ChandlerJane

I am actually. I had logged in from work and from home and since I didn't remember my password since I set up the account years ago, I simply set up a new one.

Top posted some threads on this with regards to the other types of palm waxes.

Wick or Top?

Are you kidding me? It's EXACTLY the same fragrance, and EXACTLY the same strength. We've tested them both. Her fragrance oils are not any stronger than any of the other good, reputable suppliers out there, contrary to her claims. And, while there are some other suppliers who don't list the notes, once asked, they should be willing/able to provide them to a customer, if for no other reason than for marketing purposes. Her unwillingness to do so says alot.

This is a straight buttery vanilla. There ARE no other notes, and, Very Vanilla from Candle Science is the EXACT same fragrance, for MUCH less money. Any supplier that is unwilling to give you the notes in their fragrances shouldn't be dealt with. If they are worried about duplicating a fragrance, then they probably shouldn't be selling sample sizes either, as they are MUCH more likely to get their fragrances duplicated that way.

All things being equal (same jars, same fragrances, same fragrance loads, same waxes) and assuming that you are wicking properly and similarly (in other words, we won't be comparing the scent throw of an Eco 1 to that of a 62z), in your opinions and in your testing, does the TYPE of wick you use affect how much throw a candle produces? Do zincs throw better than LX's, etc?

I can't stand the lack of throw in soy candles. I'm know I'm making a generalization but, my J50 kicks butt, and I will not be going to soy any time soon.

Candlewic doesn't seem to get as much attention as some of the other more popular suppliers (BCN, CS, Peaks, Bert's, etc). Is that for any particular reason? Never ordered oils from them. I'd like to formulate a list of their STRONGEST THROWERS. And also a list of your favorite scents of theirs. Not necesarily will the fragrances belong to both lists. For example, you might LOVE their Mango Peach Salsa, but might comment that it's not a super strong thrower. And vice versa. You might not love their Clean Cotton but might comment that it's a SUPER strong thrower. Would love to get some feedback.

Wrong forum. The Fragrance forum is a wealth of information for questions like this. In fact, just looking at that forum would answer this question but, Candle Science, Bert's, BCN, to name just a couple of very reputable suppliers, with very high quality oils.

PM sent.

I guess, however, we have committed to more than 5,000 jars, so giving up on them isn't an option. Furthermore, it's not in my nature to give up, even if I had not financially committed to the extent that I have. I know it can be done. Two others in this very thread have successfully done so. I will do so as well.

LOL. Thanks for the formula. My straight sided tumbler is 3.375" in diameter. 4.25-4.35" in height. I've never once run into what you have described with our current wax, wick, fo combination. My candles burn beautifully with no flickering, drowning wicks or smoke/soot. We use double Eco-1's in that jar, and in two of our tougher oils, we wick up to Eco-2's. From what I understand, there are now Eco-1.5's available, so we will be testing those in the two oils that we currently wick with Eco-2's.

Steve, if I'm reading your post correctly you think that a jar like this, which is notoriously difficult to wick, shouldn't even be bothered with, and, that is a bit of a defeatist attitude. Because it's difficult doesn't mean that it can't be done. Furthermore, these are all theories. None of us can "prove" any of our viewpoints one way or the other. There are, however, certain "facts" which can't be denied. 1-a flame (fire) requires oxygen to burn. No oxygen means no flame/fire. 2-two flames require more oxygen to burn than one flame does. 3-when combustion occurs, oxygen is consumed Given the above, it's reasonable to assume that, in a container like this apothecary, which has a neck, with a top that is smaller in diameter than the rest of the jar, and oxygen supplies are limited, that it's a lack of oxygen leading to wicks that no longer combust efficiently/fully. Further proof of this is, again, the SAME exact combinations work perfectly in a shorter, straight sided jar. Further proof still is the fact that in the top third of the jar, where presumably, oxygen supplies are greater, this problem is not encountered.

Chuck, wouldn't the fact that the same wax, wick, fo combination works in ANOTHER jar lead you to believe that it has nothing to do with the efficiency of the wicks (independent of the jar) and more to do with the jar configuration? That's my point here. These wicks worked perfectly in straight sided tumblers. They don't work at all in the apothecary. The ONLY variable is the jar, and the fact they are competing for the same oxygen supply in the jar.

So what do you suggest then?

I'm no soy expert but C-3 I think is a soy with additives...not really a plain soy. Am I wrong?

Yes, I have actually (in their 16 and 26 oz apothecaries). It's the very reason I carry that jar/wood lid combo (cause I bought two of their candles a few years ago). Believe me, it can be done, and it is being done. Just in this thread there are reports from two different people who have, in fact, accomplished it. Once I crack the riddle, I would be glad to report back here as to how we did it. To answer your question, no, I use straight J-50. I tested every readily available commercial container blend on the market and felt J-50 had a better hot throw than any other. that's not to say it doesn't have it's problems (glass adhesion, some sooting/smoking...normal with most any paraffin blen) but I love the wax. Out of curiosity, how much soy do you add to your J-223, and what problems does the soy help you with? Sooting? Glass adhesion? Do you add a straight soy, or a blend like GB464?

It can be done, and there are manufacturers doing it (take a look at pure integrity soy candles). What I was referring to before was the fact that YOUR tureen is vastly different from any apothecary jars, and any issues you run into with wicking would likely not have anything at all to do with oxygen deprivation. I wasn't saying that my apothecary is different from other apothecaries. And, regardless of whether you call it oxygen deprivation, or lack of air currents, it's six in one, half dozen in the other (same thing). And, the "experts" at Wicks Unlimited (it's all they do all day every day), believe it's an oxygen deprivation issue. But, again, there isn't much difference between lack of oxygen and lack of the proper air currents (air is oxygen), the problem remains. However, it can, and has been done (double wicking) with these jars.

But you see what I mean? That jar (the tureen) is a TOTALLY different jar, presenting TOTALLY different problems. It's a short squatty jar, where oxygen deprivation would really never come into play (and I've tried wicking those jars without ANY of the problems described here). So the point is, his hypothesis doesn't really hold water as it relates to the jar in question.

Problem with his theory is that it simply doesn't work, at least in our observations. When a wick starts to drown from the lack of oxygen, it drowns. It's not like it comes back to life. It never even MAKES it to the bottom third.

Goodness no. My intent was to get a good dialogue going. I'm not remotely offended. I don't agree with what you have said, and provided evidence to support my case, but, I'm not at all offended. I am quite certain (and in speaking with folks at Wicks Unlimited...they do this for a living) that it has to do with oxygen deprivation (something that the folks at WU have confirmed).

I would also use the fact that this oxygen deprivation phenomenon is ONLY experienced during double wicking as further proof that it does exist. I have yet to experience this when single wicking this jar. Only when two wicks are consuming and competing for oxygen is this something I have seen. Furthermore, the fact that you fed oxygen into the top of the container can't really be used as any sort of proof. Unless you fed the oxygen BELOW the point of combustion (impossible), it simply doesn't help. In addition, I'm not sure what you mean when you say it burns too hot at the bottom of the jar. In all the testing I've done (and I've done ALOT of testing), when this phenomenon begins to happen, there isn't a single circumstance where the wicks have lasted to the end. In all instances, they have drowned themselves out entirely before ever even nearing the bottom of the container. Again, I must reiterate that these are wicks, wax, fragrance oil and fragrance load combinations that worked PERFECTLY in a straight sided tumbler about 3.375" in diameter and 4.375" in height. The ONLY variable was the container.

Interesting. I'm assuming this post is directed at me, given my post directly above this one. So, what is your opinion then as to how to get the "right wick"? I'm not quite sure I agree with this, however, given the following. Using the SAME exact fragrance oil, fragrance load, wax and wick, there is NO drowning of the wicks in a straight sided tumbler that is significantly shorter and doesn't have the "neck" which means there is no "chimney" effect. In other words, the ONLY variable changed in the two scenarios is the jar, and the jar in which the wick drowns is the taller jar with a neck, where presumably, there is less oxygen in there than in the shorter jar without a neck. I'm curious as to your thoughts on this.

That would be wonderful. You were double wicking this size apothecary? You didn't notice drowning wicks from lack of oxygen as you got half way or more into the jar?

What wax do you use? I use J-50. You have had no trouble with wicks dying due to lack of oxygen the further down in the jar you get?