Tortoise Shell Palm Testing 2

Continued from My first palm pillar

These two new testers were poured at 190 degrees, five degrees hotter than last time. They cooled at an ambient temperature of 72 degrees with protection from drafts but no insulation. The change in pouring temperature caused no appreciable difference in the appearance of the candles.

No measures were taken to avoid hidden cavities. These candles were left undisturbed until they were fully cooled. Excavating the bottoms uncovered strange voids (pictured in the preceding thread) that spiraled about a quarter of the way into each candle.

Whenever you make a new test candle, there should be a simple question that it is designed to answer. In my last test, I found that an LX 24 NST2 wick did not trim well, burned with too large a flame, and mushroomed. The candle on the left will answer the question of whether the same type of wick would work better in a smaller size. It is wicked with LX 20 NST2 (two sizes down). The candle on the right is designed to answer the question of how regular LX wicking performs in this wax compared to LX NST2. It is wicked with regular LX 20, the same wick size without the special chemical treatment.

I decided to let the candles burn for half an hour before taking pictures. That caused me to miss photographing a rather dramatic process that took place.

At first, the regular LX 20 had a larger flame than the NST2 version. After about 20 minutes, it became noticeable that the flame had gotten smaller. Not long after that, I could see it getting dramatically smaller right before my eyes. Before long, melting wax filled in the melt pool and the wick nearly drowned. The first photo vividly illustrates why wicks are made with special chemical treatments for acidic waxes.

I put the regular LX 20 out of its misery and continued burning the NST2 candle. The flame was not nearly as large as with the LX 24 NST2. It was apparent, however, that the smaller wick wasn't going to trim any better than the larger one had. I had lit the candle with about 1/2 inch of wick and it didn't get any shorter. Because of this, it eventually began to grow a mushroom at an alarming rate, so I decided to extinguish it after only 1 1/2 hours. The second photo shows the result.

I think that we will soon do a similar test with CD and CDN, to compare the burn with LX and also see if there is any comparable difference in the performance of the two wick treatments with tortoise shell wax.

Although it was clear that the NST2 wick wasn't going to trim, at least not in this size, it seemed worthwhile to continue testing the candle.

For the second burn, I trimmed the wick to 1/4" before lighting and photographed the candle every hour. As you can see from the three burn photos below, the performance of the wick seemed quite respectable for 3 hours. The burn was clean and pretty consistent.

I then decided to continue for an extra hour in hopes that it would help compensate for the screwed-up first burn. At the end of 4 hours, the wick was mushrooming somewhat and the burn wasn't quite as nice. The fourth photo shows the final result.

Despite the problem with the fourth hour of the burn, I think it's worth continuing with this tester to see how it burns down.

Nice test picks top. I have been using LX wicks in my palm pillars and would like to try the LX NST's. Where do you get them from? And can they be purchased in tester amounts like 5 or so of each size?

Lovely pillars by the way. I love the color. Are you using liquid dye?

Excavating the bottoms uncovered strange voids (pictured in the preceding thread) that spiraled about a quarter of the way into each candle.

Top - Do you think it would be worthwhile to insulate a tester to see what affect, if any, it would have on the shape or volume of the void?

Also, do you have any plans on testing CSN wicks? CS claims to be the exclusive North American distributor for this wax and also states: "We are now able to offer a wick designed from the ground up to handle the unique challenges of palm wax. After all, an entirely new wax calls for an entirely new wick." Or do you think that there are existing wicks that will perform similar to the CSN?

Thanks for testing. Very interesting.

I'd like to see these tests continuing further into the life of the candle. Palm wax is strange stuff. How things start out in the first quarter can be dramatically different from how things go in the second, third and fourth quarter of the candle.

Starting with a wick length of 1/2" is strange to me. Is there a reason you did so?

Nice test picks top. I have been using LX wicks in my palm pillars and would like to try the LX NST's. Where do you get them from? And can they be purchased in tester amounts like 5 or so of each size? Lovely pillars by the way. I love the color. Are you using liquid dye?

So far it is all the liquid dye from the first tester--I recycled it and added wax to make two.

I'm unsure of availability for NST2 wicking. It seems that some of the larger sizes (like 24+) are sometimes sold with NST2, but the smaller ones are regular LX. I think you would have to go to a specialized distributor to see if they have it. Mine was special-ordered. It's my most convenient option for an appropriately-treated wick because I have a lot of it in all sizes, so I had to try it.

Top - Do you think it would be worthwhile to insulate a tester to see what affect, if any, it would have on the shape or volume of the void?

Also, do you have any plans on testing CSN wicks? CS claims to be the exclusive North American distributor for this wax and also states: "We are now able to offer a wick designed from the ground up to handle the unique challenges of palm wax. After all, an entirely new wax calls for an entirely new wick." Or do you think that there are existing wicks that will perform similar to the CSN?

I plan to try a number of things as we go along, but it seems like you read my mind. I recycled the dead LX tester and made one with CSN 11. It is cooling in a styrofoam box right now. Some day it will be cool; I may have overdone it. There was a choice of a box that was much too large for one mold, or a rather small one. I went with the small one, and the candle is still hot hours later. I don't know what to expect. I guess it has inadvertently become our test of extreme slow cooling.

CandleScience played a part in making all three of these palm waxes available in the USA. CSN reflects their commitment to palm and their relationship with Wedo, and I assume some good thought went into optimizing it for the application. But just as you can design a car for a particular lifestyle, it may still not be the preference of every individual in that demographic. It might even just be an answer to another manufacturer's product. Since more than one wick type will burn in palm wax, we'll just do some testing and see how it pans out.

The one thing I will probably not test is RRD NST2. Y'all are on your own with that one. I have a bias towards flat braid for pillars. I also prefer to use wicking off a spool and I really don't want to think about directionality.

I'd like to see these tests continuing further into the life of the candle. Palm wax is strange stuff. How things start out in the first quarter can be dramatically different from how things go in the second, third and fourth quarter of the candle.

That's true of most candles. To quote myself, "I think it's worth continuing with this tester to see how it burns down." So far we have just this one that's worth putting through its paces. Regular LX wouldn't burn and the LX 24 NST2 was ridiculously large.

Starting with a wick length of 1/2" is strange to me. Is there a reason you did so?

It may be strange on CraftServer, but candles have been made for a long time and it's a big wide world out there. With so many fewer people participating nowadays, the discussion on the board has become a little narrow--too much recycling of old platitudes to indoctrinate newbies.

The trimming instruction is a way of standardizing safety labels. It accounts for variations in how a candle might burn down. It also covers the great variety of candle designs out there, including a lot of wide jars with only one wick. But standard CYA verbiage isn't the same as a design guideline. It doesn't mean you're supposed to choose a wick that must be trimmed before every lighting.

Most candles aren't sold with the wick trimmed to a nub. In fact, brand new candles look a little funny that way. They normally have some length of wick and people actually light them that way, as I'm doing with these. It doesn't need to be a problem.

From now on, the LX 20 NST2 tester is going to be burned with the wick trimmed before every lighting. That's only because it refuses to trim normally, which is a point against it. Ideally I want a size and/or type of wick that trims properly.

I recycled the dead LX tester and made one with CSN 11. It is cooling in a styrofoam box right now. Some day it will be cool; I may have overdone it. There was a choice of a box that was much too large for one mold, or a rather small one. I went with the small one, and the candle is still hot hours later. I don't know what to expect. I guess it has inadvertently become our test of extreme slow cooling.

The only experience I have with any type of pillar wax was making votives with CS starburst. Similar to what you've seen when cooled without insulation, the void tended to be deep and gravitated toward the wick. When insulated, however, the votive void tended to develope more toward the surface and mid-way between the mold side wall and the wick... more like a bubble rather than the spiral. Interesting to see if the void remains a spiral or if a similar bubble forms in a larger mold.

Most candles aren't sold with the wick trimmed to a nub.

Apparently 1/4" isn't just a Craftserver idea...

http://www.igca.net/candlemaking/safetytips.asp

http://www.candles.org/safety_rules.html

This is the third burn for the LX 20 NST2. The candle was burned for 3 hours. The wax melting from the shell does get a little ahead of the wick at this point, so the flame height decreases gradually. A small mushroom developed during the third hour.

I don't consider 1/4" a "nub"... Just wondered if there was a reason for your picking 1/2" as your wick length.

Apparently 1/4" isn't just a Craftserver idea...

http://www.igca.net/candlemaking/safetytips.asp

http://www.candles.org/safety_rules.html

That's exactly what I said. It's standard safety verbiage.

There's no particular reason for 1/2 inch. It could be 2 inches. I'm looking for the wick to trim down to the same size regardless of the length of wick that's lit.

Ideally I want a size and/or type of wick that trims properly.

Agreed. And if that means testing a longer initial wick length then I consider that part of the process. Too many times people follow a routine because that's what they have read ... not what they've learned through experimentation.

It may be found that that the combination of wax & wick may need an initial trim to 1/4" (or possibly even shorter) but IMO the only way to find out is testing. You never know what you may discover.

I recycled the fried LX 20 tester and remade it with CSN 11. It was poured at 180 and cooled very slowly in a styrofoam box. It came out of the mold with an unremovable powdery-looking film that defaced the entire surface (see photo 1). The tortoise shell pattern that could be discerned beneath the film looked moderately bolder, on the average, than that of the other testers. There was a spiral void at the bottom of the candle identical to those of the two previous testers (see photo 2).

I suspect that variations in the surface pattern probably respond to more subtle changes in the cooling rate, such as the difference between pouring in the winter versus the summer. Slowing down cooling is dubious way to try and get an attractive surface, and it also has no effect on hidden cavity formation at the bottom of the candle. In the case of tortoise shell palm, advice to slow down cooling may have confused more people than it helped. I have read comments from others who began by cooling this wax in a warm oven and and got comparable results.

The instructions are often a good starting point. My best results have come from following CandleScience recommendations. Since the environment was cool, I poured my first candle at the top of their suggested temperature range and it came out perfect. My next two were poured 5 degrees hotter than their instructions and had a hint of powdery film around the bottom edges. I didn't think anything of it at the time, but I now believe it appeared because the pouring temperature was too high and my effort to protect the candles from drafts insulated them too much. The outer shell of the candle has to form relatively quickly for a good surface finish.

The advice from CandleScience for dealing with hidden cavities is to make holes at an angle towards the wick. That fits with my repeated observations of a funnel-shaped region where the voids form.

I will pour future testers at 175-185, depending on the temperature of the environment. I may protect them from drafts but will not be insulating them in any way. To deal with voids, I will make four generously-sized holes at a 45 degree angle towards the wick when the candle is partially cooled. When the candle is almost completely cool, I will poke into the holes again in case any additional crusts need to be broken through. I will also break the crust near the wick (which is where all the air enters) and cut it short of the bottom to avoid having wax melt through. I will then do a second pour at 180 degrees to fill everything in.

One additional conclusion is that idea behind cooling the candles on a rack is backwards. It actually helps by allowing the top of the candle to cool faster if heat is being trapped by an insulating surface such as wood. Lowering the pouring temperature might also work in those cases. At this point I plan to cool candles directly on the workbench.

The surface finish will always be good and the tortoise shell pattern will always form as long as the outside surface of the candle solidifies fast enough. The discs of leftover wax that fall out of my pouring pot always have an excellent surface.

Here is the first burn (3 hours) of the "ugly duckling" CSN 11 candle. I think this wick has the NST2 treatment or something very similar. The way the wick gently curves instead of curling over at the top is a trait I notice only in the NST2 version of LX.

The wick was lit untrimmed. Again, that lack of curl prevented it from trimming down as much as I would have liked it to. Just like the untrimmed LX NST2, the untrimmed CSN 11 mushroomed pretty much from the start of the burn. The mushroom only grew very slowly, but it did distort the melt pool slightly by the end. The first burn was very consistent.

This one will certainly continue to be tested. Next time I'll try lighting it with a 1/4" wick.

Yep, there IS such a thing as pouring too hot and cooling too slowly. Getting things just right takes practice and a lot of testing.

CSN11s work the best for me in Tortoise Shell or TC's 1230. Unfortunately, the wicks do not self-consume and must be trimmed before every burn.

My palms, both pillars and votives Do Not have to be wrecked and double poured. Palm is a lovely wax and is very easy to work with. You guys are making it way too difficult. 2 1/2 yrs ago, Stella had me cutting up a beautiful lavender pillar. There were NO huge craters or voids. With my wax, that is ridiculous.

Since that time, I have poured 1000s of pillars and many, many votives. My customers love them and keep ordering more. I skip the hassle of trying to wick for a thin shell. We burn them in a reuseable cylinder and let the candle go free. I have seen the circular patterns when burning a pillar. That is just what the wax does.

I challenge you to make a pillar. Heat wax to 200, add fo, and pour immediately into a heated aluminum mold and walk away. Let the candle cool at rt, and burn it the next day. I can burn my palms all day with no problems. I push the unmelted sides down into the center of the candle, trim wick and relight for another 12 hrs.

Palm is getting a bad reputation around here when it is one of the easiest waxes I have ever worked with. You do have to use the correct wick. I have a few difficult fos that need an RRD37. Other than that, a CSN11, 9 or 12 do the job.

Good-luck. Carole

Carole, that's a really high temp, I will try this for sure but I don't know how to keep the wick hole sealed (I'm using a metal tape which can resist up to 175).

I have to try it now because i'm curious. No supplier ever told me to use a such high temp, all directions give 195 as a maximum.. or maybe I missed something!

I would love to make it easier but I always find holes in my palm pillar, even when I close my eyes and keep fingers crossed (j/k here!)

After I cut up my lavender pillar, found no caves, I just continued doing what worked. I have never had a problem. After you add fo, dye and stir, the temp probably drops to 190-195, but I pour it immediately.

I do use 5% steric for mold release and have noticed the slight deformity (caved in sides) the steric causes. My customers have never complained. I use mold putty to seal the wick hole and wick pin. Occasionally I'll get a little leak, but nothing I can't deal with. Your alum mold must be really hot. My only downside to this method is the very hot wax and mold. Be careful you don't get burned. Carole

After I cut up my lavender pillar, found no caves, I just continued doing what worked. I have never had a problem. After you add fo, dye and stir, the temp probably drops to 190-195, but I pour it immediately.

I do use 5% steric for mold release and have noticed the slight deformity (caved in sides) the steric causes. My customers have never complained. I use mold putty to seal the wick hole and wick pin. Occasionally I'll get a little leak, but nothing I can't deal with. Your alum mold must be really hot. My only downside to this method is the very hot wax and mold. Be careful you don't get burned. Carole

Ahhhh now I see.. I posted about adding stearic. When I add it candles don't have cavities.

Would you try a little experiment too? Try one without stearic.

I'll try one without too, but pouring hotter as you do.

Thanks!

Well unfortunately, we have tried without steric. The candle will not release from mold. Maybe it is the steric that prevents the caves. When we make a surf 'n turk pot (30#s+) of wax, we add the steric directly to the wax for fear we will forget the steric & can never unmold. lol I do not know if CS palm is the same as mine, but my palm is the same as the one BC and Taylored sells. We bought a whole pallet from C J Robinson a year+ ago. Carole

Carole do you do the same with the container wax or you have a different

method for them:)

I can pour my wax in glass containers. Because of the steric and high temps I only do it occasionally. It looks fine but will shrink away slightly from the glass. I have tested several scents in the 12.25 status jar with good results. I think it is very hard to get a full meltpool with palm, so I burn the status much the same as my cylinders.

On early tests, I find if I double-wicked I did get a full meltpool, but the palm actually burned (scorched) and became a dark color. My hats off to the peeps who can get a full meltpool and not burn the wax. In Stella's defense, I do the wrecking after my candle has burned several days. I don't have to, but I don't want to waste any beautifully scented palm. To each his own. Carole

Palm is getting a bad reputation around here when it is one of the easiest waxes I have ever worked with.

I agree with that statement, Carole.

My palms, both pillars and votives Do Not have to be wrecked and double poured. Palm is a lovely wax and is very easy to work with. You guys are making it way too difficult. 2 1/2 yrs ago, Stella had me cutting up a beautiful lavender pillar. There were NO huge craters or voids. With my wax, that is ridiculous.

RIP lavender pillar. Carole, the fact is that many people DO have the issue and DO demonstrate it by sacrificing pillars, whether by chiseling away, as Top has done, or simply taking a knife to it and cutting lengthwise in quarters. Palm wax manufacturers directly refer to this issue, so it is not some delusion of mine, Top's, Sabrina's nor anyone else's. Photos do not lie. If YOUR pillars never have holes in them, I will take you at your word; but the rest of us obviously DO see that issue with our pillars.

I think the way you are designing your pillars has a great deal to do with your burn results. Since you are, in essence, making a giant votive, it really doesn't matter if your pillar has a blowout because the wax is contained within the container and consumed. What works for YOU is what matters with YOUR candles. I'm glad you found a system that is trouble-free, but I have grave doubts that it would work outside the narrow parameters you describe.

Do your pillars burn as evenly if burned without the close-fitting container? Not everyone wants to burn their pillars that way...

I can burn my palms all day with no problems... trim wick and relight for another 12 hrs.

Yep. Me too. It's one of the things I love about my pillars, although other folks have problems with doing this with theirs and I don't necessarily recommend this as best practice to others.

Sabrina, the link to Lipidchem's (Malaysian palm wax manufacturer) product info that you must have missed when I posted many times over the years recommends pouring at 93°C-95°C (199.4°F-203°F). This was the same pour temp info JBN had on their site for several years when they carried palm wax. Taylored Concepts, the distributor for the RobNat 1230 that Carole uses, recommends pour temp of 190°-195°F. I have seen pour temp recommendations ranging from 185°F-205°F over the years at various sites. With so many different recommendations for pouring temp out there, I can see how someone could become confused. I have poured way below 185° all the way up to 205°F and the difference in how the wax appears is amazing. I've air-cooled on the counter, even in the refrigerator, under boxes, in ovens, in styro coolers, etc.

There is a range of what works best which depends on the particular blend of palm wax, the temp poured, the air temp where the candle is cooling, the rate of cooling and the mold material. My own personal procedures vary quite a bit depending on whether I'm pouring in the hot summer or cold winter; whether the humidity is 100% or whether it's 20%.

You're in Italy, Top is in New York, Carole's in Texas, Candlescience is in North Carolina, C.J Robinson is in Pennsylvania, Lipidchem is in Malaysia & I'm in Louisiana. Different places; different environments; different techniques. One size does NOT fit all! This is why it's so important for people to do their own testing.