bart70

Facebook is great for spreading the word....albeit good or bad by the looks of some of the popular Oz pages :rolleyes2 I have not spoken with the C-3 suppliers but by the sounds of it they are obliging which is a good start. In my testing I have found 464 and blends thereof to be ok, but I am still not impressed by it. I have dabbled in a very minor way with Ecosoya but just don't like it.....So having another alternative here in Oz is a blessing. Richard - I was not sure if you knew of them or not....I recall hearing about them some time ago but did not realise they had competitive pricing on wax, or an alternate soy. Am interested in giving some a try for sure......Still trying to get my head around the differences between C1 and C3 - Will start that discussion in a new thread though. Cheers, Bart

Hi, Just a quick clarification - Is the C-3 referd to here Naturewax C-3? I have been reading this with interest as I am thinking of doing some testing with Naturewax and wanted to clarify that this thread is referring to the same wax. Thanks, Bart

My IR thermometer has a Distance:Target scale sticker on the side that basically shows graphically that the 'footrpint' of the heat sensor increases with distance - much the same was as the spotlight from penlight torch gets larger the further away from the subject the torch is moved. Mine says it is 5:1 - Looking at the sticker, if you hold the thermo 5 inches from the surface, the 'sample' footprint will be 1 inch in diameter. The footprint is important as my model take an áverage' of the footprint - if I am too far away and the footprint is big enough to measure something other that the hot wax, the measurement can be influenced. I normally just hold my thermo 2 or 3 inches above what I want to measure - this way I am unlikely to get influenced by a larger footprint and averaging. I am not as careful if the pot I am measuring is large, and the reverse if it is small. Not sure of they all work the same way though...although I would imagine the 'footprint' would increase with distance on all of them. Bart

Jeanie, I think that Stella was referring more to the people I referred to in my post and their views more than yourself....that was how I read it initially anyway. Stella - Have been playing a lot with temps and also dabbling with tempering. Am learning a lot about about the effects of temp (both pour and ambient). What frustrates me is when I pour 4 testers at the same temps and same batch get 2 perfect and 2 with frosting or wet spots!...LOL Frustrating but I will get there in the end. Am not using dyes of any sort at present so have one less influencial factor. I have perfected tops (at this stage) and reckon I may have cracked the frosting and wet spot code (will know in my next round of tests). Still battling with shrooms - does not matter what wick I use (even in candles without FO) I am getting shrooms. We are limited here in wick choice with basically CDN (Stabilo KST), HTP, and a local made wick known as ACS. Currently doing extensive testing with CDN with mixed results - sometimes I can test 2 identical candles and one will shroom and one wont. Frustrating! I am getting great HT though!..LOL Will keep plodding away....my dislike for soy is slowly starting to change the more I work with it and get to know it. Cheers, Bart

Don't Laugh!! This thread reminds of discussion I read in an Australian group not very long ago!. Apparently frosting, wet spots, mushrooms are all part of a 'natural' candle - Candles showing these characteristics are proof that the product is 'natural' and has not had additives used in manufacture to remove them. The surprising (perhaps concerning?) thing was the number of other candlemakers who commented that this is exactly what they explain to their customers as well..... I am still experimenting with Soy on a personal level and battling some of these problems.....I guess I should be proud that mine are 'natural' also....LOL :rolleyes2 :cheesy2:

Deena, Have you heard any feedback on their FO's? There are a couple there I wouldn't mind trying. Bart

Jonsie, I found the link to the EO/FO people on the Nth Coast of NSW. If nothing else it may be interesting reading. www.fpioceania.com.au Cheers, Bart

Stella, Your testing was never in question here. It is great you have choice when your suppliers do the wrong thing by you. I am sure many of us over here wished we had the same luxury when we know that our supplier has knowingly done the wrong thing by us. I guess this is why they can do it! Bart

I stumbled across that Fbook post recently also and thought it really odd that they advised to add Vybar or UA for the problem you described using a vegetable wax! They do a lot of talking.....I have learnt from personal first hand experience that not all of it is true which is sad as many people take what they say as gospel. Bart

This is where we will have to agree to disagree, but after reading your post a couple of times I don't think our views are that different from each other particularly around testing. :smiley2: My point was that they should not be relying on my testing as their due diligence particularly when they know there is a change in a product. I was meaning more like a change of manufacturer for a product moreso that changes between batches of product. Due diligence cuts both ways - it applies to them selling to me just as much as it applies to me selling to my customers. Bart.

Jonsie, I recall there is also an EO/FO manufacturer/supplier on the nth coast of NSW. From my understanding they only supply in larger quantities to the manufacturing sector. I have not dealt with them at all but when I was researching FO/EO suppliers some time ago I recall being impressed with some of the detail on their website. They are located throughout the world and produce locally available oils in each of their locations and supply each other. From memory they had a large list of available oils listed with the country of origin and method use for extraction etc.. Their technical data looked good and I recall thinking they looked very professional (some I looked into at the time looked very dodgy! I recently received some correspondence from an Indian based FO/EO supplier/manufacturer that was so poorly written that it was almost incomprehensible! If this is the attention to detail used in their marketing to clients, I would be highly suspect of attention to detail in terms of product consistency). If you are interested send me a PM and I will see if I can chase up ther name of the company on the Nth Cost - but from memory they listed on their site that they do not sell in small quantities so this may make it more difficult (and I think it may have been the reason at the time why I did not pursue them as my EO use is minimal). Cheers, Bart

Sorry to hear of your problems Jonsie - I certainly agree with the suggestion of trying to pull out the wick and inserting another as a first option. I have done this myself on a couple of occasions with success. Product consistency is something at irks me a little and I have provided my view below (for those who don't like rants.....turn away now! ) My personal opinion (and happy to accept that others may not agree) is that our suppliers should NOT change products without disclosure. They claim to know candlemaking and should be well aware of the issues that changing a product without disclosure creates. I have been caught out with being sold products that have been known by the supplier to have changed without disclosure. If it is sold as the same product, I expect it to be. It is not acceptable for them to hide behind the 'you should test everything' disclaimer (...I am not suggesting that testing should not be done, only that it should not be used by manufacturers/suppliers as a get out of jail free card for poor quality control where a KNOWN change has occured). Smaller candlemakers may be able to test everything each time they get a new ingredient delivered. Larger ones cannot. The logistics of using near a third of a 2500ml bottle of FO each time one is delivered to test all products to see it has not changed becomes impractical. For me to test one of every product line in each FO (I use 13) uses just under 33kg of wax - the only practical way for me to manage change is via batch number rather than by the box. Some products due to their nature of manufacture can vary - FO's can be manufactured very consistently from batch to batch if the manufacturer wants to. FO manufacture is not a black art - products can be made consistently very easily. The same technology and science applies to the food flavoring industry (we have managed to keep Coca Cola taste fairly consistent for a long time). I can accept that our suppliers may be innocent in this at times if manufacturers change products without notification - but I DO know that many of the FO suppliers have used gas chromatography to map their FO's and it is extremely easy (for them) to determine if there is any variance from batch to batch. I would be prepared to say that those who use this method are most likely producing a consistent product. Our suppliers should be taking the higher ground and purchasing from these manufacturers who show a commitment to product consistency (I know one of our Oz suppliers is showing signs that they are at least attempting to do this, cannot comment on the other as they have not provided any evidence to suggest they are). I also accept that FO supply is a difficult area for our suppliers - a constant juggling act of demand vs shelf life leaves them in a no win situation at the best of times. (remembering they need to purchase in bulk to make it profitable for both them and us.....the last thing they want is drums of FO sitting out the back for years!). I accept this is not easy for the suppliers, but it could be easier for them if they were more conscious of quality control measures on the products they stock - they may find the purchasing habits of customers may become more consistent as they develop trust in the products. Bart

If I were to have a crack at them it would most likely be containers. I don't really have a burning desire to do them at present (have a lot of other things on the hop at the moment) but after seeing some recently it got me thinking as to how to actually engineer them from a burn perspective. I will certainly have a play with them at some stage, even if it is only with leftover wax from my normal containers just for the fun of experimenting. If i get something I that works well I might consider making it a regular item. Cheers, Bart

Thank you for the excellent reply Stella - Lots of good info in that one. I figured that the most likely scenario would be to know which FO's to use and to use ones that wick very similar to each other. I see so many of these getting around lately I do wonder sometimes how well they have been tested. My personal experience (again based on palm) is that I have roughly 3 different 'wicking' based on my FO's - The majority are what I call 'nomal' and wick in the same range (within a wick or 2 of each other). I have small number that needing wicking up (burn cold), and a small number that wick down (burn hot) compared to normal. These FO's (in my experience) tend to wick hotter or colder than the 'normals' regardless of the wax type, container size, or pillar size. The same FO's will always be a few sizes cooler or hotter in every scenario. The trick with a layered candle would be to match the same ranges together (and ensure they smells are good together). I am not looking at making layered candles (might in the future) was just curious as to how much of an issue it is to get them to burn properly from a technical perspective (I work in a technical background hence my mind gets to thinking how these things actually work!). Thanks again for the excellent response Stella. Cheers, Bart

Hi, I have recently noticed soy container candles getting around my area that are 'layered' with different fragrances from top to bottom (for example, each layer is a different color and fragrance, with up to four layers). Now I am not expert on soy (rarely use it) but it got me to thinking about how these candles are engineered from a burn perspective. I use around 13 different FO's (not in the same candle!) and the burns and wicking requirements are very different from FO to FO and to a lesser extent, color to color (I primarily use palm). We go to a lot of trouble and testing to find the best wick/mix combination for each FO/color combination that we use. How realistic is it to layer, say 4 FO's in the same candle and be able to find a wick that will work throughout the life of the candle? For example, a layer of Red Hot Cinnamon, Cinnamon Vanilla, and Apple Jack & Peel - If individually these candles required quite different wicking, how effective would they be layering them together? I would have thought this would be very difficult to achieve an appropriate burn through each layer (partly from my experience with palm as my 'best' wicks can change greatly from FO to FO). Am I been too 'over the top' in my wicking and testing? or is Soy less temperamental and more suitable to 'one size fits all' type wicking? Bart

My thoughts, The tealight was fragranced, the warmer itself fairly contained with no direct ventilation ( in terms of heat escape). It might not be outside the realm of possibility that the contained heat within the warmer heated things up to the point where the flash point of the FO was met, resulting in ignition of the vapor component of the FO at the melt pool (Temp of melt pool rises, FO vaporises towards flash point, flame provides the point if ignition). Have seen this same thing occur in other scenarious (not candles) but the same theory would apply if the contained heat caused the melt pool to reach the required temp to ignite the FO vapor. I believe this is the reason why fragrances tealights should not be used in warmers. Bart

We are testing at the moment.......40 candles on the test burn bench makes for a lot of aromatics!... ....As much as I love candles I am starting to get 'over' all the combined smells! Bart

Who knows, they may be completely innocent, but what are we expected to think when they claim their systems are foolproof and tested, then take them down and process payments manually through their EFTPOS terminal while they are in the process of upgrading to an e-commerce website? Wouldn't you leave the (alleged) tested tried and proven system in place until you changed over? Only makes me more wary.....Maybe all the candle fumes are getting to me :smiley2: Bart

Most of us in Oz who have dealt with ACS would have received the email from them recently in relation to the credit card scam that appeared to hit many candlemakers (and others) in recent times. The email went into detail about their web security and that it had not been breached, and they have regular scans done to ensure that is doesn't. We have noticed with interest that there is now no option to pay ACS via credit card from their website....Now you have to call them with credit card details to complete the transaction. Makes me wonder if that if their system was as safe and secure as they stated in their email, why wouldn't they continue using their safe system as they did before? Why would you then change it if it was secure and proven? Did anybody get any feedback from the investigation yet? As my amounts were very small (and never actually got taken by the culprits bank) I was advised that I would probably hear nothing further on it. Bart

Hi Susan, I have been wanting something for a long time for wicks as we have found that after we complete testing we find that we use a wide range of wicks across our fragrances - not only variations in wick size but also variations in wick types. We currently use large zip bags and they work ok - our numbers do not allow us to put them in a folder, but if we were not keeping large quantities of some wicks it would probably work fine for us. We will most likely go to plastic draws - We do similar with our dye chips and have it hanging on the wall above the mixing table so they are close at hand when making up batches. HTH Bart

No Worries....Didn't think of the non crystal container palm. I really liked the sound of that wax but being in a single block was a PIA for me so I have not played in that sandpit yet.....although I really would like to at some stage, just not with 'block' wax! Yep....I am hearing you on the broken glassware from Perth - ends up being an expensive exercise in the long run. Too cheap and nasty. Give me a try Wednesday....Am all over the place workwise at the moment with lots happening but if I am free I will answer, otherwise try me later in the day. Cheers, Bart

Out of interest was your container palm the 25kg or 5kg size? Their website has been showing OOS of 25kg for quite some time. As they charge extra for 25kg in the 5kg packages when they have no 25kg (and sometimes when they DO have it but don't want YOU to have it!), I changed to NCS container palm. One thing I will give NCS - If you order a large quantity and they dont have it, they will send you multiple lots of the smaller packaging for the same price (Many times we have been sent 5 x 500ml bottles of FO instead of the 2500ml bottle at the 2500ml pricing, or 10 packets of 10 dye chips to cover an order for a 100 piece pack). This is important to us when working to tight margins and customer orders. They use Verisign - there is an emblem on their site. Like most of these things, it is no guarantee that a site has not been compromised, or any of their data held outside their site. The email seemed out of character for them IMHO, but I am a self confessed cynic. We will direct deposit only from now on. Keen to hear how the glassware and wax goes from the newer supplier. If it is who I think it is I had been eyeing off some of their wax previously for some special items I was thinking of developing in the future. I am very happy with the latest batch if NCS glassware - the quality of product and packaging are excellent. If they can come close to this in price for the same quality they will be gold! Definitely keep us in the loop Richard. Cheers, Bart

Ok....A follow up on this one... As correctly advised by others here I have found that in the greater majority of cases the NCS Lava and ACS Crystal Container palms are extremely close with exception of crystal pattern. We have almost completed testing on most of our lines and found the hourly consumptions to be within 0.1 - 0.3g /hr of each other, HT not noticeably different. Overall my gut feeling is that that the NCS Lava container palm burns very slightly cooler - I have a couple of FO's that burn cold and were wicked 'on the edge' of being too cool with the ACS and were a little too cool with the NCS Lava. Overall the difference is negligible - I still recommend to anybody to do their own testing, but the difference between these two waxes is very small and in most cases the same wicking will work for either (given all other criteria are the same). The crystal pattern is quite different however my customers can live with that....It is the lesser of 2 evils when one or the other stockist runs out of wax! Hope this helps others.:smiley2: Cheers, Bart Hope this helps others

This is great news! I will be keeping an eye on this with interest, am keen to know who their Palm is from - If it is from the same manufacturer as the ones that either NCS or ACS source theirs from they already have an audience of buyers who already use the same wax. In terms of the 464, this might turn out to be a real blessing to east coast makers as freight costs should be a lot cheaper. Keep me in the loop Richard. Bart

Hi Koala, I have not experienced no noticeable difference in burn between the 2 lots of glassware. I think the difference in size is so negligible that it wont really matter. I agree the NCS glassware is of a far superior quality than ACS. The packaging is also suitable for road freight, whereby the packaging of ACS glassware is pallet quality only (They seem to forget that their pallets get broken up and transported as individual boxes by road freight!). ACS refund policy really is laughable - I got credit for the broken items, but because I bought in large quantities it costs me more to replace them than the credit, and still have to pay for them to be freighted again (this is despite their freight company telling ACS that they would re-freight them to me for free). Not again! I would be confident in wicking the same for both brands of glassware if it were me - but as usual I will give the disclaimer that everybody should do their own testing to confirm, but I am wicking the same without issues. Cheers, Bart