rjdaines

I am working with both soy and paraffin wax and, yes, soy can produce "wet spots" in glass containers and will also produce some surface "frosting". Different soy waxes will have varying degrees of the above ranging for none at all to "OMG, that is ugly". Soot productions seems to be a function of the burning process regardless of what the fuel is because of over wicking and improper combustion. Maybe paraffin gets a bad "rap" because it is easier to over wick (burns easier than soy - my observations). As far as the type of toxic products of that combustion, that would depend of the chemical make-up of the wax and the secondary ingredients added (color and fragrance) used. I won't even speculate on what those might me. I would also imagine that adequate room ventilation is important in either case. Just my thoughts.

Too far away for me but if Peaks had an open house I might be able to make that.

I have not had much luck with the CS wick guide but that was with the CB Advanced wax. I have yet to try the ECO wicks. CS is pretty far away from me so shipping costs are higher than from Peaks. I get the impression that the CSN wicks are unique to CS so I'd rather not use a retailers proprietary wick in case one day t goes away. However, I may have to get a sample pack and try. Thanks for the input.

I tried some RRD 37 wicks I had in a sample pack, instant mushrooming. Will remelt and use CD wicks when they arrive.

So far I do like it a lot better it's just a pain to go through the wicking "voyage of discovery" again.

Who does the tabbing and the coating, the manufacturer or the retailer?

I started with CD Advanced and spent weeks/months testing wicks for it with containers, only to discover later that the HT was weak. As good as it looked the people who want candles from me all said "smell vs looks". They'd take an "ugly" smelly candle over a good looking non-fragrant one. So here I am retesting wicks and containers with 464. I have to get something out he door by the end of May that looks reasonable but has HT. I can fine tune the looks part later. So in answer to your questions, the answer is "YES", if it wasn't I'd be happily shipping rather than testing.

Great advise thanks to all, it just so happens that I have some CD wicks on order. CD 5 was going to be one of my first tries, I'm glad to see you reference that wick, I will also try the single CD 20. One other question, in what time frame and depth should I be looking for a FMP in a 4" container? I was thinking 2 to 3 hours and about 1/4" - 1/2".

The melt pool was half an inch deep. I can try an 83 but the flame on these 93s was not large by any means, a little weak actually. I'm thinking a cooler wick if there is such a thing.

Here is the latest test result with GW 464 in a 4" diameter container (8 oz) blue dye (2 drops) and 8% FO, with two HTP 93 wicks (2 sizes down from the yellow candle pictured above. The photos show 2 different angles of a 2 hour burn. The melt pool is 99% full but wicks are very sensitive to being drowned if the melt pool shifts (moving the candle). I wish the flame height was a little higher but this candle should last for a long time with this burn. I could try the HTP 104 wicks which are 1 size up. Your thoughts and comments are appreciated.

All things being equal (i.e. equal performance in a particular wax type), when comparing wicks by rate of consumption could one make a wick substitution and expect reasonable equivalent performance based on these data? In other words for example, if I am using a HTP wick with a ROC of 0.18 could I switch it with a CD wick with the same ROC and expect similar burn performance? Of course, then checked with rigorous testing. Thanks

If you want to explore another soy wax try GW 464. I just started working with it and while the finished tops are not a nice as CB Advanced the fragrance throw is much, much better.

I think you are referring to the HTP 126. In terms of wicking history, I started with the LX series for soy and did not like my results. By the time I got a full melt pool with one the mushrooming was awful. I've been very happy with the HTP wicks but should true the CD/CDN wicks some time. At some point one gets tired of test and wants to get to making. I just poured the new tester with the HTP 93 wicks and remelted the first one. I'll report back in a couple of days.

I agree and had always planned to triple wick a straight-walled container but because of the taper towards the mouth I'm only working with about 3". I think 3 wicks would look a little crowded, however, I will certainly keep it in mind if the two HTP 93s don't work out. Thanks for the advice.

My double wick in the 4" container with GW 464 turned out to be a little too hot (unless you want a fast full melt pool) :-) I will wick down and try 2 HTP 93s next. It actually feels good to wick down, gives you more options if future colors or FO cause problems.

Container is 4" in diameter. I agree with the over wick, just had to start somewhere. One down would be the HTP 104s which are pretty close to the 105s, the next choice is HTP 93 which would agree with some data that I have seen. I will try that next. The cooled melt pool of the 464 is still not as pretty as the CD Advanced but the thrown scent is wonderful. Thanks for the input.

I am doing my own testing of GW 464, the target container is either an 8 oz or 16 oz apothecary jar (Peaks). I tried an single HTP 1212 wick and it never developed a full melt pool (no FO, no color). Not wanting to wick up further I opted for a double. Chose HTP 105s (a guess). New test candle has yellow color and Beach Daisey FO (8%). It solidified very smooth and had a great cold throw. A 2-day cure was all I did as I can wick testing rather than HT testing. Here are the results of a 90 minutes initial burn. I know that the melting point of this wax is low and am thinking that I could wick down to HTP 104s, worth a try but I am not unhappy with the flame height, just the melt pool thickness. Curious as to what you all think.

Isn't this what palm wax does, tunnel?

What is the diameter of the jar you are trying to wick? I just started working on an 8 oz and a 16 oz apothecary jar, both are 4" in diameter and filled with GW 464. I too tried the HTP 1212 and it failed to get a full melt pool (an any hours of burn), I have rewicked with 2 HTP 105s. Not sure what wax you are using as this is not the Veggie Wax section of the forum. After another day or so or curing I will light them up. My feeling is that whatever wick(s) will work in the 8 oz should also be fine in the 16 oz.

I am testing 464 for the first time myself in 8 oz and 16 oz apothecary jars (4" max diameter); best guess for wick was HTP 1212 based on my experience with 3 " CD Advanced. Not getting a complete melt pool. I could go one wick size higher but am now leaning towards a double wick set up. Since the mouth of the jar tapers in from the widest diameter, I am now concerned about the placement of double wicks. Only thing I can do is to try it. NO FO or color has been added at this points, so adding those will not make the melt pool any better.

There is a similar thread/discussion here: http://www.craftserver.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97337&highlight=survival

I'd be curious to hear what the chemistry is as to why most FO don't work with CBA and what changes can be done to make them compatible. Keep us updated about the mixing experiment.

When originally choosing between CBA and CBX, the reviews on the CS website swayed me to CBA. As a newer product, I guess I am waiting to hear more reviews, since I already own pounds of CBA, it might be fun to try some mixing experiments until I see more positive reports. Now, however, the CBX bug is in my brain and I may have to get some.

Newbie question: what is USA (other than the country)? I should be getting some 464 this week, after I see what the pure stuff does, adding some CBA will be on my list of fun experiments to try.

Wow, that photo of the palm wax pillar is awesome. I think i have 10 lbs of palm pillar wax somewhere in the closet. That blue color is great. Thanks for sharing.