Kerven

464 at cost? Eh... Might want to ask for lot #'s beforehand. Does TCS do anything for BF?

I've been waiting for All Seasons Wax to find its way to the US. Their waxes look promising! Now, if only we could convince a US supplier to submit a distribution enquiry...

Measuring out an additive, adding it, and not a minute later forgetting whether or not I added any. Same with drops of liquid dye. "1, 2, 3... 3, 4, 6... 7, 8... Uh-oh." Edit: Forgetting wick stickers. That happened once. Forgetting (read: being lazy and not doing it) to tare, then ending up with the wrong amount and not knowing why. Moving a freshly poured candle after it had formed a thick skin, thick enough that it appeared mostly set. Tilted it a bit too much while carrying it, skin broke, wasn't fun cleaning up.

I know how text can be taken the wrong way. It happens to me all the time elsewhere, especially when a friend perceives my texts as being rude or aggressive when they were anything but. That's one of the downsides to written word and can often lead to misunderstandings, which I sure we've all experienced at some point. That said, would it be too much to suggest that this be chalked up as a misunderstanding or agree to disagree, not read too far into what was written, and get back to comparing candlemaking notes/experiences? IMO, it's not worth the trouble to offend or be offended, and I'd like to think that no one intended for it. There are more pressing matters to discuss... such as: where can I find palm stearin, palm butter, no-stir palm (stearin fraction), 100% palm shortening in 5-7lb sizes at -reasonable- prices? 🤔 (Yes, I hijacked the thread.) Edit: About WV, I agree, probably altitude. Although, I can't say I've read anything about altitude's effects on wax but I imagine it's similar to water... air pressure.

Would still take recommended pour temps with a bit of skepticism. We already know that weather, humidity, drafts, etc. can impact the pour. While the suggested pour temps may work under some conditions they're not sure-fire. There's a certain amount of trial and error to find what works for your particular set of variables. Otherwise, it would be too easy, and nothing is ever that easy (tongue in cheek).

What sort of jars? If straight sided, like status or tumblers, pop them in the freezer (if you didn't use wick stickers or adhesive) and the wax should pop out. If the jars have narrow necks, I don't have much to suggest because I experienced the same problem. Tried the oven, hot water baths, coffee mug warmers (the exact same product is sometimes sold as candle jar warmers/melters). Broke/shattered several jars. Gave up. The warmer worked the best but it took -forever- for one jar and I wasn't about to line the counter with twenty of them. I guess a griddle on a very low setting could work - similar to preheating the jars.

When I started with soy I had the worse time with lumpy, bumpy, ugly tops and wet spots. Tried the cardboard box method and it worked surprisingly well. Just flip a box over the candles and leave it there while they cool overnight. I don't know why or how it works but it does (most of the time).

Here's an interesting post about FO binding (or lack of) in waxes. In short, it should be fine, but make sure you stir it well to fully incorporate the FO and dye. My perspective is that the main reason to heat to 185F is to ensure that all components of the wax have been melted. Some waxes have additives with melting points above 160F.

I didn't know they had an "original" scent but meant original as in the first toilet spray of that kind. Their site states that they use essential oils and natural compounds. Nothing harsh, parabens, phthalates, aerosol, formaldehyde, petroleum distillates, ethanol, and benzene. It's specific about the ethanol. Curiosity has me wondering if that's because there could another alcohol in it. Isopropyl alcohol, perhaps? The recipes that use glycerin might be hitting something with the consistency. Poo-Pourri seemed like a very thin lotion - not quite watery but not creamy either - the last time I saw a bottle. Water, isopropyl alcohol, glycerin, EO, polysorbate 20, maybe a non-ionic PEG surfactant... AFAIK, EO + polysorbate-20 added to water will create a milky liquid. Whether or not it holds and doesn't separate over time, IDK, but maybe that's why it says to shake.

I think the main problem with heating too high is that some additives could start to degrade along with the oils, which may be more vulnerable to oxidation and polymerization at high temps. I wouldn't go beyond 200F with 464 or any commonly used plant-based wax. Hot throw has been a problem with 464 for a while. It's definitely the wax. Still not certain what about the wax is causing such diminished throws - maybe a new additive or too much additive (do they use vybar in 464?).

Supposedly, the "original" forms a very thin layer on the surface of the water, and anything passing through that layer is coated with the product. I think I read somewhere that it also helps prevent film buildup and unsightly rings within the bowl - probably because of the surfactants in it. ... and ya'll ninja'd me while I was writing that.

It really depends on the wax and technique. You can pour some waxes hot and leave them to cool slowly. Other waxes need to be poured cool and hit/not hit with a fan. Then again, some waxes can handle being poured hot and rapidly cooled. There's no universal guideline for pouring temps and rate of cooling because each wax is going to be different. Manufacturer/supplier recommendations are... iffy, in my experience. They're rarely updated and no one really knows what conditions were present when they came up with those numbers. In short, if you're pouring too hot or too cold, yet remaining within the recommended range, then the recommended range may be flawed or not suitable for your set of conditions. Wasn't sure if this was straight paraffin or a parasoy so I took a peek at Candlewic's page. The listed pouring temp is 145-150F, which is what I was going to suggest. If 170F+ is causing problems, try that range (if you haven't already).

Does it irritate anyone else when shipping costs as much as the order or more. Then, when you receive the box, about >40% of its contents are packing peanuts that have been dumped in on top of everything. Not some on the bottom, some on the sides, some on top. Just dumped on top to keep things from rattling because the box was so needlessly large.

The ECO's look good. Rate of consumption looks a little high - not unusual for that wick series when used in coconut wax - compared to the others. The ECO 6 is bright! I've had the most luck with ECO in coconut waxes, although I haven't had much luck with getting them to work well in straight coconut wax or blends with smaller percentages of soy. I usually have to add upwards of 50% soy or additives, unfortunately. What did you think of them after the first burn? The CDN 4 looks like it performed well, somewhere between the ECO 4 and 6. I'm curious to see what it does on the second burn.

Impatiently waiting for them to restock the coconut oil wax before I order.

I'm not certain, but maybe Monterosa Zelandi S.r.l. Trecciolino ST, TCR, and LN wicks are listed on their company page. Some suppliers seem to be listing themselves as the manufacturer on their sales pages for the TCR wicks (Cosy Owl, for example).

I don't know. It's hard for me to describe. There's tobacco leaf, something sweet (maybe tonka or a subtle but rich vanilla), something spicy - not cinnamon or clove - cassia or cardamom (?)... a little amber and maybe something woody.

Oooh, you know what... It didn't occur to me until now but I don't recall seeing how much FO was added in either thread. How much was it? Too much FO can cause sweating, but even more FO can cause curdling.

I agree with the uneven cooling. Was there a breeze/air circulating or was the temperature in the room a little low? It looks like the top and bottom set first, the middle didn't. I'm thinking, as the middle cooled it contracted and caused that sink hole. The main purpose for heating the jar is to prevent (or try) wet spots and jump lines, from what I've read. I don't use that technique. Thicker glass will hold the heat longer, especially if heated too high, and that retained heat could theoretically keep the wax from hardening when it should... a slower cool down. Was that candle made with CS Fallen Leaves like those in the other thread? Edit: nevermind. It was 130F. There have been some reports that C3 is behaving a bit differently than before but not to the extent of AAK waxes.

I should be able to figure this out... but what is WRT? Incidentally, the candle that curdled for me was made in a straight sided tumbler from CS.

Was that particular batch of C3 used in other candles and turned out fine? If so, my two guesses would be an accidental mistake in heating (heated too high, maybe) or the FO did something weird. I found the tester I made with CS Black Sea that did something very similar. It looks better several (about 6) months later but the distinct curdling and layering of whatever separated out is still visible. The top even has a crusty appearance with many, many itty bitty, partially exposed pockets under the surface. It was an experimental blend of co92, stearic, and an additive. It's strange because I use a very similar ratio of these ingredients in another blend, which uses about 1% castor flakes and looks great. I'm convinced it's the FO doing something it shouldn't be.

Paracoco (or cocopara) seems to be increasing in popularity. More and more are moving away from soy but want to stay with plant waxes. Unfortunately, the variety of plant waxes is very limited and paraffin is readily available. Haven't tried it myself since I'm trying to go 100% (or as close as possible) plant-based.

Wait, what... The FO blended in smoothly at a lower temp but not at the higher temp? What FO was that? What was the flash point? Maybe there is something to that whole flash point method of adding FO... or maybe there's some bizarre polymerization going on. Otherwise, I can't wrap my head around that one.

By typical retail outlet do you mean places that sell their own brand or any place that sells candles? If the latter... DW Homes Tobacco Noir 4oz Got it because of the scent. $2.99 Appears to be a paraffin, burns like a paraffin, but it's surprisingly creamy and off-white in color like a soy. Doesn't look like a "plastic" paraffin at all. I'm certain it's primarily paraffin with a good dose of additives. Although, come to think of it, it does resemble and burn similar to a coconut wax, but AFAIK DW Homes doesn't use coconut wax. Packaging is nice, but the FO is what sold it. The cold throw is so good I don't bother lighting it anymore, just sit it nearby and let it do its work. Who needs a renuzit when you have one of these. Not the greatest burn ever. Flame too large and too hot, made the glass very hot. Smoked a little. Extinguishing caused a peculiar sweet, "powdery" soot scent if that makes any sense. Mushroomed horribly, and wick broke when trying to trim. I need to find a lab that'll take a wax sample and dupe the FO. Don't care about the wax, just want that FO. I like it that much. For the price, it's pretty good, maybe even a steal compared to high end 4oz candles! I tried their Teakwood Myrrh as well and, while not as strong a scent as the Tobacco Noir, it's nice.

*chime* The effects of temperature on waxes is a loaded topic. Not sure where to begin... or end. I'll skim the surfaces a little. IMO, it mostly affects crystal formation, but that's also tied to additives, which makes those important as well. Additives run the gamut. You've got congealers and rheology adjusters, crystal modifiers, thermal stabilizers, antifoaming agents and surfactants, preservatives (antioxidants), opacifiers, hardeners, strengtheners, elastomers and polymers in general, UV/color stabilizers, a plethora of fatty acids, esters, glycerides... I've even seen patents for candles that use resins and polyamides (more polymers). They all have a variety of melt points, molecular weights, and nifty uses. Almost all should be nonpolar because soy waxes are nonpolar, so they'll blend well... assuming they're compatible to begin with. Not taking additives into account, temperature mostly affects crystal formation. For example, pouring palm wax at a high temperature and insulating it for a slow cool down allows for the growth of larger crystals, which gives palm waxes their distinctive textures. That's sort of a two-sided issue, however, as longer cool downs could result in the outside setting up before the center, causing the center to contract as it cools and create cavernous voids, as seen with palm waxes (poke those holes or do the flip), or craters, as seen with soy waxes. Palm waxes are more prone to the cavities because the surface tends to set up quicker than the surfaces of softer, lower melt point soy waxes, which are prone to cratering. A rapid cool down could shock the wax and force the FO and any softer components out, but a gradual cool down at room temperature (especially when poured hot) could cause the same problems as an extended cool down to a lesser degree. Each wax seems to have a happy zone when it comes to the speed of cooling, although, I think most big manufacturers use fans on the bottoms to encourage cooling from the bottom up... or something along those lines (?). An interesting phenomennon with soy waxes are the ugly melt pools after they've cooled. Is it polymerization or cool down temps? A little of both, I'd say. Then, you have the fatty acid profiles of the waxes themselves, which are big ol' trade secrets. Do the manufacturers remove the unsaturated fats for a harder wax? To what degree is it hydrogenated/transesterified? Palm oil, for example, comes in different "flavors". You've got your plain palm oil, hydrogenated palm oil, no-stir (some unsaturated fats removed) palm oil... What does temperature have to do with all that? Fatty acids, esters, and such have differing melt/congeal temps. Soo... About manufacturers' temperature instructions. I take them with a grain of salt. We already know that ambient environmental variables can influence what temps we pour at. We also know that some waxes respond better to certain pouring temps than others. I can't for the life of me use palm wax as an additive in low melt point blends because it rapidly crystallizes before my eyes once the blend gets down to 135F, where it separates out if stirred. Some people (not me) have amazing success with pouring soy waxes at or below 100F. Manufacturers, I presume, base their instructions either on their own set of environmental factors or an average. To the careful and well informed eye, the recommended temperatures could give away the absence of certain additives and narrow the list of possibilities. For example, if the directions say to melt to 150F, the wax is certain to not contain high melt point castor wax flakes, BHT, and maybe microcrystalline wax (that one would be cutting it close). But if directions say to melt to 200F, there very well could be a high melt point additive in it that requires such a high heat. When it comes to graininess, curdling, and such, I think that's mostly tied to the fatty acid profile. Shea butter turning grainy is a perfect example. You can stir and try to keep things evenly distributed as it cools, but that's not always a viable option. For example, when I used palm wax as an additive (mentioned above) with coconut oil, once it reached 135F, any stirring caused the palm wax to immediately crystallize, forming a slushy mass on the surface of the coconut oil which clung to my stirring spatula. After that happened, I melted it down again and tried pouring hot, only to find out that the palm still crystallized first and left a pool of coconut oil at the surface, which eventually cooled down and contracted into extensive caverns. Pouring closer to 140F gave better results but ultimately the wax needed a "middle ground" ingredient to bridge the gap in melt points and add a little elasticity. That is an extreme example, however. For common pre-formulated waxes such as C3 and AAK soys, stirring is beneficial, especially after FO and dye have been added, but probably not as essential as with more sensitive waxes. That's not to say you shouldn't stir anyway but chances are the wax already has something keeping it well blended. Nevertheless, stirring while cooling down to pour temp doesn't hurt. If anything, it'll help. As for adding FO at lower temperatures, well, that goes back to higher melt point components creating the crystalline structure that binds/traps the oils. It also has a bit to do with how fast those crystals grow. We know that soy wax can continue doing that for some time after cooling off (see: curing and frosting). Some waxes do it immediately. So, with a wax like palm, it's probably not a good idea to add it close to the congeal/melt point but palm doesn't hold much FO to begin with. With soy, it's a bit iffy; some might handle it well while others will spit it out. AFAIK, candle FO's are formulated with solvents/diluents that are wax compatible, so there shouldn't be too much issue with the FO not blending in. The issue is more often physical; the FO isn't being "trapped" in the crystalline structure. Chances are, if the candle is leaking FO, it's probably going to spit out coconut oil as well if you used it as an additive... unless you have a weird FO that has something odd (like an incompatible fragrance components (side note: some fragrance components are made into solutions for ease of use or to modify strength, and some of the solvents/diluents used for that purpose may not be compatible), polar components, DPG, or alcohols) in it that the particular candle wax doesn't like. That's my take on it, anyway.