# Parts of a ballpoint pen



## DCBluesman (Nov 19, 2007)

The subject came up in another thread, but rather than continue to hijack that thread I thought I would address the question here.  It's not really about turning, but it is about pens.

A standard ballpoint or rollerball refill consists of 4 components, the ball housing, the ball, the ink and the tube.  Some refills also have a cap.  I can't find an answer to what the "original fill" is called other than an ink supply.

The tube or tubes that house the refill are called the barrel or barrels.  If there is a separate section where the ball housing protrudes, that is called the grip.

The component or sub-assembly which activates the raising or lowering of the refill is called the mechanism.  The two most common types are transmissions and click-assemblies.  The portion of the click assembly that the user uses to activate the mechanism is called the button.

At the top of the topmost barrel is a decorative ring (sometimes), a pocket clip and the finial.  That about does it.


----------



## GaryMGg (Nov 19, 2007)

Lou,
Thanks for the proper terminology. I was going to write something about operationally defining things, but you've made my additional comments unnecessary.


----------



## Randy_ (Nov 19, 2007)

> _Originally posted by DCBluesman_
> <br />...The component or sub-assembly which activates the raising or lowering of the refill is called the mechanism.  The two most common types are transmissions and click-assemblies.  The portion of the click assembly that the user uses to activate the mechanism is called the button...



Not all click pens have a button.


----------



## wdcav1952 (Nov 20, 2007)

> _Originally posted by Randy__
> <br />
> 
> 
> ...




Right, those that don't have a button have a thingy.


----------



## alamocdc (Nov 20, 2007)

> _Originally posted by wdcav1952_
> <br />
> 
> 
> ...



No, no, no... it's not called a thingy, Cav. It's a clicker. Donchu know nuttin? [}][]


----------



## GaryMGg (Nov 20, 2007)

All my click pens go `ticka ticka' when I push the dohickey. Why don't they call the button a ticka?!? [][}]


----------



## wdcav1952 (Nov 20, 2007)

> _Originally posted by alamocdc_
> <br />
> 
> 
> ...



Shows what you know, Billy!  I checked with my wife and she assured me that I do know nothing!!!


----------



## ed4copies (Nov 20, 2007)

Sure glad we cleared that up!![][][]


----------



## gerryr (Nov 20, 2007)

Which part?  The part about Cav not knowing anything or the pen parts?[][}]


----------



## DFM (Nov 20, 2007)

Without posting sources from industry standards for these terms that you are listing, the list of names are your opinion of their names.  Please clarify and furnish your sources so everyone can understand the context which you are defining the terms here.


----------



## wdcav1952 (Nov 20, 2007)

> _Originally posted by gerryr_
> <br />Which part?  The part about Cav not knowing anything or the pen parts?[][}]



Yes. []


----------



## DCBluesman (Nov 20, 2007)

DFM - in the other thread, alluded to in the first line of the thread, I mentioned that my source is the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) in several of their standards.  These are <b>NOT</b> my opinions, but the writings of an internationally recognized standards organization.  I don't have the answers, but I generally know where to find them.  <u><b>If you have other documented sources which differ from mine, I would love to know what they are.</b></u>
By the way, I intentionally kept my post short.  There are hundreds of pages on writing instruments and their components.  The complete set of ISO standards relating to such would only cost a couple of hundred dollars.


----------



## Firefyter-emt (Nov 20, 2007)

So.. Uh, Lou... That's a yes??  []


----------



## DFM (Nov 20, 2007)

NO, you did NOT document any definitions of pen parts from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), you merely quoted the ISO's goal statement outlining the purpose of the ISO.  After the quote from the ISO organization, you quoted two different sources which are not from the pen industry.  Merriam-Webster's Dictionary and a couple of web-site definitions do not qualify as a legitimate ISO definition.  

Using this as logic, I could quote any industry body's purpose statement and then in the next sentence quote a manufacturer's parts list listing the nib part of a slim line and then expect everyone to trust this without question.  

I just want you to back up what you are saying, otherwise just tell everyone that this is your opinion and not a fact.


----------



## wdcav1952 (Nov 20, 2007)

> _Originally posted by DFM_
> <br />NO, you did NOT document any definitions of pen parts from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), you merely quoted the ISO's goal statement outlining the purpose of the ISO.  After the quote from the ISO organization, you quoted two different sources which are not from the pen industry.  Merriam-Webster's Dictionary and a couple of web-site definitions do not qualify as a legitimate ISO definition.
> 
> Using this as logic, I could quote any industry body's purpose statement and then in the next sentence quote a manufacturer's parts list listing the nib part of a slim line and then expect everyone to trust this without question.
> ...



And the purpose of this tempest in a teapot is???????????

Comece uma vida.


----------



## DFM (Nov 20, 2007)

The purpose is simply clarity.  If the preceding is merely DC's opinion, then state it as such.  If it is an industry standard then back it up with facts instead of just saying it is so for everyone to blindly believe.


----------



## Gary Max (Nov 20, 2007)

Well in our house it's called a nib-----nah nah nah[}]


----------



## DCBluesman (Nov 20, 2007)

If you, whatever your name is, or anyone else choose to "blindly believe" ANYTHING that is written on a piece of paper or in cyber space, then I feel sorry for you.  Most people accept either based on proof, as you clearly do, or based on track record, as others choose to do.  I don't really give a rat's a$$ about what you think I should or shouldn't do.  If you don't like what's posted, print something better and let folks decide based on <b>YOUR</b> track record.  At this point, I will not be responding to anymore of your ignorant claptrap.


----------



## Randy_ (Nov 20, 2007)

> _Originally posted by DFM_
> <br />Without posting sources from industry standards for these terms that you are listing, the list of names are your opinion of their names.  Please clarify and <b>furnish your sources </b>so everyone can understand the context which you are defining the terms here.



[teal]DFM:  I guess you did not read Lou's post carefully enough?

He clearly stated:  



> "...There are accepted and standardized names for components of pens. They are listed in ISO (International Organization for Standardization)in standard 12757 and others..."



If you don't trust Lou's information, you can visit ISO #12757 and check it out for yourself.  Personally, Lou's word on the matter is good enough for me.


----------



## great12b4ever (Nov 20, 2007)

Actually there are 4 standards by ISO;  ISO 12756:1998 Ball Point Pens  General Use, ISO12757-2-1998 Ball Point Pens-Documentary Use, and there is also ISO 14145-2:1998 Roller Ball Pens General Use, and 14145-2:1998 Roller Ball Pens, Documentary Use.  These are printed in both English and French.  They are available From ANSI (American National Standards Institute at a cost of $41.00 each (American Dollars).  If anyone wishes to purchase these, they will be able to by creating an account with ANSI, and can then get a downloaded (PDF) file of these Standards and Terminology.  You will find these interesting reading as they dictate the amont of pressure on the refill balls and the allowable operating temperature range for the inks, and the amont of "Bleed-thru" allowed for different applications.  There is even a large amount of information on Ball-point and RollerBall writing test machines available to test the resistance to various chemicals, and pressures of the refills needed to meet ISO Standards.  I encourage everyone who has a spare  $164.00 to purchase these documents, and then You can also be a correct expert like Lou.

Rob


----------



## DFM (Nov 20, 2007)

"[ISO]12757 is about the properties of ballpoint pens and refills and how to test them. 12757-1 is about the dimensions of refills (for example a G2 is a "Parker style" refill) and quality for general use. Part 2 is about the requirements (light fastness, water resistance and shelf life) for documentery [sic](DOC) use. ... Doesn't seem to be one for fountain pens, which makes me suspect they aren't really approved for documentary use, although there likely are inks which could be if their makers insisted on it and ISO had a category for it."

http://www.canit.se/~griffon/writing/text/archival_standards.html

I don't see how this ISO is relevant to the definition of a nib and whether penturners use it to describe the press fitting of the part which the ball point cartridge passes through or the fountain pen nib.

I just want you to back up what you say with such conviction with actual facts/sources.


----------



## ed4copies (Nov 20, 2007)

> _Originally posted by DFM_
> <br />"[ISO]12757 is about the properties of ballpoint pens and refills and how to test them. 12757-1 is about the dimensions of refills (for example a G2 is a "Parker style" refill) and quality for general use. Part 2 is about the requirements (light fastness, water resistance and shelf life) for documentery [sic](DOC) use. ... Doesn't seem to be one for fountain pens, which makes me suspect they aren't really approved for documentary use, although there likely are inks which could be if their makers insisted on it and ISO had a category for it."
> 
> http://www.canit.se/~griffon/writing/text/archival_standards.html
> ...



Who WOULD you consider the ULTIMATE authority on such matters???


----------



## PR_Princess (Nov 20, 2007)

I do not post much, and I never thought that I would find myself in agreement with both Teal Randy <b>and</b> Cav. Never mind having them in the same sentence. 

Nicely said Randy and Cav.

(Cav that would be "Comece uma vida" not the thingy on your thingy.  [][][])


----------



## gerryr (Nov 20, 2007)

I looks to me like someone is just trying to start a fight.


----------



## Thumbs (Nov 20, 2007)

Looks to me like some folks can't stand to have their authority questioned either.  Oh my!


----------



## Randy_ (Nov 20, 2007)

> _Originally posted by PR_Princess_
> <br />I do not post much, and I never thought that I would find myself in agreement with both Teal Randy <b>and</b> Cav. Never mind having them in the same sentence.
> 
> Nicely said Randy and Cav.
> ...



Thanks.  I guess it is a shock to us, too.[}]


----------



## MesquiteMan (Nov 20, 2007)

Has anyone actually READ the ISO standards?


----------



## great12b4ever (Nov 20, 2007)

Yes, I have a copy of the ISO 12757 part 1 and 2.

Rob


----------



## rlharding (Nov 21, 2007)

DFM, you <u>might </u>have been better received if you hadn't appeared with what reads as a very aggressive approach to what was an interesting discussion. If you do indeed have some other information that you believe to correct what Lou said, why not post it as another viewpoint?  I have spent the afternoon in a meeting discussing the need for common terminology in our provincial emergency response management system.  We have all kinds of laws and statutes but even after 10 years many agencies are 'mis-using' the terminology.  We are going to establish the most common usage as the standard.  Lou's descriptions certainly provided me with information I didn't have before.....I have never even thought about pen terminology.

It's unfortunate that your voice will not be heard because of your aggressive approach.


----------



## DFM (Nov 21, 2007)

RL, first let me say welcome to IAP.

As you know in the Emergency Response Management System, if your terminology is incorrect there can be a lot of confusion.  I'm sure you have read all the posts, and you saw a lively discussion of different terms that are used in this group.  I just want to get to the bottom of where these new terms are coming from.  They are not industry-wide because we are the industry.  

Just because one member says so with authority, we should not all adopt the new terms just because he says so.  I never stated or implied that I had differing terminology, I was merely requesting that sources be posted so everyone can see where the new and different terms came from.


----------



## ed4copies (Nov 21, 2007)

> _Originally posted by DFM_
> <br />RL, first let me say welcome to IAP.
> 
> As you know in the Emergency Response Management System, if your terminology is incorrect there can be a lot of confusion.  I'm sure you have read all the posts, and you saw a lively discussion of different terms that are used in this group.  I just want to get to the bottom of where these new terms are coming from.  They are not industry-wide because <b>we are the industry</b>.
> ...



I'm afraid you grossly overestimate our collective importance.  THE industry is composed of major manufacturers, who have existed for over a century.  THEY establish "accepted" terminology.  OUR contribution of a couple thousand pens made by a bunch of amateurs will NOT change the industry.  (Yes, I sell several hundred pens a year, but I realize my relative importance is NIL).

So, if we don't choose to abide by their terminology, we can, instead appear STUPID to the potential purchasers.

I was with Lou Metcalf at the largest fountain pen show in the USA at Washington DC.  He commands some degree of respect for his knowledge and his integrity.  He is also VERY selective in his sources for information.  

It APPEARS that you (DFM) challenge without alternatives.  That, in my opinion, is just attempting to be obstructionist.  IF you know of a BETTER source, or even an authoritative ALTERNATIVE source, with a differing opinion, it could further the "collective knowledge".  Once again, I ask YOU for YOUR positive contribution.

Thank you!![]


----------



## wdcav1952 (Nov 21, 2007)

> _Originally posted by Randy__
> <br />
> 
> 
> ...



Hey, we even exchanged civil emails, too!!! []

Dawn, I never knew you were an expert on languages. []


----------



## wdcav1952 (Nov 21, 2007)

> _Originally posted by ed4copies_
> <br />
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry, Ed, but like some other posts, this part of yours stuck out like a big old sore Thumb. [}][}]


----------



## ed4copies (Nov 21, 2007)

Cav, I can live with being unimportant.  Just keep me healthy!!![][][]


----------



## DFM (Nov 21, 2007)

> _Originally posted by ed4copies_
> <br />I'm afraid you grossly overestimate our collective importance.  THE industry is composed of major manufacturers, who have existed for over a century.  THEY establish "accepted" terminology.  OUR contribution of a couple thousand pens made by a bunch of amateurs will NOT change the industry.  (Yes, I sell several hundred pens a year, but I realize my relative importance is NIL).
> 
> So, if we don't choose to abide by their terminology, we can, instead appear STUPID to the potential purchasers.
> ...



I'm sorry that you feel that requesting one's sources for a statement of facts is being obstructive.  And when the sources quoted are some obscure ISO number that is not readily available to everyone to check without even quoting the actual text of that ISO number to back up his statement leads me to believe that the statement is not factual and they are trying to hide something.  

If anyone wants us to adopt a certain term or definition based on an industry standard, give us the backup so we can believe it instead of attacking the person asking for the reference.  My positive contribution is a check and balance to a broad and overreaching statement.


----------



## gketell (Nov 21, 2007)

I guess I'm sorry I asked the question since it lead to all this strife.

Lou, thanks for answering my question!

GK


----------



## MesquiteMan (Nov 21, 2007)

Folks, please keep it civil.


----------



## ed4copies (Nov 21, 2007)

My positive contribution is a check and balance to a broad and overreaching statement.

Taken in that frame of reference, I can accept it.

Thanks for the clarification, you are CERTAINLY entitled to YOUR opinion.[]

I continue to believe that one of the difficulties in fora is the inability to HEAR the intonation and clarify our remarks.  Perhaps that is what transpired here.  

Remember, we are all approaching Thanksgiving where families gather together and get in huge fights, leaving the table with, "I'll NEVER SPEAK TO YOU AGAIN!!!"   So, it's important that we keep our "on-line" friendships in order - otherwise who will LISTEN to us bitch?????


----------

