Over/under wicked?

[Forrest]

I have a lot of knowledge that I gained from reading this board, but there is no substitute for experience, and sometimes I need help from those with the experience I lack. The 8oz tin has 6006 with a 51 zinc and NG Vanilla Champagne, it had been burning three hours. I’m thinking that I need to up wick this one, probably due to the Vanilla. The jar is four hours into the second burn test, it has 6006 with no FO and a CD10. I tested had this with a CD6 and after four hours I had a very small flame and a 2 inch MP. I’m thinking this looks over wicked and I may need to retry the CD6 and trim my wick a little longer. What do you think?

[TallTayl]

Is the last half of the jar that makes all the difference. That shape of jar could be over or under wicked as it continues. The only way to know is to burn it to the end.

 

Some of mine that I swear are under wicked in the first half are way over wicked in the last half.

[Trappeur]

Well, it's so hard to tell looking down on that tin Forest instead of looking through glass walls....but I would burn that all the way to the end.   It could look underwicked now, but as you know the further down it burns the more it's going to catch up.   For example  the other day I burned a 8oz tin that I used to use cd 12's, then went to 10's and now I can't believe that now the tin takes an 8!.....Mine looked just like yours does now.....Now the throw....well, I wasn't impressed....still need to test some more.

 

The glass jar that you started with a cd 6 and went to a 10....well I would keep going on that one too.   I would say looking at it without your further burning it, it is over wicked.   Generally, when I test in a jar and I have really clean sidewalls such as yours I know it is pretty generally over wicked.  I like to have residue in the first few burns on the sidewalls as they are going to clean up eventually....Have you tried the cd 7 or 8 yet?......Another thing I'm thinking about getting is some cdn's as inbetween sizes.

 

Now this is just my opinion.

 

Trappeur

[Trappeur]

lol, Tall Tayle and I posted same time and we both said same thing......well, at least I'm on track knowing she said same thing too...

 

Trappeur

[Trappeur]

ok, I have been holding back posting my opinion and asking of questions (see below) for quite a long time now ever since I have been seeing people testing containers without fragrance and now I'm just going to come right out and ask.....so here goes...

 

I simply don't understand the jest of why the suggestion of when making a candle why would you do all these tests (without) any fragrance?????

Sure, I could understand you doing it if you were making candles without scent, but your not?????Your going through all these testings and you are still going to final thing make these candles with fragrance so why would you waste your time doing this???  It serves no purpose the way I see it except you have wasted time .....you know?   So my question is like I said I see the answer is supposed to be to learn about your wax.....ok, so what have you learned???lol...   I'm not trying to be a hard ball here, believe me....but what am I missing that I have these questions ??   What I have learned if that was my candle I was testing is really nothing...really...There is no difference between testing without fragrance versus with fragrance what so ever.   When you finally find your wick for the unscented candle, it will be great...ok...no problem there.   So now what happens?  You have to start all over again because now you will have added fragrance and any additives like dye or uv or whatever.   Can you understand my question where I'm coming from?

 

I have seen the posts over and over and the answers that go up is "to learn about your wax".......

So after you figure out what wick you are going to finalize in on that jar how did this testing help you out being that you now are going to move on to a "scented" candle?  Hey Forest, I'm sorry I made a guinea pig out of you with these questions, but I hope you do know I by no means am insulting you or anything like that or putting you down at all...I just wanted to clarify that....I'm just not that type of person and would never intentionally go and chastise anyone even though it seems like I am here...lol...but I'm not...so please know that again just for the record.   I have learned so much from this board when I joined years and years ago and continually to do so but I can honestly say in the 12 plus years and longer that I have been making candles, I have never seen on this site until this past year or so, that the right way to learn about things, that this is a good thing that should be done.   I'm sorry I just never have seen that...that's all.   I guess I should have asked Tall Tayle this question instead of posting here, but I know she will come and enlighten me so I could understand better.   I have such limited experience in making candles unlike her as she really knows everything about everything when it comes to candles.

 

Well now I have asked the questions I have been wanting to ask for so long.

 

Trappeur

 

[Forrest]

First off there isn’t a right way and a wrong, all ways shall be judged by their results. There is a way that we do things at NASA. The technical term for what we are doing is establishing a baseline. So in this case my baseline is a 51 zinc in an 8oz tin, I tested a bunch of wicks to get there. Always testing without FO allows me to compare my test results. When I burn a new FO in the tin I’ll always start with a 51 zinc and wick up or down base on how that first candle burns. I suspect most FO will work with my baseline wick. I’m not sure I see any benefit to using FO in my testing. I lack the experience and intuition that you have so I have to follow a process. I would say that you should ignore what other people are doing, because what you are doing is clearly working. BTW did you recognize the jar? I found a case on eBay at a good price.  

[TallTayl]

here's what took me many $$$ and years to learn: candle making is chemistry. Wax, FO, wicks, etc are all variables. Candle wax has been the biggest, most expensive variable since soy changed. Following the fragrance lab fires, reformulated fragrance is becoming an equally big variable to candle safety.

 

If I were to only ever make one fragrance, in one wax, in one container, then testing with the one fragrance from the get go may make sense... until one of those variables changes. If suddenly my candle tin goes completely liquid during the first burn how could I pinpoint if it were a problem with the wax or the fragrance? How many customers would be endangered if I did not know?

 

In 2016 when soy changed, had I not tested the wax when it arrived I would have had to recall a couple of thousand candles. It would have bankrupted me. The soy wax which once burned perfectly with a set of wicks was now wildly off potentially causing candle fires in people's homes.

 

Every single lot number of soy wax received in my shop over the last 24 months has been different - often several wick sizes different. TO keep testing to a minimum I buy much more wax at a time to keep within the same lot number.  Each lot number gets printed in a code on the candle label. Makes it easy to recall if needed.

 

Just last week a new bottle of fragrance caused a test candle to be "off". I knew it was the fragrance because I already eliminated the wax as the problem. It took 100 grams of wax in a tin and a few hours of burning to know for certain the problem was the fragrance. Cost me less than $1 to know for certain. My insurance agent is thankful to know we follow procedural testing.

 

In your other thread asking about wicking 464, have you eliminated the fragrance as a variable in why your tin went liquid? Does the naked wax do the same with that same wick?

[birdcharm]

@Trappeur, I asked a similar question at some point, as I've always tested with fragrance oil included -- but, I'm already familiar with the waxes and wicks I'm using.  I think that probably plays into this a bit as to whether or not to test a new container with or without scent.  When I first pondered it, it was explained to me as it's been explained to you just now and it makes sense if you don't know your wax/wick and similar container variable good enough to first test without scent, but I think for those of us who already have a good feel for things, it might be a different story.

 

[Sponiebr]

I don't normally come in here but this is kinda interesting... 

I see what Trapp is saying, if you have x container with x wax why not perfect the candle to finished specs per candle? And that's fine as far as I can see, but TT makes a good point with 

6 hours ago, TallTayl said:

until one of those variables changes.

Using Trapp's method at minimum you'd have to run a test batch of unscented candles wicked at the same size as the final product that went wonky to see if it was the wax or the FO. 


Using TT's method you would know that it had to be the FO. 


Hell I don't make candles and either case could be also the wick and/or the container in play but from a materials standpoint baselines are industry standard in everything. I have no idea how you would establish baselines for FO's because they have to be incorporated into a wax to work (in candle making), but if it could be done that would be great. 

Considering how these wax suppliers are changing the formulations with the same label and not informing ANYONE about it, HOW can you NOT test these wacko soy and palm waxes? 

During the hurricane last year I was reduced to having to use some of these soy candles and frankly I was HORRIFIED. These were commercial candles (my mother bought them) that popped, sputtered, spit, and danced with a WHOP-WHOP-WHOP staccato that was creepy at best, but they also heated up the containers and threw out so much soot I hated to use them at all. The wax was all soft and mushy and nasty greasy gritty mess that reminded me of chapstick that had been doped into beach sand, but with soot and stank... The jars got all liquid after a long burn. 2" deep MP and somehow I didn't think that was "normal". (Not that I know anything about normal) 

So, I didn't use them at all after the hurricane. Instead I made my own crisco and mineral oil lamps, and one of these used a pipe cleaner as a wick. (don't do that BTW, the wire in the pipe cleaner heats up the whole container *through* the fuel. I got away with it because I was using a LARGE shallow pyrex dish and there was enough cooling with a small flame to keep the thing from bursting into flame. The flame also gets bigger as the fuel is used up because the wick doesn't burn. SO DON'T DO THAT.) 

But just from my point of view I'd say as far as CYA is concerned having a baseline for your wax is a very good idea. FO's are CRAZY in soap so I can only imagine how bizarre they act when you set fire to them.  I mentioned in some other threads that TT helped me reformulate my soap and it's great so far, but every single batch I have made since the change over has been a "test" batch size. I test every batch of my soap by actually bathing with it, and if the next morning I wake up looking like Frosty the Flake Man I pitch the soap. It's done. FAIL!  If it passes, I put it out for circulation. But every batch has to be made at a "test" batch size until I make sure all of my FO's are compatible with the new formulation. I have made literally hundreds of unscented bars of "test" soap to get established baselines on all sorts of formulations. If something DOES go sideways I KNOW immediately what the problem is if it's in the same batch of oils, or at least WHERE to start looking for the problem if it's a different batch of oils.  

Like I said, I normally don't belong here in chandler's land but establishing baselines is a universal concept. From a liability standpoint baselines are the only option.  
 

Just my tuppence. 

Sponiebr
The Executor of Bad Ideas and Sundry Services

 

[Trappeur]

I've read and reread everyone's explanations to the questions I asked and am trying to understand in my mind what was said and I'm still confused.  I guess because I'm not scientist savvy to fully comprehend what has been said.

 

  You say you need to figure out a baseline.....

So what is considered  the baseline in a wax that has no fragrance in it?

When you test an unfragranced wax side by side with one that has fragrance in it, don't you use different size wicks?   Isn't that an automatic "know" that it stands without reason any wax fragranced is an automatic wick change meaning you know wicking an unfragranced candle is not the same as a fragranced one?

 

So what "variable" are you looking for in just the raw wax that tells you something about how to wick a fragranced one?

Doesn't raw wax perform differently than one that has fragrance in it?

 

So are you all saying that you make an unfragranced tester and let that cure for 2 weeks also before lighting it?    Is there a cure time for that??  So when you have a tester made in "unfragranced" wax do you continually test all the different size wicks till you get the right one and then do you all start over now and start testing with fragrance?   So I'm assuming that raw wax has it's own set of wick sizing  that notes are kept on versus the fragranced wax I'm assuming.   So on the periodic testings done per batch number all candles made will use a certain size wick.   So my thinking is when you get a new batch number, why test without fragrance but continue to test with fragrance since you are making a fragranced candle and adjust your wicking per batch.   Seems much more sense to me.   And at the same time when you are testing with fragrance you can find out at the same time if that fragrance oil is going to be a dud or a winner so you accomplish more by doing it this way, right?

 

This is an extremely complicated subject for me I will say that.

I hope someone can understand what I'm trying to ask first off.

 

When I test fragrance oils for wick sizing I already know my "base line" of what wick I'm going with.   I just have to adjust the sizing to how it performs when lit by the melt pool depth, how hot the jar is and if it throws..

 

In your other thread asking about wicking 464, have you eliminated the fragrance as a variable in why your tin went liquid? Does the naked wax do the same with that same wick

In answer to this question TT my answer is I have never tested in naked wax so I really couldn't answer it, but I did find out that I had to wick down, so I did testings till I got a wick that worked so I guess, yes, the base line in this batch of wax has been changed so I did my own adjustments using a smaller wick.   But I knew I had to wick down. 

 

Maybe what I should be asking is what is considered a base line in raw or naked wax? 

 

Trappeur 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Forrest]

21 hours ago, TallTayl said:

Is the last half of the jar that makes all the difference.

21 hours ago, Trappeur said:

 I would burn that all the way to the end.  

Well the dang thing burned like a champ last night. If it keeps going like that I may be able to get some fall candles to my daughters before winter sets in.

 

[TallTayl]

@Trappeur the baseline is how the wax in that case lot number you just bought burns all by itself.

 

If you burn a sample of the wax from this case, know it takes a cd12, for example, then the fragrance changes the wick size according to your FO tests. You need to test each FO at some point to ensure you chose the right wick.  Every FO changes the wax to some degree. 

 

If the sample next lot of wax from the case burns using a cd8 you will know that something has changed with the wax, and all of your fragrances being made with that lot number need to be retested. 

 

If that sample from the new case lot number burns as expected using a cd12 like the first case, you can be reasonably sure the fragrance tests already done will be safe. 

 

I make a half full tin tin with a new lot number.  Cure it for 48 hours at most and can tell if something is wrong. 

[TallTayl]

Incidentally, has anyone who uses GB/AkoSoy waxes noticed that a long cure has actually made the candles burn worse over time? Whatever they’ve changed to make it pretty in the jar, and not give wet spots has rendered the waxes pretty unstable.  

 

I pulled a 444/415 candle from my candle testing graveyard a few days ago.  It had tunneled on the first burn about a year ago. I lit it during a storm. That foolish candle went totally liquid right to the bottom on the second burn. 

 

415 is the base of 444 and 464.  It is horribly unstable. Our beloved GB waxes are not the same as they once were. I had to cut bait and give up on new Gb/Akosoy 😢

[TallTayl]

@Forrest 

[Trappeur]

 

I pulled a 444/415 candle from my candle testing graveyard a few days ago.  It had tunneled on the first burn about a year ago. I lit it during a storm. That foolish candle went totally liquid right to the bottom on the second burn. 

 

415 is the base of 444 and 464.  It is horribly unstable. Our beloved GB waxes are not the same as they once were. I had to cut bait and give up on new Gb/Akosoy 😢

Your 444/415 candle was that a blend of those 2 waxes together?

Wow, how that burned...unbelievable.....

So what did you wind up doing after it went to full liquid on the 2'nd burn?   You ever figure it out?

 

When you say 415 is the base of 444 and 464 does that mean you combined all 3 together?

 

On another note what is the general format for testing of a wick selection in the finished fragranced candle?

Like for example if a cd 12 works in raw wax, how much generally do you find you have to wick up to do the same jar with fragrance?  I guess it depends too on what wax your using, I would assume.  And  you always have to wick up when adding fragrance, correct?   Meaning you would not go down, right?

 

Trappeur

Edited September 25, 2018 by Trappeur

[TallTayl]

 415 is a plain soy wax with no additives made by GB

 

464 is 415 with a few additives to make it “easier” to use 

 

444 is 415 with other additives.

 

The candle I made that went liquid was a 50-50 mix of 444 and 415. 444 was too hard to burn. 415 alone went liquid. I was trying to see if I could average out the two problems. It was a big fat fail. I did not continue with that one because it did not work. Saved myself a Tonna money and time. 

[TallTayl]

About 90% of my fragrances require a wick down of at least one size from the naked wax.

 

Some require two or three sizes down.

 

Very few exceptions require a wick up. Those I find that need a wick up are like frankincense and myrrh, my sweet Amber, some very thick, heavy  vanillas.

[TallTayl]

If you think about it a wick down kind of makes sense. You’re watering down that wax making it easier to burn in theory. You’re lowering the melt point of the naked wax for sure.

 

People add all kinds of stuff to improve waxes. Coconut oil. Cottonseed oil. Fragrance at higher percentages do the same thing.

[moonshine]

2 hours ago, Trappeur said:

I've read and reread everyone's explanations to the questions I asked and am trying to understand in my mind what was said and I'm still confused.  I guess because I'm not scientist savvy to fully comprehend what has been said.

 

  You say you need to figure out a baseline.....

So what is considered  the baseline in a wax that has no fragrance in it?

When you test an unfragranced wax side by side with one that has fragrance in it, don't you use different size wicks?   Isn't that an automatic "know" that it stands without reason any wax fragranced is an automatic wick change meaning you know wicking an unfragranced candle is not the same as a fragranced one?

 

So what "variable" are you looking for in just the raw wax that tells you something about how to wick a fragranced one?

Doesn't raw wax perform differently than one that has fragrance in it?

 

So are you all saying that you make an unfragranced tester and let that cure for 2 weeks also before lighting it?    Is there a cure time for that??  So when you have a tester made in "unfragranced" wax do you continually test all the different size wicks till you get the right one and then do you all start over now and start testing with fragrance?   So I'm assuming that raw wax has it's own set of wick sizing  that notes are kept on versus the fragranced wax I'm assuming.   So on the periodic testings done per batch number all candles made will use a certain size wick.   So my thinking is when you get a new batch number, why test without fragrance but continue to test with fragrance since you are making a fragranced candle and adjust your wicking per batch.   Seems much more sense to me.   And at the same time when you are testing with fragrance you can find out at the same time if that fragrance oil is going to be a dud or a winner so you accomplish more by doing it this way, right?

 

This is an extremely complicated subject for me I will say that.

I hope someone can understand what I'm trying to ask first off.

 

When I test fragrance oils for wick sizing I already know my "base line" of what wick I'm going with.   I just have to adjust the sizing to how it performs when lit by the melt pool depth, how hot the jar is and if it throws..

 

In your other thread asking about wicking 464, have you eliminated the fragrance as a variable in why your tin went liquid? Does the naked wax do the same with that same wick

In answer to this question TT my answer is I have never tested in naked wax so I really couldn't answer it, but I did find out that I had to wick down, so I did testings till I got a wick that worked so I guess, yes, the base line in this batch of wax has been changed so I did my own adjustments using a smaller wick.   But I knew I had to wick down. 

 

Maybe what I should be asking is what is considered a base line in raw or naked wax? 

 

Trappeur 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A baseline in naked wax is how it burns with zero variables added to it other than the wick needed to burn said wax 

 

If you suddenly start to have problems with your burn in your already made candles like sooting, mushrooms, burning too hot, won’t burn hardly at all, tunneling, cavities or no throw how would you be able to determine what that problem could be if you don’t have a “baseline” of how your wax burns naked 

 

GB waxes are not what they used to be, they are completely different now so if your making your 464 candles based off what “used” to be and just adjusting wick sizes for different jars your going to have problems - I used 415 for probably 7- 8 years and what was tried and true for many years does not work anymore - CD wicks in this wax are horrible now, the burn is disgusting and in some cases down right dangerous, wicking down helped but it was still “off” 

Testing that wax naked showed me CD are not the wicks for this wax Anymore and it showed me just how different this wax burns now without adding variables to it - had I not tested the wax naked I would of chalked it up to the fragrance or the jar or whatever else and continued on without u understanding that it was the wax itself that changed 

I’m trying to explain this as simply as possible and I understand where your coming from in your thinking because I did it myself for years but here is what changed my way of thinking - right before I noticed something was off with 415 I had made a bunch of jars to put out for sale, now I always make a tester jar of every batch of candles I make - I learned this from Stella who used to be a regular on this forum, I fell behind in burning my test jars and they got shelved - I thought these candles were okay in thinking the newest lot of wax I received was the problem because I could physically see a difference in the wax 

well I was wrong because the lot before had issues when I started burning the testers to see what the heck was going on  the wicks (CD) grew like those fireworks for kids, the little black disks after lighting grow into thick snakes - that’s what my wicks looked like with super deep melt pools on the first burn and hot jars and soot - I never had those problems before and the throw wasn’t there-  Every one of those fragrances were the same bottles I had from before so I knew it wasn’t the fragrance - nothing changed there, I don’t use dye so that couldn’t be a issue which told me for sure it was a change in the wax itself and testing the wax naked proved to me that’s what it was 

long story short 415 burns completely different now - I hate the wax and refuse to sell it anymore - I can’t “fix” it even though changing wick series helped and using different additives helped - it still was to unstable for my comfort - the longer it cured the worse it got which before it was longer the cure the better it got 

 

Do yourself a favor and just throw some straight 464 in a jar or tin and burn it to see how it performs “as is”  

I assume you test each fragrance before putting it out for sale....so if something is off  when you test it you will know it’s not your wax within the same lot, that maybe the fragrance is the culprit and new bottles of fragrance now we have to be careful and test with all the reformulations and not all suppliers disclosing that 

nothing is easy Making candles anymore and I never used to buy in bulk but I am now with my waxes so I don’t have to do this all the time - the more cases with the same lot number the better 

 

 

[Trappeur]

3 hours ago, Forrest said:

 

So will these be cd "winter" wicks? lol......I just had to throw that out there Forest....

 

Oh yes, those jars you asked about....sorry didn't answer b/4 as I was trying to understand what this whole thread was about so my mind was on something else.

And no I didn't know what jar that was till I went back and looked at it!   The mini I use!

I usually get them them off amazon for anywhere between 14.00 a case of 12 with prime (free delivery) up to 22.00  a case.  And usually because I check a couple times a day I buy them all from everyone b/4 anyone else gets a chance....horrible....I know...but you know "how the early bird gets the worm?"  Yep, I've been flying out real early!  But these past few weeks has been just horrible as those jars I don't find in 12count cases but 6 count now and at ridiculous prices of even say some at 89.00 a case!   What are they friggin nuts!   I even have written to the people who supply them to Amazon to see if I could get an account and buy them at steady 1 price cases and nope, no luck!   Only 1 time did I get a good deal on Ebay for a case of 12....But now I did find a supplier ; The Container store......Free shipping over I think it's $75.00 and they give even further discounts.   So now buying in cases of like 6 cases at a time...so check there for your best buy.    Other than that, I'd have to get pallets from Italy and I really can't afford that.

What did you wind up paying for a case if you don't mind me asking?

 

Trappeur

[GoldieMN]

I, too, couldn't see why I would test without fragrance then again with fragrance.  After this discussion, the light is dawning on me.  

 

Still not sure I want to continue making candles as even with testing and getting some kind of hot throw, I worry that customers won't have the good hot throw they are use to and will not return to buy.  Or will tell others not to buy.  I have a small customer base.

 

Off to pour a tester without fragrance!

 

GoldieMN

[Forrest]

29 minutes ago, Trappeur said:

What did you wind up paying for a case if you don't mind me asking?

 

I think I paid $23 for a case, which isn't bad because I'm not reselling them. My wife really likes them and she hates mason jars. She also loves the vanilla champagne, it is our new go to scent.

[Trappeur]

No that's not bad really......good job!

 

Trappeur

20 minutes ago, GoldieMN said:

I, too, couldn't see why I would test without fragrance then again with fragrance.  After this discussion, the light is dawning on me.  

 

Still not sure I want to continue making candles as even with testing and getting some kind of hot throw, I worry that customers won't have the good hot throw they are use to and will not return to buy.  Or will tell others not to buy.  I have a small customer base.

 

Off to pour a tester without fragrance!

 

GoldieMN

lol, lol

I might be doing that too....just for the hell of it...

 

Trappeur

 

PS:    Goldie, don't you give up your candles....you can do it girlfriend....you can!

[TallTayl]

By no means give up. I know we all get close as the frustration sets in. But once you figure out “why” your candles aren’t throwing it’s  glorious. 

 

All the rules with soy changed. Too bad no one bothered to tell us. Too bad we had to figure it out as things went very very wrong.

[moonshine]

7 hours ago, GoldieMN said:

I, too, couldn't see why I would test without fragrance then again with fragrance.  After this discussion, the light is dawning on me.  

 

Still not sure I want to continue making candles as even with testing and getting some kind of hot throw, I worry that customers won't have the good hot throw they are use to and will not return to buy.  Or will tell others not to buy.  I have a small customer base.

 

Off to pour a tester without fragrance!

 

GoldieMN

What wax are you working with Goldie?

Don’t let fear of customers sense of smell deter you...everyone smells differently 

once you get a perfect burn and you can smell your candles run with it and your product will speak for itself - it’s when people just run on throw alone or not testing new lots with soy or new fragrance bottles not realizing the product they put out there is burning crappy or finding months down the road the burn is even crappier that problems arise for yourself and the people you sell to