Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone! I have just recently started my adventure into making soy candles. I have been reading this forum now for a few months and I feel like I have learned a lot! I have a question about using wooden wicks with 464 wax. I'm currently testing candles in a 3.4 inch wide tin and am a little confused as to which size wick I should go with. I have been aiming for there to be some wax hangup on my first few burns, looking for the wax to be cleaned up when I burn further down the container. I want my melt pool depth to be closer to 1/4" but i haven't been able to get any less than 1/2" deep melt pools at the 3 - 3.5 hour mark no matter which wick size I use. So far I have tested crackling booster wicks in the  .02 .625", .03 .625", and .04 .625" sizes. I have also tested single ply crackling wicks in the .04 .625" and .03 .625" size. I should also add that when I tested a wick the next size down that wasn't as wide (.5") the candle tunneled. When I tried single ply crackling wicks the candles tunneled. The Wooden Wick Co suggests that soy candles should use .04 crackling booster wicks. .03 crackling booster wicks are meant to be used with beeswax or natural wax blends with palm, coconut, or soy oils. I have basically given up on achieving less than a 1/2" deep melt pool at the 3 hour mark. 

 

Now I am questioning which thickness wick will give me a better hot throw. With the .04 crackling booster wicks I achieve very very close to a full melt pool in 3 hours of my first burn. With a .03 crackling booster there is 3/8" hang up of wax on one side of the container and 1/4" on the other side. Since soy wax needs hotter burning wicks, am I wrong to use a .03 crackling booster wick? Would that cause it to not achieve optimal scent throw? When I tested the .04 wick I thought the scent throw was stronger but I am worried about achieving a full melt pool on the first burn and whether or not I am just burning off the fragrance too quickly. Can anyone give me any insight into which wick they think would work better? Any help is greatly appreciated!

 

I will also update tomorrow as to whether the wax hangup cleans up on the .03 crackling booster candle after a few more burns.

 

First photo is of the .04 crackling booster wick after the initial burn.

 

Second photo is of the .03 crackling booster wick after the initial burn.

IMG_8052.jpg

IMG_8064.jpg

Edited by anika
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • anika changed the title to 464 Soy Wax and Wooden Wicks

I would be inclined to try wider versus thicker to spread the flame without creating a upper hot flame. 
 

tins are the hardest to wick because the width exceeds the height. The material moves heat differently than glass also, making th early burns too old and the later burns too hot. 
 

keep trying every combo, and make your own boosters using different widths and thicknesses until you get the burn you desire.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use 464.  From my experience, Booster wick .02 worked best.  Mine is 3.6" tin and melt pool can be controlled by width.  I think I cut down side little bit of .500". (little bigger than .375")

 

Are you making candles for personal use or is it for commercial purpose?  Wood wick would be the best choice for 464 for personal usage, but I would not recommended for candle business.  Many of the wood wick just won't stay lit or lit up at all.  It's got serious capillary action problem due to density of wood can be totally different even the wood pieces came from same tree.

 

20191010_173646.thumb.jpg.83fa8118445afe796434fd07151d5e83.jpg

20191010_174540.thumb.jpg.fe228a0aa92fce4eaed045a81008af02.jpg

20191010_225400.thumb.jpg.7f9ffd144c3b076676a511143a152f19.jpg

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd do what TallTayl said, play with all the different sizes and types and see what you like. The sample pack they sell is good for that. I have a huge amount of experience with wooden wicks and my number 1 piece of advice would be to ignore anything the Wooden Wick Co says or tells you, they do not know what they are doing. 

 

Since you're using soy wax, you should be able to find something that works reasonably well, just don't expect perfection because they are very inconsistent and stay away from the dual wicks they are causing so many problems that some suppliers don't even want to carry them anymore.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you BusyBee, I will definitely try out that combination. How deep was your melt pool using that size wick? I'm making them to sell. From my experience I haven't had any issues with the wicks staying lit unless I didn't use a booster wick. I have to agree with you Erron, I remember watching one of their videos where they suggested to add fragrance oil just below the flash point :wacko:.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Melt pool depth was about 5/16" which was great, and I loved everything about it.  But I found out it has serious reliability problem.  Some of the wick would not lit up or won't stay lit.  See picture for bad wick.  

 

Different part of same tree has different density which means some wood wick will have normal capillary action, higher than normal, little, and some does not have any.  It would be unpredictable.  If you end up with high density wood wicks, then you are going to have no capillary action problem.  Booster wick was designed by other company, but it was not enough to solve wood wick problem.  There is no way to tell it by looking at them.  You will only know when you light it up.  One of the CraftServer member "Sponiebr" has the best explanation of wood wick problem.  Sponiebr was trying to solve this problem by hammering it down, which will break the wood fibers to create room for constant capillary action.

 

You might want to do more research and testing on wood wick before you decide to use it for your candle business.

 

Also, you might want to take a look at all the wooden wick related patents if you are serious about using them.  Go down page and take a look at all other related patents ["Cited By (14)]  section also.

*Lumetique, Inc. is parent company of Wooden Wick Co. which holds "Planar Wick" patent, and actual patent holder of wood wick & booster wood wick are some other company.

https://patents.google.com/patent/USD644359S1/en

 

20200702_1526042.thumb.jpg.25407ef750315ec0d22d4094d96e5a38.jpg

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I completely concur with @Busy Bee on wooden wicks.  Fun for personal use, but I cannot recommend them for production level commercial orders.  I have finally thrown in the towel after 3.5 years of trying.  (And, boy, did I try!)  Wood, by nature, is inconsistent, and not something you want if you ever want to have a consistent line of candles.  I never used them, but the older wood wicks were made up of a composite wood material, compensating for the lack of consistency.  Too bad they are no longer around.  I get really angry thinking that one company holds the patent on wood wicks.  They make a crappy product.

 

  • Like 1
  • Mind Blown 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ComfortandJoy said:

I completely concur with @Busy Bee on wooden wicks.  Fun for personal use, but I cannot recommend them for production level commercial orders.  I have finally thrown in the towel after 3.5 years of trying.  (And, boy, did I try!)  Wood, by nature, is inconsistent, and not something you want if you ever want to have a consistent line of candles.  I never used them, but the older wood wicks were made up of a composite wood material, compensating for the lack of consistency.  Too bad they are no longer around.  I get really angry thinking that one company holds the patent on wood wicks.  They make a crappy product.

 

I don’t know why the “ultimate wooden wicks” were discontinued, but I agree, I liked using them. I have a few 

left for the “candle museum” collecting in my store room. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ComfortandJoy said:

I completely concur with @Busy Bee on wooden wicks.  Fun for personal use, but I cannot recommend them for production level commercial orders.  I have finally thrown in the towel after 3.5 years of trying.  (And, boy, did I try!)  Wood, by nature, is inconsistent, and not something you want if you ever want to have a consistent line of candles.  I never used them, but the older wood wicks were made up of a composite wood material, compensating for the lack of consistency.  Too bad they are no longer around.  I get really angry thinking that one company holds the patent on wood wicks.  They make a crappy product.

 

It's not just one company (Lumetique/Wood Wick Company) that holds patent on wooden wicks.  There are 3 companies that hold wooden wick patents, but Lumetique is not the one.  What Lumetique holds is patent for "Planar Wick" and bunch of others.  Basically, Lumetique is blocking everyone from creating a wick that has any kind of planar shapes (*They got patents for all kinds of shape.) including wooden wicks.  It looks like all 3 other wooden wick patent companies are paying loyalties to Lumetique for their wooden wick patents having planar shape.

 

Wood wick & wood wick with booster utility patents:  Delcotto IP, LLC

Plus wooden wick utility patent:  Smith Mountain Industries, Inc. (WoodWick Candle/Yankee)

Cross wooden wick design patent:  Sichen Xing, Chinese

Planar wick utility & bunch of design patents (planar, s shape, wave, cross & bunch of others):  Lumetique (Wooden Wick Company/Dayna Decker)

 

Lumetique does not have intention to make good wooden wicks.  They just want to block everyone from make good ones.  We all know how to make better wooden wicks than theirs ("composite wood materials").  Why don't they?  Even in Canada, they have better wooden wicks than US.

Picture1.thumb.png.1bc574beccedc51355088324e6d62e0d.png

 

And I have this!  I know that they are going to sue me someday.  Hey!  I should hide my company address just like Wooden Wick Company is doing (no phone & bogus address on business filings with city & state), so they cannot deliver lawsuit documents. :)  But they are not going to stop me from having this in US with funny Planar Wick Patents.

*Patent is to protect someone's invention (idea & product).  Lumetique has bunch of patents, but they don't have working products for so long.  So, which means that they have no product to protect.  

20201130_121423.thumb.jpg.dffd83aa969d896240bf7513a8dccd15.jpg

 

20201129_181413.thumb.jpg.63b524c22b764f28de20f711c21e21ed.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...
On 11/14/2020 at 2:13 PM, anika said:

Thank you BusyBee, I will definitely try out that combination. How deep was your melt pool using that size wick? I'm making them to sell. From my experience I haven't had any issues with the wicks staying lit unless I didn't use a booster wick. I have to agree with you Erron, I remember watching one of their videos where they suggested to add fragrance oil just below the flash point :wacko:.

Hi Anika , What wick do you use in your candles, and where did you purchase, I'm using 464 Sox Wax  and I can't seem to keep the candles lit as well it's for my business, thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GShannon19 said:

Hi Anika , What wick do you use in your candles, and where did you purchase, I'm using 464 Sox Wax  and I can't seem to keep the candles lit as well it's for my business, thanks

Do you prime them? Many are really dry and don’t move fuel well, or evenly, right out of the pack.  Others are rather damp and fail for the same reason. 
 

when I prime them in hot wax before adhering them in the jar they are much more reliable.  I hold them to the bottom of the presto pot (usually in the same wax used in the candle for simplicity) until they stop bubbling and sizzling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TallTayl said:

@BusyBee what do cotton wood and the other textile Grey ‘ribbon’ flat wick do to get around the planar description? There has to be a way using language.

I don't know how the patent office ever issued "Planar Wick" patent  when there were so many flat oil lamps wicks are in existence for long time.  So, I am assuming it is not about the planar shape but plane surface.  Definition of "Planar" would be "flat surface".  So, as long as it does not have smooth flat surface, it should be okay.  Cottonwood & ribbon(and all flat oil lamp wicks) wicks do not have smooth flat surface.  I guess it's going to be argument of "What is Planar?" if it ever goes to a court. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, BusyBee said:

I don't know how the patent office ever issued "Planar Wick" patent  when there were so many flat oil lamps wicks are in existence for long time.  So, I am assuming it is not about the planar shape but plane surface.  Definition of "Planar" would be "flat surface".  So, as long as it does not have smooth flat surface, it should be okay.  Cottonwood & ribbon(and all flat oil lamp wicks) wicks do not have smooth flat surface.  I guess it's going to be argument of "What is Planar?" if it ever goes to a court. 

 

Hmmm, maybe tapering the bottom to call them “leaf” wicks, lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TallTayl said:

Hmmm, maybe tapering the bottom to call them “leaf” wicks, lol. 

Do you think this is going to be good enough to fight against Planar in court?  :)

 

TECA(Tapered External Capillary Action) or XCAT(External Capillary Action Taper) Wick

Description:  Wick having rough surface to increase external capillary action and having tapered design to provide just right amount of perfectly needed heat to each container shape for ultimate result and safety.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BusyBee said:

I don't know how the patent office ever issued "Planar Wick" patent  when there were so many flat oil lamps wicks are in existence for long time.  So, I am assuming it is not about the planar shape but plane surface.  Definition of "Planar" would be "flat surface".  So, as long as it does not have smooth flat surface, it should be okay.  Cottonwood & ribbon(and all flat oil lamp wicks) wicks do not have smooth flat surface.  I guess it's going to be argument of "What is Planar?" if it ever goes to a court. 

 

You can check the prosecution history of the planer wick patents on the public USPTO website (Public Patent Application Information Retrieval, search by patent number, then look under the Image File Wrapper tab) I haven't read through the entire file, but prosecution of the what I believe is the first patent took over 8 years. 

 

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SmellsSoSweet said:

You can check the prosecution history of the planer wick patents on the public USPTO website (Public Patent Application Information Retrieval, search by patent number, then look under the Image File Wrapper tab) I haven't read through the entire file, but prosecution of the what I believe is the first patent took over 8 years. 

 

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE

I have searched other country's patent office website, and it was so easy to navigate through their website and easy to understand the patents.  But all of our governments' website is not well built compare to other countries, and USPTO is no exception.  It takes an expert to search information from our governments' website which I am pretty good at.  But I have to say USPTO website is designed to have the patent attorneys to make money. 

 

I have pulled out many planar wick & wooden wick patents from USPTO and Justia Patents.  This one is from Justia Patents on Planar wick patent which is much better organized and easier to understand than USPTO filing.   https://patents.justia.com/patent/20050037308    But still, it would take really good patent research specialist and patent attorney to be 100% sure in this country.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, TallTayl said:

Since yours is essentially a cut sheet of paper like fabric, it is not really planar, is it?  Unless they call a sheet of paper a plane of paper. 

Lumetique did pretty good job of covering all aspects of being Planar Wick.  They covered almost all possible materials and shape that can be used as candle wick and also covered using cotton and/or saw dusts sandwiched between wooden pieces to increase internal capillary action.  It even talks about why their wick design can cover large diameter container better than traditional cotton wick.  Only holes I can find is the argument of "What is being planar?", External capillary action & Tapered shape.  *Everyone is talking about internal capillary action of a wick, and it feels like I might be the only one who talk about external capillary action. 😉

 

I was planning to use tapered wick design as a candle safety feature, and I think that could be a good story that customers could be raving about our candles.  But then, I can turn back to double wall container design for safety if this does not work out.  Below is a double walled insulated aluminum tumbler.  Worrying about candle container getting too hot at the bottom?  Never with this container.  GREAT STORY = CREATIVITY!!!

20200724_160949.thumb.jpg.6ae9d66d66fc417047e79143277bfb26.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...