Plunger vs. Piston FIller

Hello All:

Forgive me for displaying my ignorance in public, but what is the
difference between a Piston Filler and a Plunger Filler? I'm familiar
with piston fillers al a Pelikan. I'm assuming that a plunger
involves some sort of sac as opposed to a watertight (ink tight?)
barrel. Would a Vacumatic be a plunger?

Apologies to those who may find this tedious.

David
Who has been fighting – and losing -- a years long battle to keep his
fingers from becoming ink stained.

Forgive me for displaying my ignorance in public, but what is the
difference between a Piston Filler and a Plunger Filler? I'm familiar
with piston fillers al a Pelikan. I'm assuming that a plunger
involves some sort of sac as opposed to a watertight (ink tight?)
barrel. Would a Vacumatic be a plunger?

A Vacumatic is not a plunger filler. A Sheaffer plunger filler can be
identified by the thin plunger rod made of metal or plastic. It fits through
the body of the pen. On the other side of the hole is packing material which
is designed to form a tight seal and not allow air or ink to seep past it. The
end of the rod which is inside the pen has a couple of rubber rings which
tightly contact the inside of the barrel.

Now, let's start with the plunger rod fully extended out of the pen. The nib
end is in an ink bottle. Firmly push the plunger all the way down. As the
plunger goes down a region of low pressure is formed in the barrel between the
rubber rings and the packing material at the other end. Air is pushed out of
the pen through the feed (bubbles are coming up in the ink). Near the end of
the travel of the plunger, the barrel widens. When the plunger reaches this
point, the vacuum is lost and the remaining air in the barrel rushes up the
barrel into that region of low pressure, past the rubber rings which no longer
make contact with the sides of the barrel (because the barrel is wider down
here), pulling ink from the bottle into the barrel.

Problem areas are primarily the plunger rings and the packing area around the
rod. If either of these leak very much then the pen won't work. And that's
all I have to say about that.

Except of course that I have no doubt that Frank could have explained this more
elegantly and concisely.

David Heverly wrote:

Hello All:

Forgive me for displaying my ignorance in public, but what is the
difference between a Piston Filler and a Plunger Filler? I'm familiar
with piston fillers al a Pelikan. I'm assuming that a plunger
involves some sort of sac as opposed to a watertight (ink tight?)
barrel. Would a Vacumatic be a plunger?

There is NO accepted term to really make clear the difference between a
PUSH down piston filler, like old Sheaffers, a TWIST piston filler like
Pelikans, neither of which use a sac and are entirely different in
design. No matter what anyone says, both are really piston or plunger
fillers, although perhaps plunger may better describe the swift one push
design of Sheaffer vs the slow twisting of a Pelikan. But both do use a
moving piston in the barrel.

The sac filler Sheaffers are NOT pistons or plungers. They, if not
levers, are TounhDown fillers. That is Sheaffer's term and it is
accepted and used world wide.

A Vacumatic, is, uhh, a Vacumatic and please leave it at that. You need
Da Book which explains all this and further explains the absurd complex
design of the Vac which is nothing more than a very simple air-pumped
sac filled pen with a breather tube first used on the simple Postal Pen
and later used in all sort of mad scientist designs in the silly 1930s
idea of if it has more parts inside its better. Frank

(David Heverly) writes:

Forgive me for displaying my ignorance in public, but what is the
difference between a Piston Filler and a Plunger Filler? I'm familiar
with piston fillers al a Pelikan. I'm assuming that a plunger
involves some sort of sac as opposed to a watertight (ink tight?)
barrel. Would a Vacumatic be a plunger?

As the saying goes, one picture is worth a thousand words. ISTR that
Richard Binder has cutaway drawings on his Web site showing the
various filling mechanisms.

http://www.richardspens.com/ref_info/fillers.htm

Tim McNamara wrote in message ...
(David Heverly) writes:

As the saying goes, one picture is worth a thousand words. ISTR that
Richard Binder has cutaway drawings on his Web site showing the
various filling mechanisms.

Gentlemen:

Thanks for the answers. Given their complexity, I don't feel so badly
about asking such a "simple" question. And thanks for the link to Mr.
Binder's site. True enough; one picture is worth a thousand words.
However, many pictures may lead to fried synapses!!! It almost seems
as if every manufacturer had a variation on a filling system. My head
feels like it does when I was a kid and ate too much ice cream too
fast!!!

Again, thanks for the info. I can't think of anyplace else where you
can get so much intellectual firepower at such a reasonable price.

David
Who is going to lie down until his head stops hurting. ; )

(David Heverly) writes:

Tim McNamara wrote in message
...

As the saying goes, one picture is worth a thousand words. ISTR
that Richard Binder has cutaway drawings on his Web site showing
the various filling mechanisms.

Gentlemen:

Thanks for the answers. Given their complexity, I don't feel so
badly about asking such a "simple" question. And thanks for the
link to Mr. Binder's site. True enough; one picture is worth a
thousand words. However, many pictures may lead to fried
synapses!!! It almost seems as if every manufacturer had a
variation on a filling system.

That's exactly right. Due to patent issues, most manufacturers
created miniscule variations on the theme of how to fill a fountain
pen. Some are simple, some are complex. Some hold up well over
time, some don't. I suppose that in general, the simpler designs
tend to hold up better.

Tim McNamara wrote in message ...
(David Heverly) writes:

Tim McNamara wrote in message
...

As the saying goes, one picture is worth a thousand words. ISTR
that Richard Binder has cutaway drawings on his Web site showing
the various filling mechanisms.

Gentlemen:

Thanks for the answers. Given their complexity, I don't feel so
badly about asking such a "simple" question. And thanks for the
link to Mr. Binder's site. True enough; one picture is worth a
thousand words. However, many pictures may lead to fried
synapses!!! It almost seems as if every manufacturer had a
variation on a filling system.

That's exactly right. Due to patent issues, most manufacturers
created miniscule variations on the theme of how to fill a fountain
pen. Some are simple, some are complex. Some hold up well over
time, some don't. I suppose that in general, the simpler designs
tend to hold up better.

Yes, simple things are usually the ones which work, and sometimes the
most complex as well. Remember Giotto's story:

One day, the Pope Benedict XI sent a courier to Giotto to evaluate the
artist's skill to paint some frescos; Giotto gave the courier a note
with a hand drawn circle... a perfect circle. Obviously, he got the
job.

OTOH, "weird" designs in pen filling systems are part of fps
hunting/collecting.. Sure, the vacumatic system may not be the
ultimate system, but it was available for years and years in what IMHO
is the most beautiful pen made by parker and the bulletproof P51.
Those systems are part of fp's history, and I don't think in terms of
which is better. Enjoy them all

Juan