EricofAZ

Did you know a bicycle could cost $28,500 or more? The Colnago Ferrari was in that price range. Here is a USED Colnago Ferrari tandem mountain bike. http://cgi.ebay.com/Colnago-Ferrari-MTB-Bicycle-/190385190572?pt=Road_Bikes&hash=item2c53d776ac I remember when my father was stunned that an automobile cost more than the house. (1965) I wonder what he would say if he were alive today to read that a bicycle cost more than a house and candle cost more than his first airplane (he bought an Aeronca K when he was a kid on a farm for less than the candle) Yeah, we are undercharging for our candles, however, we are honest and not gouging.

Judy, yes, but quite frankly, I'm not seeing very many cases where chandlers were popped for negligence. I think it is more of a fear factor than actual statistics regarding insurance payouts. Homeowner insurance will pay the loss of the home (about 15,000 a year if I read the stats right) and probably will not sue the chandler in subrogation. The family that suffered injury might find that few if any attorneys know how to handle a case against a chandler and get turned down. If a person who suffered a loss had a big company like Faberge or Yankme to go after, then there are a ton of defenses.... 1) There was a warning not to leave the candle unattened. 2) Warning to burn less than 4 hours, not to place near flammable objects, etc... Then an analysis by the attorney about how the fire started and if it started because of failure to pay attention to the warning, etc. If a candle just flat out blows up (mfgr used alcohol FO, or some homebrew napalm gel wax) then OK, there's a case. But I'm pretty certain that very few attorneys will know how to take a "gee, it was wicked too hot" case. Still, all it takes is one to make us feel bad.

Domain name and Host are two different issues. Failure to pay the Domain name = website forfeiture and all the spammers can bid on the name. Failure to pay the host fee is less severe and results in a website suspension. The site is owned as long as the domain name is paid. It is hosted only as long as the host fee is paid. Hope that helps. Best I can see from visiting the website is they are behind in the Hosting fee. Oddly enough, the host is CedarTreeWebHosting http://www.cedartreewebhosting.com/ Which appears to be a specialty host that deals with JustByNature and a handful of others. This is an in-house hosting from what I can tell, meaning that someone decided not to hire a host company and set up a static IP and host server. They claim to host over 1.3 million websites. Well, given the opening page of the host, I seriously doubt that. Some of the other links on the host site did work. Whatever is going on, I don't see a lot of professionalism here with the host.

Ah, but you get to go to work tomorrow! I like to joke at the office "Everyone who wants a job in the morning come to the conference table for file review." Or my personal favorite on Friday at 4:50 p.m. "Go ahead, take the rest of the day off. Heck, take the next two day's off!" She'll remember, even if she doesn't express it. You worked hard for a scent. Dunno if the name of the scent will send the wrong message, but I'm sure she likes it. By the way, all the "Egyptian Musk" scents that I tried are terribly lame. The Egyptian Dragon was the closest to what I was looking for and would have been my correct choice for your challenge. Thanks for telling us. I appreciate hearing back since this was a bit of a mystery.

Seriously? I'd select a wick with a smaller flame height.

Ok, here's my project. I have the wick pretty much sorted out. CD8 in IGI 6006 burns pretty well in this container. This is a one pound (wax) container that is probably only at 14.5 ounces due to the airspace around the flower. It is a blend of colors and FO's. FO is Briar Rose on the flower and Pink Sugar for the rest. The yellow dye will mix with the red to make a Hot Pink blend. I appreciate suggestions. Here is what I have noticed so far: The briar rose irritates me and doesn't mix well with the pink sugar. I'm toying with regular rose scent (lighter). It burns off quickly because the rose melts fast. So the rose scent fades with the flowers that the lucky lady got and turns to pink sugar. I might make the rose red and the mid layer yellow. Also thinking about other combos. Chocolate colored flower with chocolate scent. Yellow layer in the middle or all the way down with vanilla. Should mix to an ivory color and chocolate / vanilla. The wick burns fine, but there is some smoke when blown out and some small shroom as well on long burns. Any thoughts? I might try an ECO that has the same ROC as the CD.

I think we are confusing two bodies of law ---- criminal and civil. And confusing jurisdictions --- Federal, State, Local. There are two major bodies of law, criminal and civil (and in some circumstances, administrative law, but warning labels I don't think fall under any administrative agencies). Ok, so maybe there is no criminal statute regarding warning on a federal level (though I shudder to say no when I have not researched all 372,917,274 pages of the Federal register). I am absolutely certain that we all have a civil duty and civil law is law. You won't go to jail for violating civil law, just pay money when the verdict is for the plaintiff. That said, a quick look at chandler cases seems to be few and far between. You have my interest here so I'll try to do a bit more research. I came across one case from 1975 where Faberge was sued because a kid decided that a candle was not scented and poured perfume in the melt pool. It spewed forth and hurt another kid. Court said that Faberge failed to warn because it had no warning about flammability on the label. The chemist for Faberge was aware of the flammability of the perfume and aware that it might be a big problem if the product was near a flame. The warning was not about "Hey, don't put this in a lit candle." It was about "Warning! Flammable!" That simple, and neglected. Moran v. Faberge Inc., 273 Md. 538, 332 A.2d 11 (Md.App. 02/03/1975). So nobody at Faberge violated any criminal statutes and nobody went to jail, but the company did have to pay by Jury verdict as a matter of law for its failure to warn over a very basic issue - flammability. Here's a quote from the appeals decision; "To begin with we note that a manufacturer's duty to produce a safe product, with appropriate warnings and instructions when necessary, is no different from the responsibility each of us bears to exercise due care to avoid unreasonable risks of harm to others." I really think that says it all. But just in case we don't "get it" the court went on to say more... (oh, and the word chattle means property or in this case, a product). ----------------------------------------------------------- "Whether any such unreasonable risk exists in a given situation depends on balancing the probability and seriousness of harm, if care is not exercised, against the costs of taking appropriate precautions. However, we observe that in cases such as this the cost of giving an adequate warning is usually so minimal, amounting only to the expense of adding some more printing to a label, that this balancing process will almost always weigh in favor of an obligation to warn of latent dangers, if the manufacturer is otherwise required to do so." "Since the cost factor here undisputedly would be of minimal consequence, the question then needing to be answered is, when does the responsibility to warn arise? A somewhat helpful starting point in this inquisition may be Restatement, Second, Torts § 388 (1965) which specifies:" "Chattel Known to be Dangerous for Intended Use One who supplies directly or through a third person a chattel for another to use is subject to liability to those whom the supplier should expect to use the chattel with the consent of the other or to be endangered by its probable use, for physical harm caused by the use of the chattel in the manner for which and by a person for whose use it is supplied, if the supplier (a) knows or has reason to know that the chattel is or is likely to be dangerous for the use for which it is supplied, and ( has no reason to believe that those for whose use the chattel is supplied will realize its dangerous condition, and © fails to exercise reasonable care to inform them of its dangerous condition or of the facts which make it likely to be dangerous." ____________________________________________ So we have reason to believe that those who light fire to a candle know about the dangers of fire, slightly different issue than above, but do they know to not leave them unattended? Or not let them burn to the bitter end in one shot? I'm not so sure about that since many people burn candles for light at night, etc.

Gee, I typed a good response and it disappeared. Ok, here's take two: In the U.S., civil lawsuits about injury from candles are based on tort law. Tort law requires four parts to be met to make a valid lawsuit. 1) there has to be a duty owed to the other person. 2) there has to be a breach of that duty. 3) there has to be damages. 4) the damages have to be caused by the breach of the duty. Think of it as Duty, Breach, Damages, Causation. Remove one of those and the defendant should be off the hook. The duty comes from two primary sources. One is statutes. If there is a regulation in your State or a Federal code/statute that requires a chandler to warn, then that statute will establish the duty. If not, look to appeals level court cases. Appeals cases also establish a duty by commonlaw. If no caselaw or statutory law on point, then the next is "foreseeability" meaning that if you make a product and the industry (not you, but the industry of chandlers in general) foresees a harm and fails to warn, then a damage from that harm might be enough. What do we foresee? Well, we foresee that folks might not attend their candles as they should. Warn to attend the candle. What do we not foresee? Um, we don't foresee that someone will build a spaceship and launch our candle into the sun and cause an implosion thereby estinguishing life on Earth so don't warn against that. (I make fun because I know a company that made a coffee cup and mailed it with a 16 page "operator's manual" designed to warn about everything including the extinction of life on earth.) So aside from the standard and common warnings (attend the candle, don't burn more than 4 hours, etc), I print the website www.candles.org/safety.html on my labels. Of course, you can eliminate many of the problems just by building a candle that works right (doesn't overheat, throw sparks, in a stable container, etc.). For the rest of the problems (too close to curtains, burning unattended under a cupboard) you have to warn and direct that folks go read the rules. Is there a requirement? Yes. We do have to warn.

May I ask what the difficulty is with the tureen jars? I am just switching to them (11 oz and 6 oz size) because they have some character to the shape and rather inexpensive. So far, the wicking is going OK. I did notice that different FO amounts does tend to require a wick change. CD 6 and CD 8 are both close. CD7 might be perfect. I might try similar ROC of the ECO's just to see if they shroom a bit less.

I make 3" diameter pillars out of Feathering palm and use a #4 square braid. It seems to work fine for shorter or longer burns. It pools to within 1/8 inch of the edge and tunnels down within a few hours and a power burn tends to cause the tops to cave in on it. On rare occasion, like a 12 hour burn, it will open the side wall and leak out a bit.

Dunno if it is sticky, but General Wax sells micro http://www.generalwax.com/wax/specialty-candle-wax/c___61.html Candlewic has two micro's but they advertise them as additives. http://www.candlewic.com/store/category.aspx?q=c11&title=Candle%20Wax%20Additives

Sometimes I use the Kerr wide mouth. Embossing is single (one side) so there's room for the label. I put my warning on the bottom as well, and a label on the lid, but I put the FO on the side just in case someone gets the lids mixed up. Same thing, the local grocery store has them for a reasonable price, no shipping. I am, however, changing over to Tureen jars because they are wider for the size and I believe that means larger melt pool and better HT. Wicking them seems to be a bit of a challenge compared to the kerr.

I'm not sure they burn cool. I just posted a mushroom pick of a zinc in the candle gallery. Maybe if you compare the same size cotton core with the same size zinc, there is a smaller flame, but that's all I can speculate on.

Come on, let's see your best 'shroom pics! I know you have them. I read where zinc burned cooler and was less prone to mushrooms so I installed a 51-32-18-Z in a 11 oz Tureen jar with J50 and Blue Spruce and this is what it looked like after a 12 hour power burn. I thought about painting the leaves (er, fragrance love handles) but, hey, I'm on a new kick to try and actually get a life. Kinda reminds me of the tests in the 70's to manufacture jet fuel that does not burn in a crash (yeah, like jet fuel that doesn't burn really isn't worth much). The tests were some of the more spectacular explosions anyone has ever witnessed. But I digress...

Well, I appreciate the concern that is threaded through this thread. Chandlers have an age old secret that is passed down generation to generation. The internet tends to offend those secrets (National Treasure). I have noticed that even the most expensive "candle secrets" books are just nothing more than introductory recipe writings. On one hand, sharing some of the truth about testing and waxes can debunk and expose the expensive "fraud" books. I say "fraud" because I refer to very cursory introductory books that claim to be master's secrets when in fact, they are not even to the level as this forum. On the other hand, I agree with some of the above comments that we give away too much too quickly to new members. And, by the number of posts, I am a new member. What strikes me about this is that the "jump in and get rich quick" folks, aka "I want to operate a crane" folks, still will not get it right from this forum. Oh, the info is correct, but the operation is a bit more complex. So I'm not too concerned about the folks who dash by and get a freebie and open a candle company. At some point they will regret it. If they are smart enough to really figure this out, then it will only be after a lot of personal trials and they hopefully will have info to share with the rest of us. Case in point: I have a bunch of pillars out there and I pulled back and melted the ones with white dye to make firestarters because when the wick hits the white dye portion, it chokes. (more on this in a new thread) Also case in point: Despite having a good wick for a particular application, I have learned that it smokes too much when blown out (vs. being dipped). So I found a replacement after testing 5 different types of wicks and 3 or 5 sizes each. I am of the belief that a chandler knows their wax and their dyes and their wicks and their EO's and their FO's and their containers and their moulds and there is only one way to accomplish that ... lots of testing and personal experience, a good memory, notes, some CO-Q-10, and attention to detail. Wessex is right, we gave away a lot to folks who have not contributed to this forum. I read and participated in some of the threads and think better of it now. However, sharing is something that we should not be stingy about with those who contribute. I wish a wonderful 2011 to all.

Hmmm, one ounce for $2.50 or purchase 3 gallons. Bummer, but at least they have the name.

Anyone ever see a dupe of this? 3/4 oz rum 3/4 oz orange liquor 1 oz mango juice 1 oz guava juice 1/2 oz lemon juice 1 oz passion fruit Shake over ice and strain into chilled glass. I found it at the dollar store in the A&E Oils selection but whatever is in that mix doesn't combine with wax very well. This has a bit of a peach smell to it, IMHO. Thanks

Iwantitgreen, I haven't used the eco's that much yet to really answer your question. So far my testing has focused on whether or not the wick smokes excessively when blown out and the Eco's seem to be the best I've tested. I did a power burn in palm the other day, 12 hours. Wick self trimmed. I did not need to center it, it stayed in the right place. However, the wick was too small. It was in a 3.5 inch diameter container and the Eco 10 tunneled at 2.6 inches. (The same container with paraffin is just fine with an Eco 10, maybe even an Eco 8.)

Ravens, Recovery from what? Candleholicism? Come on, you're a candleholic like the rest of us. Einstein likes any kind of string, especially the kind that people wiggle and dance in front of her.

Annnnnnnnnnddddddddd, Judy gets the cigar! Ok, I measured my tabs and learned that I have a bunch of 20mm base with 3mm height and 3mm diameter. The same at Candle Science that Judy posted. My 6mm height are only 2.5mm diameter, which seems to be the problem because that is what I use the most. So, the Eco 10 did thread through the 3mm diameter just fine. I'll remember this when the new and larger wicks arrive (ordered today). Thanks. I'd really like to get my hands on a 4mm diameter tab.

Einstein is doing fine. She was very interested in a recent project where I organized my wicks and put the spools away but rolled up a small supply in an organized container. She seemed to like them all but pounced on the Eco's so I think she's getting closer to solving the mystery of String Theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

Anyone know where I can buy safety tabs with a large hold in them? Eco 10's don't thread through very easy with all the stuff that candlewic and lone star sell. I had to soak in palm and roll it to get it to go and I might be upwicking to 12 or 14 for a 3.5 inch palm container. Thanks.

More testing results. Size too large = shroom (as everyone knows). Scaling down to a size that works for the diameter... Zinc is the worst for the parafin IGI wax that I used. Followed by the Yaley series Followed by LX series Followed by the numbered series like 44-24-18 cotton core which were pretty average. CD series was average along with square taper series. The best was Eco series. Very little smoke and soot when blown out. No 'shrooms.

It's OK, take a deep breath and enjoy the season.

In every business there is someone that jumps in that is not yet seasoned or qualified. I remember reading a story in the newspaper when I was a kid (yeah, that was in the late 60's or early 70's) about a crane operator. The reporter asked him how he was able to get such an interesting job operating a crane that built our first skyscraper (22 stories). He said he was self taught. One day he realized that he wanted to operate cranes so he applied and didn't get a job. Then he applied again to another company and got fired the first day. Then he applied to another company and was fired in 3 days. Then he applied to another company and lasted 2 weeks before getting fired. Eventually he lasted a few months and learned the business. Then got fired. Then he got hired in our town and did a right fine job. I've seen this in aviation and marine jobs as well. Not a surprise at all that in soap and candle making there are folks who dive in wide eyed and bushy tailed. Hopefully they don't hurt someone.