Wick Suggestion - CS Libbey Straight Sided Glass Tumbler 12 oz

[SRez]

Thank you for the sound advice @TallTayl    

On another note... I had previously made 2 batches of Christmas Hearth and beach linen, both at 10%. 4 containers of beach and 2 containers of Christmas. They cured for one week. I was getting antsy yesterday and wanted to test. I originally had a CD 18 in the Xmas hearth and it gave a decent throw. Not exactly in your face when you walked in the bedroom... But you could definitely tell it was working. I tried wicking up with the CD to 20 and down to 8 to see how the other CD wicks reacted.   Absolutely nothing. I tested each one for about 45 minutes. I then went back to the 18 that originally worked and now that doesn't throw at all.

Should I be waiting a certain time in between swapping wicks for the wax to cure? I pull the bad wick, wait till the wax dries... Maybe an hour, then add a different wick, heat gun along the rim of the glass to lock in the wick, let that dry and light it.  I also in some cases poured out the current melt pool (thinking maybe some fragrance escaped) and heat gunned the edges to level it out again. 

The same issue occurred with the beach linen. That one however worked with the HTP 104 originally. So I've now tested both fragrances from CD 8 to 20 and HTP 93, 104 and 105. The 2 original that worked, don't throw at all now. 

What am I doing wrong? Am I not waiting long enough to swap and light? Is the wax still too soft? 

[TallTayl]

When you swap a wick I would let it cool completely. Testing labs state at least 5 hours between lighting. you could also have a little candle nose from heat gunning the wax 🤗

 

it takes a bit with single wicks to get the air currents swirling. 

[SRez]

4 minutes ago, TallTayl said:

When you swap a wick I would let it cool completely. Testing labs state at least 5 hours between lighting. you could also have a little candle nose from heat gunning the wax 🤗

 

it takes a bit with single wicks to get the air currents swirling. 

Ahh. Gotcha. Time consuming that is. 😊. Back at it tomorrow I reckon. 

[SRez]

14 hours ago, TallTayl said:

When you swap a wick I would let it cool completely. Testing labs state at least 5 hours between lighting. you could also have a little candle nose from heat gunning the wax 🤗

 

it takes a bit with single wicks to get the air currents swirling. 

I forgot to ask... should I pour out whatever melt pool there is from the testing wick and then level it before adding another wick?  Will that test pool have no scent once it was used / tested?

[TallTayl]

1 minute ago, SRez said:

I forgot to ask... should I pour out whatever melt pool there is from the testing wick and then level it before adding another wick?  Will that test pool have no scent once it was used / tested?

I don’t usually pour out.  If there is a lot of hang up I may level a bit with a heat gun and thoroughly cool.

[SRez]

10 minutes ago, TallTayl said:

I don’t usually pour out.  If there is a lot of hang up I may level a bit with a heat gun and thoroughly cool.

Great! Thank you. Is there a rule of thumb as to how long it should take for a candle to give off the scent? 

I want to say that within 30 minutes, when I walked in the room, the CD18 and HTP104 were already throwing a decent scent. 

So when testing a wick, how long would you wait for to determine if a wick works well with that scent or not? 

I want to try a few different sizes up and down, but after the failing tests yesterday... not waiting long enough for the wax to harden to retest... I'm second guessing how long it should actually take to notice a scent. 

[TallTayl]

When wicked well 30 minutes or less is reasonable for HT in veg waxes. Single wicks will always lag behind multiple wicks for speed and intensity of HT. Bigger single wicks do not always mean better HT. 

 

CD18 in that size jar does not seem unreasonable, depending on the scent.  As long as the glass does not get above 170*F, the flame is not growing taller or throwing soot you may be right on track.

 

Soy is a difficult beast to learn. So FO do great off the bat, like bakery or cologne/perfume scents.  Some never seem to want to give it up. Some only give HT when you get further down into the jar where more air convection begins. I don't judge til the bitter end.

[SRez]

16 minutes ago, TallTayl said:

 

When wicked well 30 minutes or less is reasonable for HT in veg waxes. Single wicks will always lag behind multiple wicks for speed and intensity of HT. Bigger single wicks do not always mean better HT. 

 

CD18 in that size jar does not seem unreasonable, depending on the scent.  As long as the glass does not get above 170*F, the flame is not growing taller or throwing soot you may be right on track.

 

Soy is a difficult beast to learn. So FO do great off the bat, like bakery or cologne/perfume scents.  Some never seem to want to give it up. Some only give HT when you get further down into the jar where more air convection begins. I don't judge til the bitter end.

Very insightful.  Thank you. 

[CW5]

I use at CD 18 wick and it works fine.  It doesn't get too hot once it starts burning and there is a little hang up after 3 hours.  I have also learned that a 10% fragrance load doesn't necessarily mean more scent. I would suggest 7-8% and go from there. 

[SRez]

31 minutes ago, CW5 said:

I use at CD 18 wick and it works fine.  It doesn't get too hot once it starts burning and there is a little hang up after 3 hours.  I have also learned that a 10% fragrance load doesn't necessarily mean more scent. I would suggest 7-8% and go from there. 

We actually made 2 different batches the other night. A 6% and an 8% to test. And we're going to actually let it sit for 2 weeks before testing. I'm thinking we also tested too early. We only waited about a week because I was getting a little impatient and wanted to see / smell the results.

[moomin3]

On 9/29/2020 at 5:13 PM, SRez said:

We actually made 2 different batches the other night. A 6% and an 8% to test. And we're going to actually let it sit for 2 weeks before testing. I'm thinking we also tested too early. We only waited about a week because I was getting a little impatient and wanted to see / smell the results.

 

Any updates to give, SRez? Found this thread as I was struggling with wicking my Libby Status jar which is 3.03" vs your straight sided tumbler at 3.06". I think I have also settled on CD18 at 6% FO. I don't test without FO anymore because I found it to be kind of a waste of time because the wax performs so differently with FO. Once there's a baseline then I can go up and down in the series depending on the heaviness of the scent.

 

I also have had issues with ECO fizzling out - most people I find recommend ECO 12-14 for this diameter and I do not know how that's working for them! I know people say ECO is so good in 464 but I'm just not impressed with the performance or hot throw. I tried Premier and LX too and wasn't impressed enough to continue to commit the dance up and down their odd series numbers (just too many for me!!!). I think CD is going to be my best bet. Anyways, would love to see/hear an update!!! 

[TallTayl]

Don’t rule out the baseline without fo.  Weight / specific gravity of FO means absolutely zero when burning.

 

the purpose of a baseline is to quickly learn how that particular case lot of wax performs before you waste time and $ on failed candles when the wax variance is the culprit. Had I not learned to do this I would have had to recall thousands of $ in candles when a new lot of 415 soy wax burned easier than the original lots by several wick sizes.
 

December 2016 was when soy totally went to pot on me. November’s 444 lot was perfect, wick tests completed. candles made and sold. The new December lot of 444 would not stay lit at all. making candles for wholesale and retail without that knowledge would have put another nail in the business coffin.  

[SRez]

4 hours ago, moomin3 said:

 

Any updates to give, SRez? Found this thread as I was struggling with wicking my Libby Status jar which is 3.03" vs your straight sided tumbler at 3.06". I think I have also settled on CD18 at 6% FO. I don't test without FO anymore because I found it to be kind of a waste of time because the wax performs so differently with FO. Once there's a baseline then I can go up and down in the series depending on the heaviness of the scent.

 

I also have had issues with ECO fizzling out - most people I find recommend ECO 12-14 for this diameter and I do not know how that's working for them! I know people say ECO is so good in 464 but I'm just not impressed with the performance or hot throw. I tried Premier and LX too and wasn't impressed enough to continue to commit the dance up and down their odd series numbers (just too many for me!!!). I think CD is going to be my best bet. Anyways, would love to see/hear an update!!! 

I found that the CD18 was too big.  I opted for a CD14 at 8% FO for a couple of scents which worked much better than the CD18.  Less wax consumption and the mushrooming was much less.  I took a break from the Christmas Hearth and am currently working on a couple of other scents.  I've tried a couple of scents at 6% but the ones I had chosen were a bit faint in smell. 

 

I've learned in the last few months that there is no need to rush this process and to not settle for "good enough".  I've tried ECO's, HTP's, Premiers, CDN's, LX, RRD and Cottonwood.  If I had to choose what works best for me with what scents I have, it would be the CD's followed by the CDN / HTP then ECO.  Premiers I got to throw really well with one scent and mushroom wasn't' that bad but required trimming.  

[SRez]

3 hours ago, TallTayl said:

Don’t rule out the baseline without fo.  Weight / specific gravity of FO means absolutely zero when burning.

 

the purpose of a baseline is to quickly learn how that particular case lot of wax performs before you waste time and $ on failed candles when the wax variance is the culprit. Had I not learned to do this I would have had to recall thousands of $ in candles when a new lot of 415 soy wax burned easier than the original lots by several wick sizes.
 

December 2016 was when soy totally went to pot on me. November’s 444 lot was perfect, wick tests completed. candles made and sold. The new December lot of 444 would not stay lit at all. making candles for wholesale and retail without that knowledge would have put another nail in the business coffin.  tth

I'm going to start a wick test this weekend with naked 464.  I have about 20 tumblers and a couple of baking pans ready to go.  They've been curing for 2 weeks.  I'll take pics and share out here.  Other than mushrooms or the lack of; melt pool diameter and how the flame acts / soots; what else do you recommend that I look for?  

 

 

[TallTayl]

3 hours ago, SRez said:

I'm going to start a wick test this weekend with naked 464.  I have about 20 tumblers and a couple of baking pans ready to go.  They've been curing for 2 weeks.  I'll take pics and share out here.  Other than mushrooms or the lack of; melt pool diameter and how the flame acts / soots; what else do you recommend that I look for?  

 

 

Wow you are really going for it! When searching for the top wicks to try, the pan is a quick one to eliminate losers. then you can remelt the left over wax into new candles and life goes on. you can do a wickectomy to swap out sizes in a jiffy so it does not take very long to test loads of wicks. 
 

When I do baseline tests using my preferred wick I stick to one small jar size so the follow up tests are quick and painless.  If it performs within normal limits it gets a green light to make candles.  If it does not, adjust accordingly and hope you don’t need to test too many FO for the new batch.
 

Out of desperation when waxes changed from lot to lot rapidly during Faire season I would sometimes only make specific scents with specific cases to eliminate extra testing,  what a PAIN. 
 

When evaluating the pan results, keep in mind that the size of the melt pool will increase in a vessel.  The sides of the vessel insulate, and help create the air current that pumps up the energy.  The deeper the vessel, the stronger the potential current. If looking to wick a 3” jar, for instance, the pan pool width might only be 2.5” or 2.75”. You will be able to eye your wax quickly once you get the hang of it.
 

I look for the shape of the flame. I like tidy, tight flames as opposed to the ones that stretch tall and skinny, if that makes sense.  I think about the size of the flame in proportion to the container it will go into so the whole candle looks pleasant.

 

I would not expect a wick that is compatible with the wax to soot or carbon head much, if at all.  
 

I would expect the flame to not grow or shrink as it burns. Growing flames are concerning since those can become problematic in power burns.

 

wicks that lean over because of their own weight are noteworthy.  Soft waxes, like coconut, can cause wicks to tip over like a cut tree and direct the flame toward the jar. 

 

some wicks curl exceptionally tightly.  I don’t know why, but eco in my waxes often like to curl like a candy cane on the first burns regardless of how short I trim them. This weird phenomenon gives a wrong idea that the candle is underwicked. Once it burns for a while knocking off the end reveals it is sometimes perfect or even over wicked.  Try explaining that to a customer, lol.

I note the degree of off-center melt pool from self-trimming wicks. Some are REALLY noteworthy. 
 

when extinguishing I look for smoke trails and glowing embers on the wick. This relates in part to carbon heading since the glow is the unburned carbon  trying to burn off.

[moomin3]

9 hours ago, SRez said:

I found that the CD18 was too big.  I opted for a CD14 at 8% FO for a couple of scents which worked much better than the CD18.  Less wax consumption and the mushrooming was much less.  I took a break from the Christmas Hearth and am currently working on a couple of other scents.  I've tried a couple of scents at 6% but the ones I had chosen were a bit faint in smell. 

 

I've learned in the last few months that there is no need to rush this process and to not settle for "good enough".  I've tried ECO's, HTP's, Premiers, CDN's, LX, RRD and Cottonwood.  If I had to choose what works best for me with what scents I have, it would be the CD's followed by the CDN / HTP then ECO.  Premiers I got to throw really well with one scent and mushroom wasn't' that bad but required trimming.  

 

Thank you so much for your update! I've been keeping spreadsheets and trackers for years with my waxes, FO type and % and container and wicks and... now I realize that my notes as a newbie were probably off base since I was so concerned with the FB groups insistence about a lot of things. I won't even go down the list. Of course, I have since realized those groups are full of a lot of misleading info! I have sooo many wicks in the wick graveyard (always getting lured in from a post or exclamation about the PERFECT wick) but time and time again CDs have been pretty reliable. Once I am able to secure some smaller quantities of larger HTP sizes I'll be trying those too. I'm just a hobbyist so I take long breaks from this here and there! 

 

 

[moomin3]

13 hours ago, TallTayl said:

Don’t rule out the baseline without fo.  Weight / specific gravity of FO means absolutely zero when burning.

 

the purpose of a baseline is to quickly learn how that particular case lot of wax performs before you waste time and $ on failed candles when the wax variance is the culprit. Had I not learned to do this I would have had to recall thousands of $ in candles when a new lot of 415 soy wax burned easier than the original lots by several wick sizes.
 

December 2016 was when soy totally went to pot on me. November’s 444 lot was perfect, wick tests completed. candles made and sold. The new December lot of 444 would not stay lit at all. making candles for wholesale and retail without that knowledge would have put another nail in the business coffin.  

 

Ugggghhhh. What a horror story! I did just buy a new case of 464 and will be baseline testing it in my most reliable jar before continuing testing. I have played around so much with testing coco-paraffin 6046, cco83, my own blends of coconut and soy, different FO %s, a zillion different containers, and I burned out doing all of that over the past few years. Way too many variables of course. Had I to do it all over again I would have picked a set of 3-5 FOs at 6-8% and stuck with a 9oz and 16oz jar and learned my techniques that way before moving on to other waxes and %s the second I got frustrated. I'm just now returning and committed to keeping it simple and... hopefully de-stashing some of my coconut waxes.

 

I haven't done a pan test but will this time with just plain 464 and very spaced out wicks. I was going to do a plain one and then a 6% FO one but maybe there's no point to testing with a random FO. Thanks for the reminder too about pan test MP translating into vessel MP depending on insulation and container depth. 

[TallTayl]

Here is some food for thought. When I added candles to my line a decade ago I used C3 in a typical 8 oz tin.  All I needed was a CDN 10 and 6% Fo for a room filling clean burning, 50 + hour candle.  
 

today the same combo needs at least a cd18, and struggles to burn clean let alone throw. I have many even FO from the same kegs, so that variable is eliminated from the cause. Don’t get me started about now needing to use 12% FO to smell it... 

 

I’m very sorry to say that people who have not been at this for very long have no idea what they don’t know simply because they have not yet experienced very much. Many on this forum have been at this long enough to wear the deep scars caused by this industry, and try very hard to make sure new people don’t get burned as badly as we did. Try as we might, some people need to touch the hot stove to learn how a burn feels. 

[moomin3]

14 minutes ago, TallTayl said:

Here is some food for thought. When I added candles to my line a decade ago I used C3 in a typical 8 oz tin.  All I needed was a CDN 10 and 6% Fo for a room filling clean burning, 50 + hour candle.  
 

today the same combo needs at least a cd18, and struggles to burn clean let alone throw. I have many even FO from the same kegs, so that variable is eliminated from the cause. Don’t get me started about now needing to use 12% FO to smell it... 

OK - that is a great example... and wild, especially since you're using the same FOs (unless those somehow deteriorate over the years to be harder to burn?!) 

 

I know. I love this forum and have used the search function so much. Maybe one day I'll even create a post 🤣 I've pretty much hidden all FB candle groups I'm a member of now because it's just too much to be constantly inundated and then I start comparing myself and my confidence and blah blah blah. I'm going back to solid testing and my own notes. I am also not appreciative of wax that needs 10-12% FO to throw - who wants to spend that kind of money on top of the wax?! The wicking gets crazier and... well, you already know! 

 

I just got a shipment from Candle Cocoon a few weeks ago. Now those are some interesting strong oils she recommends using at 3.75% in 464 and her videos state that other companies recommending 8-10 are definitely cutting their oils (obviously). I liked the Neroli de la Nuit and the Daydreamer but some of the others (Rare Earth, Turmeric Saffron and Oud, Solace) have been strong nos... also as much as I hate to admit it the wooden wick scents I've tried at 6% are performing amazingly well and I'm angry since I wanted to write them off so badly!!! 

 

Thanks for the tips!! 

 

 

[TallTayl]

1 hour ago, moomin3 said:

OK - that is a great example... and wild, especially since you're using the same FOs (unless those somehow deteriorate over the years to be harder to burn?!) 

 

That is a very good troubleshooting instinct. I think you alreay know how I eliminated that variable as the cause.... yup... BASELINE TESTING! lol.

 

A naked C3 tin with a CDN10 now gets to a mere 1" melt pool, whereas before it was sufficient for the entire tin.

 

As for the FO, many retail available would likely degrade with time depending on their raw materials and diluent. Some places use Soy oil as a diluent, which will of course oxidize with time. 

 

I use the same FO for soap and would immediately notice problematic aging as the soap would smell, look and perform differently. 

[SRez]

On 1/21/2021 at 1:00 AM, TallTayl said:

Wow you are really going for it! When searching for the top wicks to try, the pan is a quick one to eliminate losers. then you can remelt the left over wax into new candles and life goes on. you can do a wickectomy to swap out sizes in a jiffy so it does not take very long to test loads of wicks. 
 

When I do baseline tests using my preferred wick I stick to one small jar size so the follow up tests are quick and painless.  If it performs within normal limits it gets a green light to make candles.  If it does not, adjust accordingly and hope you don’t need to test too many FO for the new batch.
 

Out of desperation when waxes changed from lot to lot rapidly during Faire season I would sometimes only make specific scents with specific cases to eliminate extra testing,  what a PAIN. 
 

When evaluating the pan results, keep in mind that the size of the melt pool will increase in a vessel.  The sides of the vessel insulate, and help create the air current that pumps up the energy.  The deeper the vessel, the stronger the potential current. If looking to wick a 3” jar, for instance, the pan pool width might only be 2.5” or 2.75”. You will be able to eye your wax quickly once you get the hang of it.
 

I look for the shape of the flame. I like tidy, tight flames as opposed to the ones that stretch tall and skinny, if that makes sense.  I think about the size of the flame in proportion to the container it will go into so the whole candle looks pleasant.

 

I would not expect a wick that is compatible with the wax to soot or carbon head much, if at all.  
 

I would expect the flame to not grow or shrink as it burns. Growing flames are concerning since those can become problematic in power burns.

 

wicks that lean over because of their own weight are noteworthy.  Soft waxes, like coconut, can cause wicks to tip over like a cut tree and direct the flame toward the jar. 

 

some wicks curl exceptionally tightly.  I don’t know why, but eco in my waxes often like to curl like a candy cane on the first burns regardless of how short I trim them. This weird phenomenon gives a wrong idea that the candle is underwicked. Once it burns for a while knocking off the end reveals it is sometimes perfect or even over wicked.  Try explaining that to a customer, lol.

I note the degree of off-center melt pool from self-trimming wicks. Some are REALLY noteworthy. 
 

when extinguishing I look for smoke trails and glowing embers on the wick. This relates in part to carbon heading since the glow is the unburned carbon  trying to burn off.

Hey @TallTayl , I'm just about ready to post my base wax wick test and did a quick look on the wick test page and didn't see an option to add. Would I add it here and then someone moves it over? 

[TallTayl]

22 minutes ago, SRez said:

Hey @TallTayl , I'm just about ready to post my base wax wick test and did a quick look on the wick test page and didn't see an option to add. Would I add it here and then someone moves it over? 

Give me a sec.  I’ll check the security on that sub forum.  BRB.

[TallTayl]

28 minutes ago, SRez said:

Hey @TallTayl , I'm just about ready to post my base wax wick test and did a quick look on the wick test page and didn't see an option to add. Would I add it here and then someone moves it over? 

I think I found the right permission setting,  can you give it another try?

[SRez]

6 minutes ago, TallTayl said:

I think I found the right permission setting,  can you give it another try?

No dice. I logged off/on as well in case of permissions. No rush though. I'll check again tomorrow or so. Have a good night. Thanks. 

[TallTayl]

I see what happened... it didn’t save - the page hung.