Kerven

Has anyone worked with/made this? It's supposed to be a petroleum-free alternative to petroleum jelly. From what I've gathered, it's a mix of castor oil, fully hydrogenated castor oil, and partially hydrogenated castor oil. I haven't a clue where to find the partially hydrogenated oil. The other ingredients are fairly easy. I did see one jelly that used beeswax but I don't work with beeswax. Anyone know of a resonably priced supplier of the jelly - less than $10 a lb for small sizes? Or maybe a recipe that doesn't use beeswax or partially hydrogenated oil? For those who have used it, if heated, did it separate any? What was the approximate melt point?

I've been using a modified presto pot for the past year. It has a spigot. The spigot combined with being able to have a large batch of melted wax on standby (it's so much faster than standing over a double boiler for every single batch) was the deciding factor for me. Without the spigot, I probably would not have purchased one. Transfering wax from a mass melting pot via ladle seemed as though it would take too much time and allow the wax to cool below my desired pouring temp... and that's before adding FO and dye. In short, it was definitely a necessity. Bought it with the spigot already attached. I didn't want to take the chance of ruining a/several ~$40 pot. Speaking of DIY, here's a guide for adding a spigot to a presto pot: link Edit: Forgot to add, be very, very careful with setting the temperature dial. It's very easy to set it too high and scorch the wax (or worse). I like to set mine between the a and r in "warm" and that keeps it around 185-190F. Yours may be different by a few degrees or more so test carefully on first use, turning the dial up a hair until that point.

It is the Presto fryer. Some people modify theirs to add a faucet. The guide at candletech.com appears to still be available: here You can purchase them already modified. I found mine (5qt, I believe) on Etsy from AmericanChandler. It didn't have a ball valve with lever handle - just a regular turn handle, which was a bit of a con since it gets so hot, but I make do.

Scale, Presto pot, silicone spoon/spoonula (two or three), three pour pots (one small and two large), wick holders, measuring cup/scoop (anything to scoop flakes with), infrared thermometer. Do gloves count? I use a lot of disposable nitrile gloves.

Castor wax. Wanted to try to adding a high congeal point additive to add a bit of viscosity to the melt pool and to harden the wax a little (it's still very soft). In hindsight, the castor may be why I can't get a decent melt pool. The blend is turning translucent a good way out from the MP but refuses to melt. I should have tested a coco-C3 blend first. I wonder if this could stand up to double wicking...

I have a blend of coco83, C3, and castor that I'm working on in 8oz tins. Haven't tested FO yet - trying to zero in on wick sizes. Oddly enough, I can't get wicks to mushroom in this wax, not that I'm trying. No obvious signs of smoking/sooting so far but the flames do flicker an awful lot. Rate of consumption is absurdly high and all the smaller ECO's (6 and 8) are tunneling. I haven't found a nice balance of consumption and heat. Hoping I don't have to go down to a 4, because then I'm in trouble when adding FO. Going to try a 10 next. As a note, this blend and ECO wicks are creating melt pools around 140F, which should be good for throw. Now, if only I could get it to form a full melt pool.

Is that 464 from a recent batch? Those mini masons are neat!

Guavaberry. Was one of my first FO's from Cierra and, upon taking a whiff, I instantly knew I'd be ordering from there again.

Any sources of apricot wax that don't contain paraffin or petroleum products? Accu-Blend's lack of an MSDS doesn't sit well with me. Unfortunately, all the apricot-coconut blends I've found contain paraffin.

If it's the 8oz apothecary jars, I think Candlescience's flat metal lids fit... but they don't have them in black - just bronze and silver. Wellington has matte black metal lids that fit 10oz, 16oz and 32oz apothecary jars. Luckily, these can be bought individually, so sampling for fit doesn't mean being stuck with a bunch that may or may not be of use. That is, if you're going to use apothecary jars from another supplier. Wellington sells jar + lid combos of these.

Just chiming in since software was mentioned. GIMP, an open-source image editor, can be used to edit photos. Think of it as the free equivalent to Photoshop. The learning curve is a bit steep (like with Photoshop) but there are lots of guides and tutorials out there. GIMP works with raster graphics rather than vector, I believe. Inkscape, which is also free and open-source, supports vector, but I'm not certain if it works as a photo editor.

I think there are two patents dealing with rice bran wax + oils. If this is the patent I'm thinking it is, it might be defendable due to the novel use of the rice bran wax... Nope, this isn't the patent I originally read. I don't think it will have much luck at defense, since most experienced chandlers know to use high melt point waxes (rice bran included) to counter low melt point ingredients in the creation of a candle wax. Also, a much more detailed patent using rice bran + oils was filed five years prior. This patent was submitted before the one in the OP. It's much more informative if you'd like an interesting and somewhat technical read. You can find candles made with this process on Etsy. The seller claims to have a patent pending. Whether the seller is tied to either of the patents mentioned, I have no idea. Nevertheless, the idea of using liquid oils as fuel/filler for a candle and creating a candle wax based on crystalline structure is novel, IMO. I haven't seen many - a single book, a study, and the patents - addressing the crystalline structures of waxes (rice bran in particular) beyond frosting, cracking, and wonky cauliflower tops. The use of liquid oils, that aren't FO's, in significant percentages? Blasphemy! I'd give it a try. The patent could turn out to be a total dud. I tested a patent using cetearyl alcohol, coconut 92F, and palm wax (I couldn't obtain the specific palm wax called for)... It was a dud - more suited for pillar candles, despite the process being a jar candle. Mind boggling strong CT, delicate but strong HT. Bizarre crystal formation. Burned like a torch, were too hard, had no adhesion, and any using palm + cetearyl formed cavernous air pockets. Needless to say, I learned my lesson: not all patent claims are sound.

That's news to me. It explains last year's inconsistencies. For taking the opportunity to discuss what happened, Candlescience gets extra points with me. I'm still hesitant to purchase AAK waxes, however, but that's not due to anything Candlescience has done. Maybe once the complaints about GW waxes die down I'll give it another chance. I did not know that being logged in displayed that. The more you know... Edit: BTW, love the tumbler boxes for the straight sided tumblers. The flat lids are always sold out!

@Candybee Unless I overlooked it, there is no notice on the product page stating from where the item will be shipped (or where it's in stock). After adding something to the cart, it will show the split shipment notice down with the shipping estimate. Just tried it and it took me at least 20 items to finally find one that would split the shipment (it was the blood orange FO, BTW). Usually, when this happens I'm just throwing things in the cart and not checking for split shipment after each addition, so finding the culprit leads to a guessing game of sorts. It also does not state which item(s) will be included in the split shipment... at least, not in the cart. Edit: Has anyone else noticed that Candlescience now has a melt and tart blend from AAK/GW or am I late on finding this? It seems to be a melt-only wax that's not meant to be burned. Interesting!

Is it me or does the candle on the left have what appears to be frosting? Is that a trick of the light and glass or is that the residue that's causing concern?

Email from Cierra: Statement on BASF Force Majeure - Fragrances Affected As you may know, in October of last year, a fire occurred in BASF’s Citral production unit. There were no injuries but the factory suffered severe damages. BASF is a supplier of the synthetic ingredient, Citral that is used in many fragrances. Cierra uses nine different fragrance manufacturers to supply us with our fragrances. The fragrance companies most affected appear to be Agilex and French. While we do purchase some fragrances from both of these companies, the majority of our fragrances have not been affected, or we have enough inventory to meet the need of our customers until BASF is back up and running. There are a few fragrances that are affected and they are listed below. We are in the process of having a few fragrances re-formulated as they are good sellers for us. Those are listed with an asterisk. We will be noting the reformulation as well as any soaping/candle testing notes on our website and on the labels on the bottles for those fragrances. BASF hopes to be back in production by the end of March so we are hopeful that this will have very limited effect on our customers. Fragrances affected are: *Apple Jack Claire Burke Juicy Peach Macintosh Apple *Pearberry *Rain Shower *Twilight Woods

Isn't paraffin a binary compound, making it inorganic? I avoid "organic", "natural", and whatever else, choosing to read the labels myself. Some of the fault in misunderstanding falls on the consumer. Some (a lot) falls on the producer. It's best to be knowledgeable and use a bit of common sense. But, to split a hair or two... I'd say that organically produced - as in a product of living matter naturally/biologically programmed to create the substance - oils are higher on the "organic" scale than paraffin, a product of chemistry and not so much biology... but then we get into a topic that draws connections between biology, chemistry, organics, and such... paraffin must be organic because, despite being a product of naturally occurring chemistry, petroleum still required matter to live at some point... but then it's brought up that petroleum/paraffin is the product of -dead- biological matter and so it's not derived from living matter, making it nonorganic... not to mention abiogenic petroleum... and blah, blah, blah. I give up. It's futile. Can't be bothered. Attention span now at minimal. I'd like to see "renewable" used more often on products. Maybe even "biological" or just a plain explanation stating what's "natural" and why. I'm a little iffy on the natural thing... To me, natural means unprocessed and in the form that nature intended. I can't go out, squeeze an orange, and have blue orange juice - that's not natural, oranges don't produce blue juice. I guess it's a semantics thing. The orange juice could be natural. The blue dye could be natural. Therefore, the blue orange juice would be "natural".

Not certain where you're located, but if you're anywhere between NC and PA, I'd give Candlewic a try. I get almost the equivalent shipping times with them, and their stock is vast in comparison to CS's, although, I'm not fond of their selection of glassware. I must have been lucky with Candlescience. They're semi local (the UPS route is a straight shot from here to there) for me so basic carbon neutral shipping ends up being next day or one day if ordered before 4pm, so that justifies any increased shipping costs over other suppliers. Their prices seem fairly reasonable to me, although, the information on their site is terribly outdated and more suited to beginners... Then again, I used them when I was a beginner and the lack of [accurate] information was frustrating and sent me on a goose chase to figure out what I was doing wrong. Nevertheless, I haven't had to deal with their customer support so I can't speak on that. I can say that I've been satisfied with their glassware, tins, dyes, and most of the FO's I've used - it's hit or miss with those, Beach Linen was a total dud for me while Black Raspberry Vanilla, Apple Harvest, Fraser Fir, and others were great. I usually order glass and wax from them or anything that I need immediately. Unfortunately, with all the soy issues, their stock of waxes is limited and I'm probably not going to have reason to order waxes from them again (especially after this past order of 464)... it's probably not their fault that the wax is a mess, but they don't seem to be in any rush to find a replacement or even acknowledge the issue. I understand their stance on the more exotic waxes (palm and coconut), but, IMO, it's a little ironic that they sell paraffin but won't sell palm. Their stock of wick styles is also limited. They might pick up a little more business if they broadened it... just a suggestion. For now, I'll just be ordering the straight sided tumblers and boxes (until they get more lids). If they had more additives like natural waxes, oils, and butters, since they do soap now, I'd probably be interested in that... I know what you mean about the split shipping. I almost made that mistake once, due to -one- FO, and then realized I was going to be charged twice for a single order. Nope. I either wait for the item to be restocked at the NC location or opt for a different item.

As for scientific studies... I can't say that I've ready anything significant with basic browsing. There are studies but many seem to be pay-to-access. This article looks interesting. A quick search didn't produce results for coconut wax or coconut oil's use in candles; most articles seemed to deal with coconut oil's combustion when used as a biofuel. Does anyone know of any US suppliers that sell All Seasons Wax's A05 cocosoy?

All waxes have a tendency to produce smoke/soot. Some more than others. Soy was touted as burning X% (I don't remember) cleaner than paraffin, and coconut was touted as burning X% of soy. I've had coconut burn very clean with a minimal amounts of smoke when the flames were disturbed... and then I've had it produce constant streams of smoke. Wicking has a lot to do with it, as do additives, FO's, and how far down into the container the candle has burned. I'm not familiar with the solvents and such used in the production of soy wax. I think a nickel catalyst is used to hydrogenate the oil... a nickel catalyst is also used in the hydrogenation of castor wax, I believe. C3 wax uses an emulsifier, or so I've read, so it may not be nearly has processed as the other waxes... I don't use C3 so I haven't read up on it. It's possible to create a candle using liquid oils. I've read a patent that uses 20-40% rice bran and 60-80% oils. Something about the crystalline structure of the rice bran wax allows it to efficiently bind oils. You can find such candles on Etsy (I've forgotten the name of the seller). I've also seen a patent using high percentages of stearic with liquid oils. I suppose those formulas would be solvent-free.

@pughaus Is that the ribbon wick from Northwood?

@lenarenee Personally, I prefer no smoke/soot, which is why most of my wick tests fail. The idea of a cleaner burn and better throw than soy is what convinced me to give coconut wax a try. Granted, if I'm having a hard time wicking a particular combination, I give a little leeway for smoke... like if the flame is disturbed and smokes that's fine as long as it remains steady and smokeless the rest of the time. I suppose the issue with paraffin is similar to the issue with GMO's, trans fats, pesticides, etc. Everyone has their reason(s). I don't like using paraffin due to several reasons. Every paraffin candle I've burned had a tendency to smoke like a chimney no matter what I did to it. The production and combustion of paraffin is known to produce harmful toxins. It's also non-renewable. I'm not happy that it's found its way into supposedly "natural" waxes either, as that makes it impossible to market these waxes as paraffin-free without either having to twist words or resort to dishonesty. That being said... I've realized that, until I find an alternative, I'm just going to have to live with what little paraffin may be in the coconut waxes.

I missed @kdmorgan's post. The coconut/apricot blend from Candlewic is the one I started testing with. It blended quite well with 464. Excellent cold throw, hot throw, and color retention. Wicking was still an issue, as was adhesion to container. Melt pools could be a little... iffy after burning when using higher percentages of soy. It had an interesting "clean and clear" quality to the hot throw... I can't explain that. I don't have my notes with me right now to list my wicking results. Woah! 3 LX 12's? Are you using the bowl containers? @Artsmith The coconut oil 92F was suggested as something to use to create a from-scratch coconut wax, since it was uncertain which coconut waxes contained paraffin. When in doubt, create it from scratch, I suppose. Coconut oil 92F is what I'm currently using to formulate a paraffin-free, soy-free wax. On its own, I suspect co92 (coconut oil 92F) would make a candle prone to melting and sweating due to its low melting point. Finding an organic 92F coconut oil might be difficult. I don't believe I've seen any. Organic coconut oil in general, however, is easy to find. Off the top of my head, Soapers Choice has it. Of course, due to regular coconut oil not having a high melt point, it is liquid at room temperature and you'll need to adjust your wax blend to account for that. I wouldn't say the eco damage from coconut and palm plantations is any more damaging than the impact of soy farming and petro chemicals/harvesting on the environment. The materials that go into our plant-derived waxes are mainly harvested for the food and cosmetics industries (coconut oil, soy bean oil, apricot oil, rice bran oil, palm oil, etc.). The candle industry is a secondary market. That's why soy waxes took such a hit when the FDA announced the ban on trans fats in foods. But all of that is a discussion for another thread. If you want a lotion/massage wax, Swans Candles has one. It's pricey, but it seems to be loaded with all sorts of botanical oils. In my opinion, no soy wax or any wax containing a potential allergen will be skin safe, but if you're referring to parabens and hydrocarbons... I can see why paraffin wouldn't be considered skin safe. I've seen (haven't read) a few articles around the web about trans fats and skin - I'll have to read those at some point. Off the top of my head, if you're up for it and already have the supplies, you could try creating your own massage wax using coconut oil 92F, other botanical oils (apricot, sunflower, castor, olive...), and something to bind it all together like cetearyl alcohol, rice bran wax, beeswax, or a skin-safe emulsifying wax (careful, some of them contain polymers). I suppose you could turn a lotion formula into a candle by omitting the water phase and water-containg/soluble ingredients and then increasing the amount of emulsifying wax or adding another stabilizer/emulsifier that's solid at room temp. I haven't tried that so I'm just speculating. Speaking of, Swans Candle's lotion wax can be turned into a lotion. The new quantum waxes are receiving a flurry of negative reviews. Personally, I haven't tried them. I saw one picture of that wax's color and texture and decided it wasn't worth ordering a sample.

The issue was mostly with coco83 and other Accu-Blend "natural" waxes finding their way into almost every cocoblend. In 83's MSDS sheet, paraffin was mentioned in safety instructions but not concretely stated as being part of the material. Why add that bit if it's not part of the formulation- none of the other suppliers add it if it's not included in their product? Not only 83, but an apricoco blend sold by Candlewic on Amazon turned out to have paraffin as well. The seller answered a question about the product on whether or not it contained paraffin: yes a very small percentage. Then, another supplier listed one of their coconut waxes with a product ID of something along the lines of "coco-83" and a different product name. Coincidence? Since most suppliers aren't providing complete, detailed MSDS sheets, there's really little way of knowing if a particular coconut wax has paraffin... unless you find a glaring clue and follow the paper trail back to a known paraffin-containing coconut wax. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that some of the soy waxes contain small amounts of paraffin as well. I need to retest my cocosoy (coco83/464) blends again. The jars I was using were too small. Using larger jars should give me better results and more wiggle room for wick sizing. In addition, with 464 being so unpredictable lately, that may have thrown my tests off a bit. I'll probably go back and test with 415 or another brand of soy. Lately, I've been testing coco83 and wick sizes. RRD's were my latest and produced too much mushrooming. Next up: square braided and premier. I can say that the cold and hot throws from cocosoy blends were amazing. Even the cold throw from a plain coco83 candle is almost as good as when lit! While putting away holiday stuffs, I kept getting strong whiffs of conifer. Turns out I hadn't put the top on a coco83 tester containing CS Fraser Fir... which was approx. 10ft away. I usually have to be within 3-4ft to catch a good, full-bodied whiff of an unlit soy candle.

@TallTayl So your 444 from BA and CS was different from Candlewic's? I wonder if that's why I had issues with CS's 464 but not as much with Candlewic's. Maybe 464 hasn't had a recent change like I thought... I don't know what additive is in 444, but the universal additive for soy is a monoglyceride, I believe.