SRez

10 hours ago, Hummingbird1 said:

What size htp did you use in the 8oz square mason jars 

I've had success with HTP83 in the 12oz mason jars. You could start there if you have them. 

I also have a some pics of the wicks in action in the Wick and Wax test forum, you can somewhat see them in the tray.  The 785 is dimmer and tunneling down faster rather than wider than the 780.   

I've had a similar issue with the 780 and 785 in 464.  The 780 had a bigger flame that the 785.  It seemed, to me, that the 785 was a tad hotter and consuming more wax and mushrooming earlier that the 780, resulting in a smaller / rounder flame surrounding the shroom.     

1 hour ago, Forrest said:

My advice is start with paraffin. The reason is that starting out it will take you a lot more tries before you get it right. If you are having to wait two weeks to see how you did that really stretches out the learning curve.

Good point. The other option would be make a few more batches a couple weeks apart and continually test. 

15 minutes ago, GretaB said:

Yes I am ordering different size of wick series 700 to have them home and see actually which one could be a better pick for this jar. I did a 7% today with Eucaliptus & clean cotton from Aztec, let's see!! Thank you I will try your combination as welL!

I forgot to mention that my setup was in a 3" diameter tumbler / status jar for that size wick.  

1 hour ago, GretaB said:

Also I just have 700 series (745), Paper cord 20-4 1/2 " & and the one I got from amazon that I don't have any idea what it is...

I had success with a Premier 755 and 6006 at 6% and 7% with Peppermint Eucalyptus from CS.  My batch of 6006 was from August 2020.  It threw amazingly well for me.  Give the 745 a shot... you have nothing to lose. 

2 hours ago, soylights said:

Interesting. Let us know how your burn test go. Did you purposefully cure for one month?  Patience you have lol. I should get my larger wicks in the mail this week and will update.  

Will do. I've been primarily focusing on 464, but in the beginning of this journey (back in August) I went a little overzealous and purchased other waxes as well. 415, 444, 6006 and 4627.  You know, one of the first things they tell you not to do.... Pick one wax and learn it.  Listen I did not. I have some success with 6006 but decided to slow down and tackle 464 first... Seeing how I have 4 cases of it... Did I mention that I went a little overzealous?

Bakery scents so far work great in 464 but I can't get Black Cherry Merlot to throw decently in 464 after several FO%'s and wick series and sizes which is why I figured I'd add a bit of 4627 to 415 thinking the 4627 would give it a kick... So for those, I poured a bunch of baseline testers as well as scented ones with Black Cherry Merlot about a month ago and broke out one of the 70/30 to mess with.

And just like you've seen, I had to wick up as opposed to down. And still very little to almost no scent. The FO is good because it works great in a melter with 494. I may break out the 50/50 soon to compare. 

TLDR: I had a bunch of wax to play with so I figured I'd blend to see what happens. 

Similar issue here with blending 415/4627. Blended 70/30. I was thinking wicking down as well but actually had to go up. Go figure.

I also blended 50/50 but haven't tried that out yet. Both blends have been cured over a month. 

No sink holes as of yet with the ones I tested. 

Most excellent. Always something.... ain't it.

16 minutes ago, TallTayl said:

If I am reading this correctly, the wax you have now is harder to burn , requiring a little bit more wick, than the lot you tested last year?

Not exactly.  I purchased a few cases last year.   

I didn't re-melt the wax and perform another test with it if that's what you're asking. 

I used brand new flakes with each test.

2 separate tests about 6 months apart, using the same lot #.

Last year when I did it, I didn't really record everything like I did this time around. 

Last year I was more concerned with MP results more than anything else.      

3 hours ago, TallTayl said:

 

I would be happy enough with those to melt down and Recycle all the wax aside from the cd 12, cd14, CDN 12 and cdn14.  Burn those to the bottom an make sure nothing unusual happens in th last half.

 

 

Yup... already melted down except for the CD10/12/14, CDN10/12/14 and the ECO12 and HTP 104/105 for the fun of it.  The CD12 and CDN14 still look the best.  I did 2 more burns at 5 hours a pop.  So... 19 total hours. 

I did the same test more or less last year and again ended up with the CD10/12 as the winners so to speak.  

And I want to give a big thank you to everyone out here who lends their expertise to this craft.  This has become somewhat of an addicting quest.    

22 hours ago, TallTayl said:

415 and 464 are close sisters.  464 has more additives than 415 to preserve the tops and hold more FO than 415. I would not call 415 “harder” necessarily.  Using 415 to dilute the 464 may help your efforts.

 

in the old days (2016 and before) 415 is 2% universal soy additive made a fantastic candle.  Melt, scent, pour, enjoy. 
 

464 has been engineered to within an inch of its life to give the appearances that most vocal candle customers say they want. This came at a price with more wick issues. 
 

in soys I have the cleanest burns with cd, CDN, CSN generally. 
 

if you already have both waxes, try a couple of blends to see if diluting the additives will help.  I would try 80:20  and see if it improves in a small candle. If you have time, 70:30 and even 50:50 might be worthwhile. I had to do that with C1, which sometimes comes with too much palm wax and causes terrible excessive cavities and even cracking. I used Midwest soy to dilute as it was less $, and easy for me to get. 415 seems to have something which helps is cool and cure to a harder finish than Midwest, but the intent is the same.

I have a couple of old plain testers. One of each... 415, 444 and 464. When I stick a skewer through them the 464 seems the less dense of the three. The other 2 were, for lack of better words, harder to skewer/push through If you know what I mean.

I also burned those alongside each other with the same wick/container and the 464 had a bigger MP than the other two. Which is what got me to thinking if it would slow the consumption down a tad if I added either 415 or 444 to the 464, and resulting in less carbon being formed. If that makes sense. 

I'm also convinced that the same supplies, wax/wicks, from different suppliers alter/ change each person's results.

Watcha think?

10 hours ago, Guest Natasha2106 said:

Oh wow, thank you so much for sharing this information.

When it comes to testing  with a fragrance how do you  do a wick test? It would be a lot of wax and fragrance to use to test on such a large volume as you did with this unfragranced test.

 

Thanks Natasha 

Hi there, 

You are very welcome.  What I do is what was suggested by @TallTayl.  Pick the best looking / performing wick / wicks and start with that.  I then make about 6 or so testers with my FO of choice and try that wick and then maybe go up or down 1 or 2 sizes to see how it performs.  In some cases I had to choose a different wick series in order for the scent to throw.  I've learned quite a bit and still learning everyday. 

Last day of 3 day test burn.  The larger data sheet is for the tumblers / status jars and the smaller data sheet for the pans.  

Continuation of the 3 day 464 wick test.  

Hi All,

Here is my contribution to the base wax wick testing using 464.  It was cured for a little over 2 weeks.  Melted at 185 and poured around the 135ish.  The test was for 3 days.  3 hours each day. 

I will post each day as its own post so as to not inundate the post with too many pics to look at.  

I also have pics from each hour, but to make the page easier to look at, I’ll mostly just post the 3^rd hour of each day / burn.

By the 3^rd day I removed some testers because they were tunneling. 

If you see a “T” in the MP (melt pool) column, that means they were tunneling.

If you see a “D”, that means the MP was deep.

In the Mush (mushroom) column, I either stated yes, no, big, small, split, 1x CB or 2x CB. 

The 1x CB, 2x CB means that there is either 1 or 2 carbon balls forming on either side of the wick.  In some instances, those turned into a full mushroom whether it be big or small. A “yes” means it is an average size mushroom.

In the pics you’ll see that I used the 3” diameter, 12-ounce tumblers / status jars and 2 baking pans.  I used wicks from CD, CDN, CSN, ECO, HTP, Premier, RRD and Cotton Core.  They containers were spaced apart while burning as you see in the overhead pic but moved together only for the picture to get a closer shot of the wick series / melt pools.  They were then spaced apart again.

I also used a couple of the same size wicks from different suppliers that I had on hand.  I abbreviated them as the following –

CS – Candle Science

CW – CandleWic

FC – Flaming Candle

LS – Lonestar

The same sized wicks from different suppliers all behaved somewhat differently.  The HTP being the most noticeable. 

They were –

HTP 83 from FC and LS.  The LS wick burned… cooler?  It created a smaller melt pool compared to the FC wick.

ECO 12 from FC and CS.  The FC wick burned a bigger MP than the CS wick.    

ECO 14 from CS, CW and FC.  The CS wick burned the smallest out of these 3 but not by much.    

Out of the list of wicks that I tested; I am currently still test burning (day/burn #4) a handful of what I considered to be the best of them, to see where they end up at.

I’m burning as of now only –

CD 10, 12, 14 

CDN 10, 12, 14,

HTP 104, 105

ECO 12 

At this point, at the 5 hour mark, the best-looking wicks are the CD’s 10/12 and CDN’s 12/14.  2^nd place would be the HTP 104 and CDN10.  CD 14 has a pretty big mushroom and the HTP 105 is a big carbon ball sitting in the wax.

The ECO 12 from FC is tunneling and almost drowning out.

Anyway, hope this helps anyone who is wondering.

If my documentation seems a bit too cryptic or if you have any questions, feel free to ask any questions.   

Steve

Thanks for the link! I'll definitely check that out. 

I would also like to point out that I did not trim these wicks this time around. The pics shown above were from untrimmed wicks. They looked kinda decent to begin with so I just lit them up. 

So... after my little rant about everything mushrooming during the base test, I went back and selected what I considered to be the best wick picks. 

They were:

CD 10, 12, 14

CDN 10, 12, 14

HTP 104 and 105

ECO 12.

I started a 4th burn with these and went for 5+ hours.  To my surprise the mushrooms didn't really happen like I whined about earlier in this post. The CD10/12, CDN 12/14 were the best IMO.  CD14 and HTP105 were the biggest, with the 105 wading in the wax.  And that ECO12 is just tunneling away so far.   

After seeing how the CD's / CDN's reacted with this, I'm not sure if I'm going to blend just yet.  Gonna wait and see and drop the FO from 8% to 6% on some of the bakery scents to see if that makes a difference. 

I'll post the full base test later today.    

6 minutes ago, TallTayl said:

I think I found the right permission setting,  can you give it another try?

No dice. I logged off/on as well in case of permissions. No rush though. I'll check again tomorrow or so. Have a good night. Thanks. 

On 1/21/2021 at 1:00 AM, TallTayl said:

Wow you are really going for it! When searching for the top wicks to try, the pan is a quick one to eliminate losers. then you can remelt the left over wax into new candles and life goes on. you can do a wickectomy to swap out sizes in a jiffy so it does not take very long to test loads of wicks. 
 

When I do baseline tests using my preferred wick I stick to one small jar size so the follow up tests are quick and painless.  If it performs within normal limits it gets a green light to make candles.  If it does not, adjust accordingly and hope you don’t need to test too many FO for the new batch.
 

Out of desperation when waxes changed from lot to lot rapidly during Faire season I would sometimes only make specific scents with specific cases to eliminate extra testing,  what a PAIN. 
 

When evaluating the pan results, keep in mind that the size of the melt pool will increase in a vessel.  The sides of the vessel insulate, and help create the air current that pumps up the energy.  The deeper the vessel, the stronger the potential current. If looking to wick a 3” jar, for instance, the pan pool width might only be 2.5” or 2.75”. You will be able to eye your wax quickly once you get the hang of it.
 

I look for the shape of the flame. I like tidy, tight flames as opposed to the ones that stretch tall and skinny, if that makes sense.  I think about the size of the flame in proportion to the container it will go into so the whole candle looks pleasant.

 

I would not expect a wick that is compatible with the wax to soot or carbon head much, if at all.  
 

I would expect the flame to not grow or shrink as it burns. Growing flames are concerning since those can become problematic in power burns.

 

wicks that lean over because of their own weight are noteworthy.  Soft waxes, like coconut, can cause wicks to tip over like a cut tree and direct the flame toward the jar. 

 

some wicks curl exceptionally tightly.  I don’t know why, but eco in my waxes often like to curl like a candy cane on the first burns regardless of how short I trim them. This weird phenomenon gives a wrong idea that the candle is underwicked. Once it burns for a while knocking off the end reveals it is sometimes perfect or even over wicked.  Try explaining that to a customer, lol.

I note the degree of off-center melt pool from self-trimming wicks. Some are REALLY noteworthy. 
 

when extinguishing I look for smoke trails and glowing embers on the wick. This relates in part to carbon heading since the glow is the unburned carbon  trying to burn off.

Hey @TallTayl , I'm just about ready to post my base wax wick test and did a quick look on the wick test page and didn't see an option to add. Would I add it here and then someone moves it over? 

I guess I should be asking if I should be surprised that all those wicks mushroomed with just plain ol' naked 464? 

I've recently completed a naked 464 wick test, which I'll be posting with the results in the next couple days. 464 melted to 185 and cured a little over 2 weeks in 3" diameter tumblers and baking pans.

With that being said, pretty much every wick and wick series I tested all mushroomed to some extent during the testing. Some sooner than others. CD, CDN, ECO, HTP, Premier, RRD and Cotton Core. The ECO's not as bad. And actually the one CSN14 that I tested acted the best. Go figure. 

My question is, if I add 415 because of the no additives as well as being a harder wax to the 464 would/could that help? I'm thinking the wicks are drawing a bit too much too fast and eventually resulting in the carbon balling. 

I know ultimately the answer is give it a shot and test, test, test. Just wondering if anyone has been down this road before and how did it go for you?

I got lucky with a 755 in a 3" Status Jar / Tumbler so far. 

I'm not sure what size diameter the country comfort jar is, but I have had good results with Premier and HTP with the batch of 6006 that I have.