Jump to content

Testing IGI 6570 - Coco/para wax


pughaus

Recommended Posts

Coco is such a soft wax it’s going to get a deep pool fast with the slightest too big of wick 

paper burn cool- like TT stated give them a try- the only draw back is very limited sizes at suppliers and your jar may need a inbetween one which you can request samples at precision wicking but their minimums are 5000 per size of wick 

I have not used paracoco at all and am only slightly versed in paraffins - 4630, 4786 and 4625 are my extent of recently used knowledge and it burns so much easier than soy so a cooler wick I would guess is a must with paracoco

I have had good results with eco also in other coco’s throwing the scent better but too much wick and you run into soot on top of deep pools - have you tried the eco 2?

htp could also be a good choice to try depending on your jar maybe a 52 

I did a pan test with coconut beads and eco HTP and paper were the winners in that wax 

Edited by moonshine
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@moonshine I'm trying to accumulate as large a range of PC wicks as I can but definitely seeing the options are limited at the retail level.  I hope as coco wax gets more popular that the suppliers start stocking more sizes in the paper cores.  It's a bummer to only have access to a limited range of what may be the best wick for this wax.  

 

I'll test the eco 2 in my pan test.   

 

(PS: This IGI wax is really pure, pure white and very pretty. Looks like milk) 

Edited by pughaus
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add, your jar shape will really change your burn. Any shoulder or neck to the jar creates and holds enough heat to pretty much liquefy remaining wax in the container pretty quickly. 

 

Choose se straight sides jars that easily release heat and air current fornthis type of wax. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@olives

 

I've been doing a little pre- test testing on the IGI 6570  before I start the pan test.

 

An htp 62 might work for you in your 2.5" container.  Pic below is an htp 73  in a  3" glass after 3 burns (10 hrs total; last burn was 4 hrs.)  Nice sized steady flame.  

 

The Eco 2 was a fail.  Tall flame. Over 1" .  I'm not messing with an eco 1 so I'm officially ruling out eco wicks in this wax.

RRD34 was too tall as well.  Burned a lot like the eco2.

htp73.jpg

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, pughaus said:

@olives

 

I've been doing a little pre- test testing on the IGI 6570  before I start the pan test.

 

An htp 62 might work for you in your 2.5" container.  Pic below is an htp 73  in a  3" glass after 3 burns (10 hrs total; last burn was 4 hrs.)  Nice sized steady flame.  

 

The Eco 2 was a fail.  Tall flame. Over 1" .  I'm not messing with an eco 1 so I'm officially ruling out eco wicks in this wax.

RRD34 was too tall as well.  Burned a lot like the eco2.

htp73.jpg

 

Ah, thank you! I should get my HTP sample pack tomorrow and can't wait to start my test burns with them. I will start with the 62 in that jar. I have been testing out CD wicks and they aren't bad...tested a CD6 in my 2.5" jar and seemed OK after a 2-hour initial burn, with some mushrooming near the end. I may have to wick down a size, but I'm going to give it another burn with the 6 to see how it does the further down in the jar it goes.

 

I don't have any papercore to test, but am hopeful that the HTPs will work for me since I can get them from Flaming, one of my go-to suppliers.

 

I agree with ECOs not being the right fit for this wax, and reassured to know you had the same results...looks like once I officially move over to the paracoco, I will have LOTS of ECO wicks to unload! 😂

 

Overall, how are you liking the burn of this wax? After my struggles with soy, I have to say that I'm really loving the paracoco. Aesthetically it's beautiful, before and after burns...

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

33 minutes ago, olives said:

Overall, how are you liking the burn of this wax? After my struggles with soy, I have to say that I'm really loving the paracoco. Aesthetically it's beautiful, before and after burns...

 


It's the prettiest wax I've seen.  I love how white it is and how the entire candle glows when lit.

 

In my pretest testing, I've poured 5 candles in my 3" straight glass tumbler.  No wicks.  3 w/ no fragrance.  2 with 6% FO
I heated the wax to between 160-175 degrees F.  I poured at anywhere from 150 -170 F. 

Every candle had sunken tops to some degree. The two with fragrance had sink holes in the center. 
All eventually developed wet spots in a couple of days.  I took no care at all in these early pours to prevent any of these things but it's worth noting, they happened. 

 

Based on early burns, I've already eliminated some wick types for further testing at this point:

ECO:  (see above posts)  
RRD:  the rrd34 had roughly the same size flame as the eco2 in burn 1.  There's only 1 RRD  size smaller than

 rrd34, which is the rrd29- and I don't have it.
LX:  hello mushroom my old friend- an LX 14 and even the wee LX12 mushroomed in this wax inside of 1.5 hrs.  I may revisit this though, depending on if/how much other wicks mushroom.

 

A big hurdle for me in coco waxes is getting past my disbelief re: how small I need to go in wick sizes.  I'm watching my htp62 fragranced tester burn as I type and now wondering if I should have used an htp52 :shocked2:

 
I just lit up 6 wicks in a pan test.  Will post results later today.
 
 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, pughaus said:

 


It's the prettiest wax I've seen.  I love how white it is and how the entire candle glows when lit.

 

In my pretest testing, I've poured 5 candles in my 3" straight glass tumbler.  No wicks.  3 w/ no fragrance.  2 with 6% FO
I heated the wax to between 160-175 degrees F.  I poured at anywhere from 150 -170 F. 

Every candle had sunken tops to some degree. The two with fragrance had sink holes in the center. 
All eventually developed wet spots in a couple of days.  I took no care at all in these early pours to prevent any of these things but it's worth noting, they happened. 

 

Based on early burns, I've already eliminated some wick types for further testing at this point:

ECO:  (see above posts)  
RRD:  the rrd34 had roughly the same size flame as the eco2 in burn 1.  There's only 1 RRD  size smaller than

 rrd34, which is the rrd29- and I don't have it.
LX:  hello mushroom my old friend- an LX 14 and even the wee LX12 mushroomed in this wax inside of 1.5 hrs.  I may revisit this though, depending on if/how much other wicks mushroom.

 

A big hurdle for me in coco waxes is getting past my disbelief re: how small I need to go in wick sizes.  I'm watching my htp62 fragranced tester burn as I type and now wondering if I should have used an htp52 :shocked2:

 
I just lit up 6 wicks in a pan test.  Will post results later today.
 
 

 

 

Your pan test results are fascinating. Thank you for doing that and being so detailed with your findings!

 

I completely agree with finding it hard to wrap my head around how small to go with wicks. And to add to that, it seems like the further down the candle is in the jar, a wick that seemed OK to start suddenly becomes the completely wrong choice. 

 

I heated to about 180+, added FO, and poured right after mixing in the FO, which was probably around 160-165. I am also now noticing wet spots as well, but like you said...I'm also not taking any precautions to try to prevent them, either. 

 

So you had dips AND sinkholes? I've also poured into jars with no wicks, and have had severe dips in almost every one (interestingly, always in the smaller jars) but no sinkholes yet. (Sinkholes and air cavities below the surface have been major problems for me with soy, which is one reason I'm looking to move away from it...so I'm praying to the wax gods that they aren't an issue with this wax!) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, olives said:

completely agree with finding it hard to wrap my head around how small to go with wicks. And to add to that, it seems like the further down the candle is in the jar, a wick that seemed OK to start suddenly becomes the completely wrong choice. 

I'm used to that as it's been my experience with all coco waxes and coco is pretty much all I've used.  I just poured my 1st soy candle 2 weeks ago and wicking it was so easy (relatively) I couldn't believe it!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, olives said:

So you had dips AND sinkholes? I've also poured into jars with no wicks, and have had severe dips in almost every one (interestingly, always in the smaller jars) but no sinkholes yet.

Yes, however I was really careless with those 2 fragranced candles that had sinkholes- they were an afterthought. I only poured them because I'd filled the testing pans up and had a bit of wax leftover, so I figured I'd add some fragrance and check the cold throw.

I can't really say with any certainty at what temp I poured them. 

 I did cover those with a piece of cardboard as they cooled.  That may have been a factor. Only the candles I covered got sink holes.

 

  

Edited by pughaus
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, pughaus said:

I'm used to that as it's been my experience with all coco waxes and coco is pretty much all I've used.  I just poured my 1st soy candle 2 weeks ago and wicking it was so easy (relatively) I couldn't believe it!  

 

You're so right about that...I've never had any problems trying to wick soy, it's been pretty straightforward for me. But the other headaches soy has given me over the past year...OY! I'm hoping that once I nail down the right wicks for my jars, that this paracoco will be much smoother sailing going forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, olives said:

 

once I nail down the right wicks for my jars, that this paracoco will be much smoother sailing going forward.

 

 "once I nail down the right wicks"   

 

This should be on my headstone cause trying to wick cocowax is killing me :lol:

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tomorrow night I'll be burning 2 paper cores and a couple more cotton wicks in a pan.   My pretest with a paper core last night did produce a mushroom in the last hour.   I think the secret ingredient in this wax is mushroom fertilizer. It's kind of fascinating to me how consistently I am getting mushrooms in the early burns with all 7 wick types I've tested.  

 

I have a question for the more experienced candle makers.   It is common knowledge that mushrooms are often the result of an oversized wick.  I've also read that  an undersized wick might result in a mushroom too.

 

Oversized  or undersized in relation to what?  To the container it is in?   To the wax it is in?  

 

I want to make sure I understand what this means and how it might apply to testing wicks in an open pan.   If an htp62 mushrooms in the pan tests should I also expect an htp83 to mushroom under the same test conditions?  

 

 

Edited by pughaus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oversized, yes

undersized, yes

 

relation to the wax and/or vessel, yes

 

Maddening answer, isn't it?

 

container can end up warming too much wax which overloads the wick with fuel.

the wick could be too small to generate enough heat to fully combust the molten wax in smaller containers.

 

coconut is fuzzy about wicks. Have never tried the paracoco. sotty you're blazing the trail on this one kinda alone.

 

you may want to resort to additives like stearic or a wee bit of soy soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More soy would probably help but I already blend soy and coco and thankfully have that to fall back on if I want to make a well wicked candle today ;)   I don't really have a stake in making this particular wax work,  I'm really just trying to understand the test results I'm getting and what info I can take away from pan tests.  This IGI wax is more of a learning exercise for me.

 

I was under the impression that I could assess a wick type's performance in a wax type using any size wick in that type.  So, for example- if a CD 8 wick consistently burns in my test without forming a mushroom in coco83 with no additives, then that should also hold true for a CD 10 or really any CD size in coco 83 wax with no additives.  
 

Or, if a premier 740 consistently sputters and jumps in IGI 6570 without any additives, then a Premier 745 wouldn't do any better, and one could conclude that Premiers  (from the same vendor, primed the same way) just don't work well the wax. 

 

If that is not the case, what can I take away from a pan test aside from the  melt pool diameter in open space and the melt pool depth in open space?

 

Can I draw any conclusions, when I see a big mushroom on the hemp wick about how other sized hemp wicks might mushroom in the same wax?  Or should  I only conclude that the wick size I tested is prone to mushroom in that wax?

  

I mean there has to be some way to measure a wick type's efficiency in a given wax that doesn't involve testing every single size of every wick. right?  😟 

 

 

Edited by pughaus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My experience is if it has a mushroom in the pan it will in any size typically. 

 

I do do the Pan test to find which wick series perform best, and to aim for the right sizes to start in my containers. If my container is 3” I look at the melt pools in the pan from 2.5” to 2.75”

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 5/1/2018 at 3:50 PM, TallTayl said:

My experience is if it has a mushroom in the pan it will in any size typically. 

Roger that...

Yesterday, I tried the next size up in premiers, a p740 and it too mushroomed in burn #2  just as the P735 did.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been crazy busy so a bit MIA, and I need to catch up with posts here...but I just wanted to pop in and let you know that I just poured a few candles with the wicks in the jars (prior pours were into jars with no wicks) and there are sinkholes in the center around almost every wick. !!! 

 

I have used FO in all my testing so far, and have been pouring around the same temps (165-ish), but now that I've added wicks to the jars, I see sinkholes. 

 

I am hoping that this is not a trend, but will report back...ugh!

 

 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@olives   I guess the sinkholes I saw in my candles were not the flukes I thought they were.

 I've moved on from the wax myself.  My wicks tests were not promising and I've recently found out it's not a cruelty-free wax so I won't be using it in blends either.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, pughaus said:

@olives   I guess the sinkholes I saw in my candles were not the flukes I thought they were.

 I've moved on from the wax myself.  My wicks tests were not promising and I've recently found out it's not a cruelty-free wax so I won't be using it in blends either.  

 

 

Oh wow...thanks for the heads up on that. I was planning on trying to blend in some soy, but we'll see...I was having OK luck with HTP wicks, although mushrooming was inevitable with any size at any point during the burn. I'm going to keep working with it because I really like how it looks and have been happy with scent throw, but if these sinkholes are a consistent issue then I might have to move on from it, too. I'm now playing with pouring temps, but who knows if that will help...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the htps and premiers did seem to best for me in that wax.    Hope you can find the right mix.  It sure is a pretty wax.

 

I guess I'm on an opposite track from many on those board- I've moving from all coconut to some soy, to mostly soy.  🤷‍♂️ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...