rjdaines

YaY, I was burning 464 with Blueberry Muffin (Peaks) earlier and I could smell that too.

I'm burning 6006 (Lilac) 8 oz 3" round jar with a CD-18, it's burning well and smelling. Will try a CD-16 next time.

It's weird that "Natural" has come to mean "non-toxic" & "healthy" considering that the following substances are also "Natural": arsenic, rattlesnake venom, bella donna, nightshade, opium, black widow spider venom, crude oil, tornados, lightning, etc...

The power of marketing. At one time "natural" had a negative association, plastics was all the rage for example, people shunned "natural" products for the modern, plastic replacements; who wanted paper bags 15 years ago. My mother was told that breast milk was "bad" for me and the new formulas were superior. Natural child birth was even unpopular for a time in recent history. It's all marketing.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]21911[/ATTACH] is that enough to worry about, or do I need to try another wick? first time with HTP wicks

Burn the candle all the way and then decide. The candle is a dynamic system that changes it characteristics throughout the burn, only when you view the whole process can that me determined (unless one make a super obvious mistake). I would guess that your may be fine but keep testing.

I am having good luck with IGI 4625 as a pillar wax and even tried a few votives with it but it's a bit hard for that application.

Another wick company is Fil-Tech. Haven't tried their wick challenge but they claim they will test your wax and candle application and find the perfect wick for you. They are also the company that produced the wicks used in the candles for the film Pirates of the Carribean. The candles had to burn within the strict parameters required by the film's production company.

Here's Fil-Techs link: http://www.candle-wicking.com/index.html

And they do this for free? I'll check out the website and the movie...

Still very early into the burn, isn't the rule of thumb to burn 1 hour per inch diameter? If you don't get a FMP after 3 hours it might catch up later as the wax level goes down. I am still waiting to test burn mine. I will be trying with CD wicks. I had to put them in a cabinet, out of sight out of mind. I assume that 6006 required some amount of cure time.

Suppose so, since candles are not found in nature. One can then talk about the components of the candle as being "natural" or not, which is what we have been talking about.

I just poured to 8 oz containers with 6006 (my first time) heated to 190 and poured at 170, cooled at RT (75F) and saw the same concave surface that HorsescentS see. These are testers so I don't care but I may heat gun one to see what it does. No sink holes. Love the sheen on the candle, hope they burn and throw well.

I use HL paraffin wax and the label says low oil content. I interpret that to mean that it can't hold a lot of oil. I have found that 3% (by weight) is about all it can handle 13 grams per 454 grams of wax). One ounce is 28.53 grams so you are about twice what I use. What is you mixing procedure? The FO and wax may also not be throughly mixed and if the wax can't hold that much oil, it may be pooling in places. Just my thoughts.

Are you making pillars with this wax?

Brand of paraffin? Some brands that I use won't hold that much scent and will "sweat" it out from the tops and the sides. Is this what you are seeing? Wiping it away solves this but think of the fragrance oil one is wasting.

The heat gun is your friend! Fill the candle a little fuller than usual because when you heat gun it to fill the sink hole, the candle level will go down some. Great wax!

I am going to find out tomorrow, going to melt some and make a candle or two.

Thanks so much for the links! I can't believe me & my animals have been eating soy meal & oil that were immersed in HEXANE!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexane

Unfortunately that is true Horsescents, being a vegetarian I was appalled when I found that out. I wrote to a soy food manufacturer and presented this issue, the nice email I got back should a chemical analysis of the final product which indicated that hexane was no longer detectable in the extracted soy protein. Hexane is used in the extraction of the soy protein from the soy meal and is used for products like veggie burgers and textured soy protein. Not to take up any more candle space but there is nothing natural about these modified foods we eat either.

Natural, to me, means it is found in nature. Palm wax and soy wax are not found in nature, the respective oils are. They are indeed made in a lab or manufacturer plant where they are refined and hydrogenated (a nickel catalyst is involved). That really doesn't smack of "natural" to me. One can claim that the starting materials are natural but the final product is a man-made material; because they are not found in nature.

As we are seeing in other active threads right now, the use of soy as a "greener" and more sustainable product is based (in part) on myth and false claims and the demand for soy candles is partly driven by the villainizing of paraffin. I would like to use soy in my candles but only if it works to my expectations of how a candle should look and perform. My vision is to have a platform that provides the greatest pleasure to the greatest number of people, whether that is just me or dozens. The measure of pleasure is also not an easy metric as it varies from person to person, however, some simple ones would include a reasonable range of FO that throw well, clean burning, and a visually appealing container (beginning, middle and end). Less than that is just making excuses for a product that really isn't and "greener" than paraffin. Let's not even mention the carbon pollution issue, who know, there may even be a carbon tax on candles and California will probably ban them...

Let me think here, wax (paraffin or vegetable) is a long chained hydrocarbon molecule and therefore organic in the biochemical sense. How can one distinguish between organic (carbon-based) versus Organically grown? (Tongue in cheek). :tiptoe:

I am using 3 and 4 inch containers with 464 @ 6% - 8% (tho I am having hot throw issues) and use a CD-18 in the 3" (rounded-side) and double CD-5s in the 4" apothecary (straight sides). The 3" does get a full melt pool but has some wax residue the sides and will clean up fairly well at the end. The double wicked container does very well. I don't think soy will ever leave sides as clean as paraffin but i could (and am) usually wrong. I have not been able to single wick the 4" with LX, HTP, ECO or CD wicks. Going too large a wick just seems to lead to mushrooming.

For example, do you wear a bra?

Only when my wife is not looking...

I've pondered this exact question, seems that if you can collect the wax in nature without having to chemically hydrogenate it, then you have a natural wax. Bee's wax and Bayberry com to mind. Too expensive for most folks and you are stuck with whatever burn characteristics are inherent in that wax, not to mention seasonal variability. If paraffin comes from oil, wasn't it at one time a "natural" product? We used to think dead dinosaurs made the oil reserves but probably something less exciting like plankton and algae. People turn of their nose's to paraffin because it is a by-product (read waste in people's minds) whereas soy is a pretty green plant. We won't go into the fact that rainforest's are cut and burned to produce acreage for soy in South America and, yes, I know that some soy waxes are all US beans. However, the global demand for soy is what drives this so buying US produced soy does not specifically alleviate this trend because we can't export soy that we domestically grow if we use it all up.

Sorry for the tangent.

If soy oil can be used in it's natural form, then you'd have a natural soy product.

Bitter Creek South has then with 3mm neck and I believe Nature's Garden has them with 6mm.

Have you tried GB 464? It's not perfect by any means and it seems that one still have to pick and choose FO that work well with it but is it a darn sight better than CB-A.

Dang, I just had an order come in from Lonestar, I should have gotten a sample of that FO. At what temp did you add the FO? I light the dark photo, very nice.

I've been using a variety of FO with 464, some seem to throw well and others don't. Now, I've been blaming this on the soy but maybe I am being unfair as I don't have a "control" in regards to have strong or weak the FO is. So my question is: I'd like to use a paraffin-based wax as the reference standard and compare it's CT/HT to the 464's. Can anyone recommend a wax (I buy from Peaks if that matters) that would make a good comparison for the 464?

Thanks

I am still testing this container single wicked with the 464 and am so far pleased with ECO-16, a little mushroomy but not bad actually. I will try the next size down (ECO-14) too.

Day two with this wick and it looks terrible, a small and feeble flame which is barely making a 2" melt pool. Very disappointing.

I am still testing this container single wicked with the 464 and am so far pleased with ECO-16, a little mushroomy but not bad actually. I will try the next size down (ECO-14) too.