CD testing woes

[Kerven]

After growing tired of finicky ECO wicks and reading how CD wicks seem to be more popular, I've decided to give CD's a try. Unfortunately, there have been issues that I can not seem to solve.

 

Currently, I'm testing in both GW 464 and Candlewic's coconut/apricot blend waxes. The jars used are Peak's medium danube status jars (discontinued), which have a diameter of 2.75" (give or take a hair). The wick sizes are: CD 6, CD 8, and CD 10. Each tester is FO-free because I'm trying to find a base wick size to work from once I start testing FO's.

 

In the GW 464 testers, the results were as anticipated. CD 6 and CD 10 mushroomed within the first two hours. CD 8 had slight mushrooming towards the fourth hour. Flame height and melt pool depth was as expected in all three, although the CD 6 flame was a bit smaller. CD 10 left a small amount of residue on the glass, while both CD 8 and CD 6 had hang up on the third burn. I know I'm not supposed to reach a FMP on the first two burns, but I figure if the CD 6 isn't working then a smaller size isn't going to do any better. That is, if incomplete combustion is the cause of the mushrooming. CD 8 seems to be the winner here, and I'm hoping for a slower, cooler burn once FO is added.

 

Now, on to the coconut wax. Same set up as the 464 testers, but the results were... surprising. The flames in all three were twice the size of those in the 464 testers. The rate of consumption was nearly double, as was the melt pool depth. Melt pool spread was the same. The flames were significantly hotter and brighter than those from the soy candles. CD 6 and CD 10 mushroomed early on. CD 8 performed better, but the flame height, ROC, and temperature caused it to fail the test. Given that, except for the mushrooming, there was little different between the three sizes, I'm hesitant to say that going down a size or two would help... I'm nearly out of CD sizes to wick down to. Due to the flame height/temperature issues, I decided to end the test early on the third burn because they had become a fire hazard at that point.

 

Perhaps CD wicks are incompatible with the coconut wax? The wax was noticeably thinner than soy when poured and it is a terribly soft wax to begin with (shortening or butter from the fridge?).

Has anyone worked with this wax before?

Are there cooler, slower burning wicks? I'm almost tempted to give the ECO wicks a go in the coconut wax just for the heck of it.

I do know that there is a small percentage of paraffin in this blend, so perhaps a wick designed for use in paraffin might work? If so, any brand suggestions?

[TallTayl]

For the coconut wax I'm thinking HTP or LX might be a better bet. Especially if your tests are showing how much easier it is to burn. So we wax is very thick and not as easy to burn. Especially this last crop that came out it seems.

[Flicker]

So you are testing with no fragrance? Are you planning to sell unscented or scented candles? If only scented, your work was for nothing. Test as you will sell only. Fragrance WILL alter the results.

[TallTayl]

32 minutes ago, Flicker said:

So you are testing with no fragrance? Are you planning to sell unscented or scented candles? If only scented, your work was for nothing. Test as you will sell only. Fragrance WILL alter the results.

I completely 100% disagree with this statement.

 

Without knowing how your wax performs all by itself the added variable of a fragrance is going to complicate the next set of tests. Only by burning my wax by itself did I discover i had a problem with my wax not my fragrances.

[Kerven]

I anticipate having to wick up once FO is added. I'm just trying to determine the type of wick and get a general idea of what size to start with for that diameter of jar. When I worked with ECO wicks, I usually tested two sizes - the base size for that container diameter and one size up in case the FO was too heavy. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find many resources on wick performance in coconut blends or sizing suggestions, so I assumed it was a "natural" wax (it's coconut and apricot!) and would take the same wick used for soy. Apparently, that (supposedly) small percentage of paraffin made all the difference...

 

LX wicks should arrive tomorrow. Hopefully, I'll have a new batch to test Friday. Since the diameter of the jars is 2.75", I'm thinking I'll try LX 14, 16, 18. I read somewhere around here that a CD 20 should work in a 4" jar of coconut wax, so I may give that a try as well.

Edited July 19, 2017 by Kerven
Mistake

[Flicker]

22 hours ago, TallTayl said:

I completely 100% disagree with this statement.

 

Without knowing how your wax performs all by itself the added variable of a fragrance is going to complicate the next set of tests. Only by burning my wax by itself did I discover i had a problem with my wax not my fragrances.

17 years as the Tech for BC tells me otherwise. Even the wick companies and wax companies will tell you the same, test it as it will be used. Everything can and will alter results. That's sort of like saying test the taste of a drink, but let's just put in most of the ingredients, we will leave a few out till later.

[TallTayl]

19 minutes ago, Flicker said:

17 years as the Tech for BC tells me otherwise. Even the wick companies and wax companies will tell you the same, test it as it will be used. Everything can and will alter results. That's sort of like saying test the taste of a drink, but let's just put in most of the ingredients, we will leave a few out till later.

I don't need care how many years someone regurgitated information, you can't tell what *your* wax will do when too many variables are added to the equation. 

 

If i base my wax/wick needs on a test with my grapefruit FO, I would conclude I need a wick that is two sizes too small. If I base my wax/wick conclusions on my Amber, I would be overwicked by 5 sizes. Tell me, how am I to know how my wax performs when either of those tests is concluded? Once I figured out my wax, testing fragrances moved along at warp speed.

 

It is completely asinine to assume all fragrances behave the same and not know what your base product is. Totally insane and it creates a longer time and more expensive testing period. 

 

I hear so much ridiculous information every single day coming from suppliers that I have learned to ignore it. If I wicked as candlescience or brambleberry advise I would have burned my house down by now. I think suppliers love telling us to test their way for one simple reason: it sells more wax, wicks and fragrance as newbs try to put pieces of a puzzle together. Period. Cash flow keeps them in business. 

[TallTayl]

In any scientific (including mathematics) field the way to solve a problem is to isolate variables. Walk before you run. learn the primer before trying to master the advanced. 

 

If anyone tells you to just skip steps, find another teacher. 

[moonshine]

1 hour ago, Flicker said:

17 years as the Tech for BC tells me otherwise. Even the wick companies and wax companies will tell you the same, test it as it will be used. Everything can and will alter results. That's sort of like saying test the taste of a drink, but let's just put in most of the ingredients, we will leave a few out till later.

I am pretty sure when making a drink they start with a base and add ingredients one at a time to get the perfect grand finale- if I complied a list of ingredients and threw them altogether to make myself a nice cocktail and it tasted horrid how would I know which ingredient I threw in there was making my refreshment taste nasty?

 

I am pretty convinced wick and wax companies want us to test more so we buy more....I along with TT have been having issues with my wax lately and had I never tested my wax naked extensively I wouldn't of had a clue to begin figuring out the issue 

I cannot stress enough the importance of knowing your wax inside and out BEFORE  adding variables to it....common sense really.... a waste of time? Hardly, it's a money saver in the end and a lot less Advil needed figuring out a problem when one arises 

I do agree with testing as your going to be selling them....once you have learned your ingredients 

 

[Flicker]

On ‎7‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 1:35 PM, TallTayl said:

I don't need care how many years someone regurgitated information, you can't tell what *your* wax will do when too many variables are added to the equation. 

 

If i base my wax/wick needs on a test with my grapefruit FO, I would conclude I need a wick that is two sizes too small. If I base my wax/wick conclusions on my Amber, I would be overwicked by 5 sizes. Tell me, how am I to know how my wax performs when either of those tests is concluded? Once I figured out my wax, testing fragrances moved along at warp speed.

 

It is completely asinine to assume all fragrances behave the same and not know what your base product is. Totally insane and it creates a longer time and more expensive testing period. 

 

I hear so much ridiculous information every single day coming from suppliers that I have learned to ignore it. If I wicked as candlescience or brambleberry advise I would have burned my house down by now. I think suppliers love telling us to test their way for one simple reason: it sells more wax, wicks and fragrance as newbs try to put pieces of a puzzle together. Period. Cash flow keeps them in business. 

Well, I did happen to own a very successful candle business long before I worked there, and right up until I was in my last year of employment with them. Funny, with the ten waxes I worked with EVERY single one wicked completely different than it did baseline with fragrance. I had a handful of scents that burned a bit different but the majority burned the same, with fragrance added.

 

I tell folks to test it as you will be using it. As I said, if you plan to make unscented candles, test unscented....or did you fail to read that? I have not worked for a supplier for two years, I am giving MY PERSONAL experience, I could give two shits if any supplier makes a dime or not, they are not the hand that feeds me. But I do know that every time we tested unscented, the wick was smaller than what I needed once scent was added. Sorry, but you may make a lot of candles, but I have worked through literally thousands of problems quite easily over the years with little issues. I am giving my quarter. To test something that will NEVER be a variable IS a waste of time, and resources.

[TallTayl]

52 minutes ago, Flicker said:

Well, I did happen to own a very successful candle business long before I worked there, and right up until I was in my last year of employment with them. Funny, with the ten waxes I worked with EVERY single one wicked completely different than it did baseline with fragrance. I had a handful of scents that burned a bit different but the majority burned the same, with fragrance added.

 

I tell folks to test it as you will be using it. As I said, if you plan to make unscented candles, test unscented....or did you fail to read that? I have not worked for a supplier for two years, I am giving MY PERSONAL experience, I could give two shits if any supplier makes a dime or not, they are not the hand that feeds me. But I do know that every time we tested unscented, the wick was smaller than what I needed once scent was added. Sorry, but you may make a lot of candles, but I have worked through literally thousands of problems quite easily over the years with little issues. I am giving my quarter. To test something that will NEVER be a variable IS a waste of time, and resources.

bully for you Flicker. Really. I know quite a few successful candlemakers personally.We are all noticing severe problems with our waxes this year.

 

My base wax this year requires two full sizes HIGHER than with many fragrances I use. A couple of fragrances are now nearly extinguishing the flame. Your anecdotal experience supports that NOT ALL WAXES AND FRAGRANCES BEHAVE THE SAME. that is why we test our base ingredients.. Let me say this again: WITHOUT KNOWING HOW YOUR WAX BURNS YOU WILL NEVER KNOW WHERE TO SEARCH FOR PROBLEMS.

 

NO TWO LOTS OF WAX BURN THE SAME. That is why we test. Had I not tested my base wax this year I WOULD NEVER HAVE KNOWN THE PROBLEMS WE ARE ALL HAVING IS  POINTING TO THE SOY WAX.

 

Without knowing how someone's particular wax works the fragrances change too many variables. And, as you well know, retailers change fragrance formulations, so what may have worked predictably at one time may be different. So, without knowing how your individual ingredients change the burn I stand by my point to test wax without any variables so you know what is happening - or what to change - when something is different.

.

[moonshine]

So flicker I am confused ..... your saying to test something that is never going to be a variable is a waste of time and resources....

so in short would you be saying our wax is not a variable in the total equation?

call me stupid but I always thought our wax was the main part to the whole 

 

you also say you tested unscented and the wick was smaller than what was needed with Scent.....how would you have known that without doing that test?

 

everyone is entitled to their own opinions and have differenent experiences but I stand firm as well that a chandler needs to know how their wax behaves before throwing added ingredients in the pot, when I first started out years ago I did do my research and went with a wax and fragrances and wicks I thought would be perfect....threw it all together and couldn't understand why I couldn't hardly smell my candle, why it completely liquified within a couple hours of burning, was it my fragrance? Was it my wick series or size? Or was it my wax I chose or even my heating and pouring temperatures  

once I followed the advice from many chandlers on here to pick a wax and burn it alone with different wicks to see how it behaved it all came together for me 

 

to each his own but you seem to be contradictory to your own words unless I can't read myself ?‍♀️

[moonshine]

On 7/16/2017 at 2:33 PM, Kerven said:

After growing tired of finicky ECO wicks and reading how CD wicks seem to be more popular, I've decided to give CD's a try. Unfortunately, there have been issues that I can not seem to solve.

 

Currently, I'm testing in both GW 464 and Candlewic's coconut/apricot blend waxes. The jars used are Peak's medium danube status jars (discontinued), which have a diameter of 2.75" (give or take a hair). The wick sizes are: CD 6, CD 8, and CD 10. Each tester is FO-free because I'm trying to find a base wick size to work from once I start testing FO's.

 

In the GW 464 testers, the results were as anticipated. CD 6 and CD 10 mushroomed within the first two hours. CD 8 had slight mushrooming towards the fourth hour. Flame height and melt pool depth was as expected in all three, although the CD 6 flame was a bit smaller. CD 10 left a small amount of residue on the glass, while both CD 8 and CD 6 had hang up on the third burn. I know I'm not supposed to reach a FMP on the first two burns, but I figure if the CD 6 isn't working then a smaller size isn't going to do any better. That is, if incomplete combustion is the cause of the mushrooming. CD 8 seems to be the winner here, and I'm hoping for a slower, cooler burn once FO is added.

 

Now, on to the coconut wax. Same set up as the 464 testers, but the results were... surprising. The flames in all three were twice the size of those in the 464 testers. The rate of consumption was nearly double, as was the melt pool depth. Melt pool spread was the same. The flames were significantly hotter and brighter than those from the soy candles. CD 6 and CD 10 mushroomed early on. CD 8 performed better, but the flame height, ROC, and temperature caused it to fail the test. Given that, except for the mushrooming, there was little different between the three sizes, I'm hesitant to say that going down a size or two would help... I'm nearly out of CD sizes to wick down to. Due to the flame height/temperature issues, I decided to end the test early on the third burn because they had become a fire hazard at that point.

 

Perhaps CD wicks are incompatible with the coconut wax? The wax was noticeably thinner than soy when poured and it is a terribly soft wax to begin with (shortening or butter from the fridge?).

Has anyone worked with this wax before?

Are there cooler, slower burning wicks? I'm almost tempted to give the ECO wicks a go in the coconut wax just for the heck of it.

I do know that there is a small percentage of paraffin in this blend, so perhaps a wick designed for use in paraffin might work? If so, any brand suggestions?

I like that your testing your waxes alone

I am with TT on trying out the LX or HTP for the coconut wax or even the RRD 

eco are very hot wicks and I have a feeling if your having issues with CD- eco will catch fire 

RRD I am new to using but they are very nice wicks for veggie blends and parasoy burns - they don't burn hot with nice steady flames 

CD should work out good for the 464 that's what I used to use and you may also want to try premier wicks, many have reported great success with those and 464 

also like TT stated this years soy is burning very different - there have been reports of having to wick down a lot with 464

I don't have experience with the coconut wax to be able to help any there  

[Jcandleattic]

14 hours ago, Flicker said:

I am giving my quarter. To test something that will NEVER be a variable IS a waste of time, and resources.

I don't understand how getting to know your wax, and the way it burns and how it should burn without variables is a waste of time. Knowledge - in any form - is NEVER a waste of time. The more you learn about your craft, the more knowledgeable you are about what you are doing, and when things go wrong, you can go back to the basics, and figure it out so much faster than you could if you didn't know your basic wax/craft.

 

14 hours ago, Flicker said:

I could give two shits if any supplier makes a dime or not, they are not the hand that feeds me.

I'm also trying to understand this one? Are you no longer a candlemaker/crafter? Because if you are, then they ARE (indirectly) the hand that helps to feed you. Without them, you couldn't get your supplies, to sell your craft, to make the money for your life. It's the whole "circle of life" thing. Anyone in any kind of business should know this, or they shouldn't be in business. 

 

I'm seriously just literally trying to understand your logic... Because it truly does not make sense to me. 

[Flicker]

8 hours ago, Jcandleattic said:

I don't understand how getting to know your wax, and the way it burns and how it should burn without variables is a waste of time. Knowledge - in any form - is NEVER a waste of time. The more you learn about your craft, the more knowledgeable you are about what you are doing, and when things go wrong, you can go back to the basics, and figure it out so much faster than you could if you didn't know your basic wax/craft.

 

I'm also trying to understand this one? Are you no longer a candlemaker/crafter? Because if you are, then they ARE (indirectly) the hand that helps to feed you. Without them, you couldn't get your supplies, to sell your craft, to make the money for your life. It's the whole "circle of life" thing. Anyone in any kind of business should know this, or they shouldn't be in business. 

 

I'm seriously just literally trying to understand your logic... Because it truly does not make sense to me. 

I have not sold anything for the past several years, I work as a Health Information Manager for a large hospital chain, but I still make product for myself. I sold for decades, and worked for a supplier for years, but nope, not the hand that feeds me, in any way.

[Kerven]

I guess I should have titled this thread "coconut testing woes".

 

New testers are going. So far, the LX wicks are somewhat cooler and less... aggressive(?). Unfortunately, the flames are a little too tall and mushroomed before the second hour on the first burn; LX 14 and 18 mushrooming more than 16. I'm certain 16 and 18 will reach FMP by the third hour. The ROC seems a bit high as well but definitely less than the CD's. All three are producing soot and the flames are dancing now that they've mushroomed. Although an improvement over the CD's, these don't seem to be a good match for this wax.

 

I'll order some RRD's and HTP's. This wax is surprisingly soft when set and watery when melted. I think I need a wick that has a tight, hot flame and slower wicking.

 

Any suggestions on where I can find a supplier that carries sample packs of both RRD and HTP?

Edited July 21, 2017 by Kerven

[moonshine]

I got my RRD samplers at candles and supplies - I don't think they carry HTP but I could be wrong 

it might not hurt to try eco to see - they are a hot burning wick just maybe try a smaller size to start 

Premier are also supposed to be great for veggie waxes 

[wthomas57]

You wont want HTP if you need a more rigid wick. They are the more flimsy in my opinion and will lean. But I like them a lot other than that. Just careful... they wont hold up well in super soft wax. You will have less problems in larger jars however, RRD definitely much more rigid. But can soot and mushroom a little too much sometimes

[coconut]

I used to make soft paraffin acndles in 2.75" and went as small as lx 8 and htp 31 or 41. Rrd was too large and too hot. HTH

[Kerven]

Thanks for all the help.

 

I've been scouring the internet for tips and clues on how to wick this wax. One supplier of coconut 83 has a kit that includes CD 8 wicks. That fits with my results for CD sizes, although, I haven't tested with FO.

 

I read somewhere that someone was using ECO 4's in coconut 83, so I tested those as well (ECO 2, 4, 6, 8). ECO 4 and 6 performed the best in the unscented wax and didn't reach a full MP after 3 hours (accidentally let them burn a half hour longer). They looked promising despite the questionably large flames. Heat wasn't too bad either - less than the CD's. Minimal mushrooming on the third hour. I'll be burning these a few more times to see just how hot the glass gets. If they turn out, I'll move on to testing CD 8, LX 16, and the two ECO's with FO. Still need to test RRD and maybe Premier and wood wicks.

 

I've forgotten where I found it (that's what I get for working in Notepad before a power outage), but there was a reference somewhere mentioning the use of cotton cored wicks for thin waxes like this coconut/apricot blend. It is a cool-burning wax, and these hot-burning wicks are burning through it too fast. What should be a ~20hr candle is going to end up being a ~14hr candle.

 

I'm almost tempted to blend this with soy or stearic to try and tame it a bit. As it is, I'm not too thrilled with its softness and I haven't found an ideal pouring temperature; most horrific wet spots ever when poured at a high temperature, but at least they predictably appear within three days. Given its softness, I'm worried that adding FO will only make it softer.

[ShineOn]

Have you found a wick that works for this wax? When Ecosoya's CB Adv. wax was discontinued I was forced to change my wax and decided to try something different. I decided to try a coconut blend but it is extremely difficult to wick. The lack of information about coconut wax doesn't make it any easier. So far I've tested:

 

Eco 4, 4oz jar, 2.75" diameter: Full melt pool after a 3-hour test burn. Perfect wick for this jar!

 

Eco 4, 8oz jar, 2.75 diameter: For some reason even though this wick worked on the 4oz jar with the same 2.75 diameter, it did not work on the 8oz jar. If anything the flame was extremely tall, with a lot of mushrooming and smoke after 20 mins. I had to extinguish it because it set my fire alarm off. It's odd that it worked fine on a 4oz jar but not 8oz jar...

 

CD 8, 8oz jar, 2.75 diameter: I did not get a full melt pool with this wick even after burning for 3 1/2 hours.

 

LX wicks tested many:  had a lot of mushrooming!

 

CD 10, 8oz jar, 2.75" diameter: The wick for this jar was appropriate. Full melt pool and a good flame. Not sure why this size didn't work for you.I've tested this wick with no FO, and 10% FO with 3 different scents and they all work well. 

 

Now, where I'm having a really hard time is wicking my jars with a diameter of 3.20" inches. CD 6, CD8, and CD10, don't give full melt pools. Eco 4, and CD 14 create large flames capable of turning on my fire alarm again. CD 12 gave the best burn with less than 1/2 inch away from a full melt pool.  But again wicking-up to CD 14 created too hot of a flame. 

 

Not sure how to proceed. It seems that coconut wax doesn't have enough density for many wicks, and even though I was able to wick my 8oz 2.75" diameter jar, I can't really use this wax if get all my other containers to work with it too.

 

 

 

[Kerven]

After the CD and LX testing I switched to ECO since I had that on hand. Your results are interesting. Which coconut blend are you using?

Which supplier are your ECO wicks from? Mine were from Candle Science. I'm beginning to think the priming wax may be the culpit as my wicks are burning too hot for the coconut/apricot blend and there are no more sizes to move down to unless I manage to find extra long tealight sizes. I've stopped testing for now while I work on soy candles for fall, but when I pick it up again I think I may look into unprimed cotton core wicks. This wax is so thin, easily taken up by the wick, and readily combusted that I think priming may not be necessary.

 

Here are my ECO results with the coconut/apricot blend:

2.75", unscented, no additives, no dyes, wicks trimmed to 1/4", no cure

   1hr - ECO 2 - MP 1/2" from the sides, no mushrooming, 1/4" MP depth, flame a little tall, jar not too warm

            ECO 4 - MP 1/2" from sides, no mushrooming, 1/4" MP depth, flame a little tall, jar not too hot (but slightly warmer than ECO 2)

            ECO 6 - MP 1/3" from sides, no mushrooming, 1/4" MP depth, flame a bit too large (tall and wide), jar not too hot (about the same as ECO 4)

            ECO 8 - MP 1/4" from sides, no mushrooming, 1/3" MP depth, flame too tall, jar getting hot (hottest of them)

   2hr - ECO 2 - MP 1/4" from sides, no mushrooming, 1/3" MP depth, flame unsteady and smoking, flame too tall, glass becoming hot

            ECO 4 - MP 1/4" from sides, no mushrooming, 1/3" MP depth, flame unsteady (less than 2 and 8), flame is tall, glass becoming hot

            ECO 6 - MP 1/4" from sides, no mushrooming, 1/3" MP depth, flame unsteady (less than 2 and 8), flame is tall, glass becoming hot

            ECO 8 - MP 1/4" from sides, no mushrooming, 1/3" MP depth, flame unsteady and smoking, flame too tall, glass is hotter than the others

   3hr - ECO 2 - MP 1/4" from sides, slight mushrooming, 1/3" MP depth, flame unsteady and smoking, flame is tall (lower than before), glass is hot

            ECO 4 - MP 1/5" from sides, no mushroomng, 1/3" MP depth, flame unsteady, flame is tall, glass quite warm but not hot (about the same as before)

            ECO 6 - MP 1/5" from sides, slight mushrooming, 1/3" MP depth, flame unsteady, flame is tall, glass quite warm but not hot (about the same as before)

            ECO 8 - full MP,  slight mushrooming, a little more than 1/3" MP depth, flame very unsteady, flame is large and wispy, glass too hot

   Extinguished

2nd burn, wicks trimmed to 1/4"

   1hr - ECO 2 - MP 1/2" from sides, no mushrooming, 1/4" MP depth, flame a bit tall and unsteady, not too hot, a lot of hang up

            ECO 4 - MP 1/3" from sides, no mushrooming, 1/4" MP depth, flame a bit tall and flickering, glass was warm, a lot of hang up

            ECO 6 - same results as ECO 4

            ECO 8 - MP 1/3" from sides, no mushrooming, slightly deeper than 1/4" MP depth, flame is surprisingly wide and bulky compared to first burn, less hang up than the others

   2hr - ECO 2 - MP 1/5" from sides, no mushrooming, 1/4" MP depth, flame unsteady and smoking, not too hot but quite warm, hang up is starting to melt away

            ECO 4 - MP 1/5" from sides, no mushrooming, 1/4" MP depth, flame unsteady and smoking but not too tall, warm but not too hot, hang up is melting

            ECO 6 - MP 1/5" from sides, no mushrooming, 1/4" MP depth, flame unsteady, tall, and smoking, warm but not too warm, hang up melting

            ECO 8 - MP 1/8" from sides, slight mushrooming, 1/3" MP depth, flame too unsteady and large, glass is hot, hang up melting

   3hr - ECO 2 - MP 1/8" from sides, some mushrooming, 1/4" MP depth, flame unsteady and smoking, starting to become hot, still has hang up

            ECO 4 - MP 1/8" from sides, slight mushrooming, 1/4" MP depth, flame unsteady and smoking, glass is borderline hot, still has hang up

            ECO 6 - full MP, slight mushrooming, 1/3" depth, flame unsteady, tall, and smoking, glass is borderline hot, still has hang up

            ECO 8 - full MP, some mushrooming, 2/5" depth, flame very unsteady and smoking heavily, glass is too hot, hang up is almost gone

   Extinguished

 

Other than the flame height and the glass being a little warmer than I'd prefer, the results were as expected and mostly consistent.

 

I did test the ECO 6 and ECO 8 with FO (CS Pumpkin Pie). The test burns weren't completed due to issues with the glass becoming too hot and the flames much too large. In hindsight, I should have tested with ECO 2 and 4 but mistakenly wicked up to 6 and 8.

 

2.75, CS Pumpkin Pie @ 6.25%, no additives, no dyes, wicks trimmed to 1/4", 3 day cure

   1hr - ECO 6 - MP 1/4" from sides, no mushrooming, 1/4" MP depth, flame steady but a little too tall

            ECO 8 - MP 1/4" from sides, no mushrooming, 1/4" MP depth, flame steady and too tall

   2hr - ECO 6 - full MP, no mushrooming, 1/4" MP depth, flame steady and too tall, glass is hot

            ECO 8 - full MP, slight mushrooming, 1/3" MP depth, flame flickering and much too tall, glass quite hot

Extinguished due to heat of glass.

(I was certain they would be dangerously hot come the 3rd hour.)

 

I was overall surprised by the ECO results in this wax as ECO tends to burn a bit hot in my soy candles. It would have been my last choice for testing if the urge hadn't hit me to give them a try.

 

For the CD testing, CD 8 was my target size based on recommended sizing for the 2.75" jar and soy (I knew I'd have to wick down a little due to the coconut wax). It performed as expected - better than CD 6 and CD 10. However, my notes indicate that the flame was too large from the start. MP did reach the sides by the 3rd hour and mushrooming was minimal. Heat of the glass was about the same as in the ECO tests for the ECO 6. What really threw the test for a loop was the second burn. By the 2nd hour, there was slight mushrooming, flame was quite unsteady, tall, leaning in the direction of the curl (creating uneven heating of the glass), and smoking when flickering. Hang up wasn't much of a variable of success but it was present. It also burned much hotter than the soy tester with the same wick size. It went from so-so in the first burn to no-no in the second burn. Still not certain why that happened.

 

I have been brainstorming and researching ways to harden this and coconut wax in general. My head is swimming with possible additives that serve a variety of purposes... antioxidants for fragrance preservation (BHT, irganox, vitamin E), anti-foaming agents for increased scent throw, calcium stearate, sorbitan stearate, non-ionic emulsifiers, bekro be50, mono- and diglycerides,  propylene glycol monoester... So many! For hardening, cetearyl, cetyl, and stearyl alcohols look promising. If/when I get back to testing coconut, I'm probably going to give those a try. I'm curious to see if hardening the wax will make it easier to wick.

Edited September 8, 2017 by Kerven

[Kerven]

@ShineOn  For your test of ECO 4 in the 4oz and 8oz jars, did you use FO? If so, was it the same FO in each candle?

 

I had the same results with LX wicks and coconut wax - mushrooming. LX 16 had the least amount in the unscented 2.75" jar. Adding FO might fix that, but I see little reason to go back to testing LX's in this wax, considering how much better the ECO's performed.

 

For the 3.20" container, I would start with ECO 8 without FO, ECO 6 with FO, and test one size above and below for either. Unfortunately, I don't have much experience with the CD wicks, but my rule of thumb (and something I read somewhere but can't seem to find now) is to take the wick size recommendation for soy and wick down two or three sizes when using coconut wax.

[ShineOn]

Hi @Kerven,

 

I am using Coconut Wax 83 from Calcandlesupply, and my ECO wicks are from Candlescience.

 

For my test with ECO 4 in both the 4oz and 8oz jars, I used the same FO, but I just saw my notes that dye was added to the 4oz jar, maybe this was a factor in its burnability. 

 

The wax supplier recommended using ECO 4 for the 2.75" 8oz jar, and CD 8 or ECO 10 for the 3.20" jar.

I tried the three size combinations with no FO, 10% Lemon Pound Cake FO from Candlesciene, and 10% Blood Orange FO, same results.              

 

I think you're right about it being easily taken up by the wick. Immediately after lighting the flame is too high, and within the first hour the wick is already smoking. I tried trimming one of the wicks a little smaller than 1/4" for the first burn and this seemed to help but by the first hour the flame was again too tall and I had to re-trim. One of the issues with this is that a lot of clients never trim their wicks even if you tell them how important this is, so I need a wick that can perform fairly well with this wax even if it's never trimmed. 

 

I also saw a few people blending this wax with soy. One person I think used 50% Coconut wax and 50% Soy wax, but I think this takes away from the great throw coconut wax is capable of. Maybe only adding a small percentage of soy wax would help... I'm thinking of possibly blending it with 10% soy and see if that improves it a little.

[birdcharm]

On 9/8/2017 at 1:18 PM, Kerven said:

I have been brainstorming and researching ways to harden this and coconut wax in general. My head is swimming with possible additives that serve a variety of purposes... antioxidants for fragrance preservation (BHT, irganox, vitamin E), anti-foaming agents for increased scent throw, calcium stearate, sorbitan stearate, non-ionic emulsifiers, bekro be50, mono- and diglycerides,  propylene glycol monoester... So many! For hardening, cetearyl, cetyl, and stearyl alcohols look promising. If/when I get back to testing coconut, I'm probably going to give those a try. I'm curious to see if hardening the wax will make it easier to wick.

 

Will you be using the coconut wax in cosmetics?  That sounds interesting.

 

This has been an interesting discussion to read.

 

As for personal bias about whether or not to test with any particular scent, I think if time is of no consideration in your testing, you could test in a variety of ways for the sake of testing.  Yet, if I wanted to give candles as gifts, for instance, using a particular container/wax/scent ... then I would test with that container/wax/scent and go from there to figure out the wick.  If I like the scent, I'd like to be able to test it for my own knowledge and appreciation right from the start in order to know if it's going to work in a container/wax/wick combination.  I simply don't have the time, budget, or desire for doing the unscented testing unless I was going to be making unscented candles.