   Oh, right, the other sort of vacuum:

 

But where does the water that gets sucked out of the paper go?  Maybe you put the paper on a rack?  Or maybe this isn't the right sort of vacuum chamber?  But if it is, I like this one better - cheaper and shorter, which should be fine for paper:

 

(And, of course, vacuum pump sold separately, in both cases...  )

 

If we need the sort made by Sigma-Aldrich ("cabinet vacuum desiccator") then we're in trouble - $1750...

[XYZZY]

Sorry that part wasn't clear Liz.  My bad for leaving that out. The vacuum lowers pressure (duh), and boiling point is a function of pressure.  The water boils off at room temperature without ever raising the temperature.  Its a lot of work/effort/expense to avoid raising the temperature, and although I don't remember specifically why I do remember that heating the paper is bad.

 

His vacuum chambers had ventilation inside, occasionally allowing some air in so that he could blow the moist air back out, then pull a vacuum again. Rinse and repeat.  

 

I like the Amazon link that you shared.  It's going into a wishlist of things I don't need but are cool ideas.

[LizEF]

12 minutes ago, XYZZY said:

Sorry that part wasn't clear Liz.  My bad for leaving that out. The vacuum lowers pressure (duh), and boiling point is a function of pressure.  The water boils off at room temperature without ever raising the temperature.  Its a lot of work/effort/expense to avoid raising the temperature, and although I don't remember specifically why I do remember that heating the paper is bad.

No worries!  I was mostly having fun with the idea (I often see woodturners using vacuum chambers to get the bubbles out of resin and was curious whether it was the same sort of chamber or something different).  And I imagine chemical stuffs happen at temperature, so yeah, not hard to imagine it being bad, especially for paper you want to preserve.  Maybe not quite as bad for experimental purposes...

 

13 minutes ago, XYZZY said:

His vacuum chambers had ventilation inside, occasionally allowing some air in so that he could blow the moist air back out, then pull a vacuum again. Rinse and repeat.  

Hmm.  Yeah, sounds like we're getting up there in price....

 

14 minutes ago, XYZZY said:

I like the Amazon link that you shared.  It's going into a wishlist of things I don't need but are cool ideas.

  Happy to add to your wish list!  I have several, full of lots of things I will likely never buy...

[XYZZY]

On 1/15/2024 at 3:53 AM, txomsy said:

In my case it is because I use the index and thumb to hold the pen: using the index would stain it and also the pen section. Using one different from index and thumb will not stain the pen.

I'm somewhat ambidextrous.  I swipe with the right index finger which is free because the pen is still in the left hand.  I was having trouble imagining what y'all were talking about until you mentioned that holding the pen had something to do with it.