Looking for definitive wick testing procedure

[Xersis]

At this point, I'm months into testing wicks and I feel like I don't have a consistent procedure down. I have kept a lot of notes and am making progress but then I sort of lose my place and wonder if I've done enough or if I am somehow wasting time on stuff that doesn't matter.

 

So here is what I have and I would love input from some veterans.

 

Step one: decide on vessel (8 in tin and Libbey status 3.25 dia)

 

Step two: decide on wax (primary 6006, secondary 464)

 

Step three: Practice with different wicks, starting with recommended ones and working up and down with UNSCENTED wax to start as a base reference point (still working on this, but getting closer)

     Step 3a: Pour wax into vessel at the same temperature that I will do when adding FO (up to 185, cool to either about 150 (6006) or 135 (464), with test wicks making sure they are centered. Allow to cure for the same amount of time that I will need to when adding FO (2 weeks)

     Step 3b: Burn for a 4 hour initial test to look at height, mushrooming, does it burn to diameter?, and melt pool (if you even get one at this point). If I don't get a full melt diameter with 6006, I don't worry about it and wait to see how it performs on subsequent tests as long as it is kind of close (so far this has been surprising...a wick that I was about to abandon eventually melted completely by the end). If I don't get a full diameter melt with 464, I abandon that wick unless it is really close.

     Step 3c: Let it cool for 2 hours (at least) and do a second burn for a couple hours looking at the same things again - now seeing if it will reach diameter, if any wax has hung on the sides, melt pool if it is reaching diameter, mushrooming, soot, high flame, drowning wick. If I don't re-reach a full diameter with 464, I really start to think about abandoning because it looks like it is tunneling more and may never catch up (***or can it?***, not experienced enough to know this yet). For 6006, same criteria as step 3b.

     Step 3d: Repeat step 3c until I reach the bottom

 

Step four: If I have reached the ideal melt pool of about 1/4 inch, a good flame with no sooting and minimal dancing, minimal wax on the side (ideally none) and external temp is below 170 degrees, I celebrate for a minute and now have my BASELINE WICK.

Step five: Do a power burn test to double check that everything will stay safe.

 

Now I add a fragrance oil and start the whole thing over again, beginning with the baseline wick. Now I will also be testing the fragrance output along with how it affects my baseline wick.

 

First Question - what have I missed, or messed up?

 

Other Questions:

On step 3c - should I be trimming the wick, or assume that a customer won't... so be more realistic and just leave it. Or do I have to a test each way? I know there are different schools of thought on this, so looking for experience

Once something has started to mushroom, does it ever self-correct?

When adding fragrance oil, does that tend to make it burn hotter so you would often need a smaller wick size? Or does it give it less fuel and maybe you will need to wick up? Or does it not matter at all and you will need to test each FO with multiple wicks?

How often do I need to check a successful combo? If I stick with the same company supplying my FO, vessel, wick and wax do I need to test it every batch? Every year? Can I ever just count on my results for a long time?

 

Bonus random question:

I am currently testing a CD16 and CD18 for 464 in the 8" tin and the CD 16 *almost* went to the diameter (after 4 hour burn), had some mushrooming but looks good otherwise. First instinct wick up, but I need to be patient and test it all the way down. What is random though is that the CD 18 looks almost exactly the same but burned LESS of the diameter and had less mushrooming. Is this possible?

 

Many thanks for any input or validation!!

 

 

Edited April 13, 2021 by Xersis
clean up grammar, clarify and add a couple points, correct step number

[SageSlowdive]

I'd love to see some experts opinions on these questions as well.

[Tiinkers]

Gosh, some answers here would be amazing.

[BusyBee]

For wick testing here are many things that need to be observed during the test.

Easy of ignition

Tunneling

Guttering(Sink hole)

Cause of Flickering or Dancing Flame if any

Cause of Clubbing(Mushroom or Sharrock) if any

Cause of soot if any

Capillary action

Flame size, quality & brightness or color

Wick curvature(Curling)

Wick tipping or floating

Wick stability

Wick tab release

Conduction, Convection & Radiation:  These cannot be measured.  But these need to be observed with best assumption

After glow & smoke after blown out flame

Wax consumption rate

Time it reaches full melt pool 

For those who design for some early hang up, they would need to know observe what part of container it will catch up if it ever does.

Depth of melt pool

Melt pool temperature

Container temperature

Clean top appearance after burn

Discoloration of wax

Easy of re-ignition

Wax shrinkage

Container: Thermal shock endurance, Annealing & observation of any cracking or breaking

 

We all have different ideas of good candles.  But one thing is clear is that we are all trying to create a fire (a flame, a beautiful & safe one that is).  Understanding of a flame would be key to good candle making.  We don't have any measuring devices to check conduction, convection & radiation.  Just try your best to observe conduction, convection & radiation of a candle flame as much as possible.  What causes the wax to melt and form melt pool?  What causes the candle container to heat up?  When does a wax or oil act as main fuel and when does it act as additive?  How important is viscosity of wax for capillary action?  What is the optimal condition of melt pool to produce great HT?  Or is the wick that burns the wax and only releases the aroma chemical into the air?  Do customers ever trim their wick?  How long do they usually burn their candles?  There are so many questions without a clear answer.  I guess we just have to do our best to come up with our own answer by observe these things as best as possible.  

 

It would be wise to conduct testing in different duration of time.  Power burn, many series of short burns(like less than 30 minutes), & combination of different durations.

Try to test candle at same spot all the time with similar room temperature, humidity, room draft condition & direction, & distance from the floor.  Once you get all those in same environment, then move onto test at totally different environment also.  Cold vs Hot room, etc.

 

@Xersis

If you go to wick manufacturers' website and look at the wick chart, you are going to find some of the supposed to be bigger size wicks are actually smaller.  

 

[TallTayl]

This is a really broad topic.  It varies most based on wax. Not all waxes burn the same, and should not treated as the same. Wicking coconut like soy will be troublesome every time. Wicking palm like soy would be a disaster.

 

not sure where the “must get to full melt pool fast” myth started but that is the first obstacle.  Melt pool is a limit, not a goal. 

 

To address the gigantic topic in a productive way we need to prioritize the wax types and tackle them one by one.

[Xersis]

Thank you very much @BusyBee. I recently came across some YouTube videos from a former professional wick tester and that was much more up my alley than the "try to get a full MP after your vessel diameter x 1 hour". I really like the scientific method, since that is how I choose to approach candle-making. Your post was even more thorough. I have come a long way since my post in April, and have even found some success. But at this point I'm having trouble deciding when to consider it done (until one variable changes of course).

 

I have yet to make a perfect candle. I have my testing procedure down and it is similar to what I posted above. I've gotten an idea of how one series' sizes compare to another so that I have a rough idea where to start if I have to switch series. I've diligently stuck to only changing one variable at a time and made copious notes. It is slow, but there has been progress. My first test is to get a rough idea of the wick size, so I trim like I am supposed to, and burn at the right intervals. After I have narrowed it down to a couple or 3, I test again to see how it does in less ideal conditions: not trimming every time, random lengths of time and then finally the power burn. I feel like there are a few that are close enough and that may be enough. I tend to be a perfectionist and I don't think that is always possible with so many variables.

 

@TallTayl - Yes, I was limiting myself to 464 and 6006 and never thought that you might have to test them differently. Different wicks series, yes, but procedurally? Eek! More variables!? It makes sense though. I, like most people, was really interested in #1 Safety and #2 HT. At that point it is just a slow slog of eliminating what could be making it burn poorly and changing from one wick to the next. To me the very first confusing  step was to try and see how to speed up testing and reduce waste. Can you pull a wick and try another one? Do you have to let it "cure" again if you do? If you've had one, too hot test burn, is your FO messed up for the rest of the burns so it wouldn't even help you to change the wick. Or just for the top layer? How much soot is okay? How much mushroom is okay? 

 

Eventually I see that there really isn't a standard, except for the safety stuff, so the rest is just striving to minimize the things you don't want and maximizing the ones that you do.

 

Back to my tests Thanks everyone!

Edited July 4, 2021 by Xersis

[NightLight]

Tins you must burn all the way down because the tin heats up, wax becomes very liquid in bottom half.

Open jars versus closed jar, different wicks as well.

Limit your containers, pick the wax test, pick four fragrance so you don’t get overwhelmed testing.

I like to do three to four hours burns and see how the candles burns. One hour burns are useless, everyone I know who burns candles likes to burn them at least two hours.

I do half full jars for testing because this is where they get hot when you burn.

You have to patient, but you will learn which wick to use for your wax, when to swap out a wick series for another

if your fragrance, or dye make it necessary for another style wick. Lots of factors but you learn a lot.

Buy candles from companies and test burn besides yours.

[Lawlaw410]

19 minutes ago, NightLight said:

Tins you must burn all the way down because the tin heats up, wax becomes very liquid in bottom half.

Open jars versus closed jar, different wicks as well.

Limit your containers, pick the wax test, pick four fragrance so you don’t get overwhelmed testing.

I like to do three to four hours burns and see how the candles burns. One hour burns are useless, everyone I know who burns candles likes to burn them at least two hours.

I do half full jars for testing because this is where they get hot when you burn.

You have to patient, but you will learn which wick to use for your wax, when to swap out a wick series for another

if your fragrance, or dye make it necessary for another style wick. Lots of factors but you learn a lot.

Buy candles from companies and test burn besides yours.

If you only do half of the container for the test, then how do you know if you’ll get a large enough melt pool at the top where there’s more heat escaping? Not trying to question your method to be snarky, I’m a total newbie and really don’t know lol. If testing with half of a jar is actually do-able then I’m gonna do it! 

[TallTayl]

37 minutes ago, Lawlaw410 said:

If you only do half of the container for the test, then how do you know if you’ll get a large enough melt pool at the top where there’s more heat escaping? Not trying to question your method to be snarky, I’m a total newbie and really don’t know lol. If testing with half of a jar is actually do-able then I’m gonna do it! 

Doing the bottom half only test was not 100% reliable in my experiences. It does help eliminate dangerously hot wicks, so there’s a good thing!  In order to properly test the whole candle system you have to test from top to bottom. The entire candle. Anything short of that is not testing. 
 

Often my perfect wick leaves a bit of hang in the top half. since I don’t aim for full melt pool as a goal at the top the hang up is a given. The wick has to handle the melt Run off of the hang up. 

Soy wax is the outlier with weird melt pools. It turns to a mushy goo before turning to a clear melt pool. A few degrees too hot and sludge becomes a too deep, unbalanced melt pool.  

 

Many smooth (any not primarily soy) waxes will drip the hang up into the melt pool without drowning the flame. the wicks that make the “u” shaped melt pool are great for this. You are always assured of fresh scented wax as it drips into the pool versus burned out left over melt pool wax. the candles I grew up with were like this. Now it seems companies overwick to get fast hard throw without regard for safety or consequences. They treat the candle like a wax melt with a wick in a sprint for deep hot pools. The scents leave an undertone of burned wax in the air. if you want a melt, use a melt I guess. 🤷🏻‍♀️

[pughaus]

2 hours ago, TallTayl said:

Doing the bottom half only test was not 100% reliable in my experiences. It does help eliminate dangerously hot wicks, so there’s a good thing!  In order to properly test the whole candle system you have to test from top to bottom. The entire candle. Anything short of that is not testing. 

I 2nd this! 

 

Xersis you may find it helpful to watch this video.  It'll answer most of your questions and give you all the visuals you need.  Among other things, it will show you how much hang up you can have well into the burn life of a soy candle and still have it consume all the wax by the end.  I believe they are using 464 wax in this video.  

 

 

 

 

 

[Lawlaw410]

45 minutes ago, pughaus said:

I 2nd this! 

 

Xersis you may find it helpful to watch this video.  It'll answer most of your questions and give you all the visuals you need.  Among other things, it will show you how much hang up you can have well into the burn life of a soy candle and still have it consume all the wax by the end.  I believe they are using 464 wax in this video.  

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you guys for the insight. I know this wasn’t my post, but I’m new to the craft and never really understood why people may test only half filled vessels, but it’s pretty obvious that will only give half of the story. I can maybe understand if you only slightly tweak something, but I’m at the point where I’m trying to get a baseline and 4 solid designs together. Also wondering if I could re-melt un-dyed, un fragranced wax in failed candles. Thanks guys!

[BusyBee]

@Xersis

Little bit more experienced chandlers can give you some advice, but you are on your own when it comes to your own candle making method.  There is no right or wrong method on percentage of FOs, getting quick melt pool, curing time, etc.  How much soot is acceptable?  For me, it is zero soot.  But is that possible?  You are the one that need to decide what is acceptable or not by doing marketing research for you targeted market.  If you have that data, then you will know what is acceptable or not.  Production & testing method should be different for person to person due to difference of candle preference.

 

Diptyque choose to make this kind of candle.  Big mushroom & soot on their container (see top edge of 2nd picture)!  Many people say they are one of the best in the world.  It is not only that many customers would not trim their wick, they would not notice good candle even if you are able to create one.  They are brain washed with super marketing power, and they have zero candle burning knowledge.

 

 

What we are trying to achieve in candle making is to create the most beautiful flame.  When we do have beautiful candle flame, then it will take care of the all problems.  Not all candle flames are same, and you will know when you see a good flame and bad one.

*My definition of a beautiful flame would be BRIGHT NICE SIZE STEADY candle flame that produce WARM AIR CURRENTS.

 

I would end each wick test as soon as I notice one of the following.  This can eliminate a lot work bad wicks without wasting too much time.

Too hard of ignition

Too small or too tall flame

Flickering flame with soot

Flame dancing around (*Some slow dancing around near the bottom of container would be considered as normal.)

Container gets too hot

Hot air current:  Some wicks are producing really hot air currents which might be considered acceptable.  But the ones producing cooler air currents would be performing better than hot air current producing wicks.

Mushrooming

Leaning wick

Too much curling

When the flame is hitting the wall of container due to leaning or too much curling.

Deep melt pool:  *For me I stop whenever melt pool gets deeper than 3/8".  My preference would be less than 1/4".

*If certain wicks pass above categories, then I move on to more detailed testing as you & I have mentioned above in this post. 

 

Set your target on what you want to create first, and then execute!  Once again, good luck with your candle making venture!  

[Lawlaw410]

2 hours ago, BusyBee said:

@Xersis

Little bit more experienced chandlers can give you some advice, but you are on your own when it comes to your own candle making method.  There is no right or wrong method on percentage of FOs, getting quick melt pool, curing time, etc.  How much soot is acceptable?  For me, it is zero soot.  But is that possible?  You are the one that need to decide what is acceptable or not by doing marketing research for you targeted market.  If you have that data, then you will know what is acceptable or not.  Production & testing method should be different for person to person due to difference of candle preference.

 

Diptyque choose to make this kind of candle.  Big mushroom & soot on their container (see top edge of 2nd picture)!  Many people say they are one of the best in the world.  It is not only that many customers would not trim their wick, they would not notice good candle even if you are able to create one.  They are brain washed with super marketing power, and they have zero candle burning knowledge.

 

 

What we are trying to achieve in candle making is to create the most beautiful flame.  When we do have beautiful candle flame, then it will take care of the all problems.  Not all candle flames are same, and you will know when you see a good flame and bad one.

*My definition of a beautiful flame would be BRIGHT NICE SIZE STEADY candle flame that produce WARM AIR CURRENTS.

 

I would end each wick test as soon as I notice one of the following.  This can eliminate a lot work bad wicks without wasting too much time.

Too hard of ignition

Too small or too tall flame

Flickering flame with soot

Flame dancing around (*Some slow dancing around near the bottom of container would be considered as normal.)

Container gets too hot

Hot air current:  Some wicks are producing really hot air currents which might be considered acceptable.  But the ones producing cooler air currents would be performing better than hot air current producing wicks.

Mushrooming

Leaning wick

Too much curling

When the flame is hitting the wall of container due to leaning or too much curling.

Deep melt pool:  *For me I stop whenever melt pool gets deeper than 3/8".  My preference would be less than 1/4".

*If certain wicks pass above categories, then I move on to more detailed testing as you & I have mentioned above in this post. 

 

Set your target on what you want to create first, and then execute!  Once again, good luck with your candle making venture!  

Thank you for the extremely well thought out reply, I really appreciate it and will definitely be referencing it for info in the future! Yeah, unfortunately people associate the price and social media popularity of diptyque candles being “the best”. Maybe they were originally known for being excellent perfumers, but as soon as people saw makeup and lifestyle influencers have their candles on their counters, they became “superior”. 

[NightLight]

Testing half, three quarters full works well for me.  If I get a decent burn in the hotter part of candle, I make a full-size candle. It works very well. Most of the complaints I see on wicking is  people saying it burns great at top the. Turns into inferno in bottom half.  I do all my wick tests this way, works for me.
No  complaints from my customers who like that my candles burn a long time.

 

That Diptique candle, I would have done a wick test in that area to begin with. 

[pcbrook]

When I am testing a new FO I just make a half candle to test for hot throw.  That way I don't waste as much wax and FO.  If the hot throw is good and the wick is doing it's job on half a candle I will go ahead with a full candle.  If the hot throw is there but the wick is off I work on getting the wick right.  

[BusyBee]

@Lawlaw410  You are welcome!

 

This might be irrelevant to candle testing, but I am using below to show how much difference all of us have in candle making design.

 

Is it possible to have a quick full melt pool from the beginning and keep the container temperature safe throughout the life of candle?

This would be considered impossible to all chandlers, and many think early hang up is the only way to go.  Many would choose safety over good appearance that full melt pool provides (To me, hang up looks so ugly.).  But is it really impossible?  If we can have taper wicks, then this problem can be solved.  If we can have a wick that becomes thinner(smaller) as it goes down the container, then we can achieve full melt pool candle from top to bottom.  Technically, taper wick design can be done with regular wicks, but no wick manufacturer was willing to mass produce them.  Waxing & tabbing would be nightmare for taper designed wicks.  So only way to do it was to using below design.

 

 

By using wick in this shape.  *Wooden wick would work, but I hate poor quality of wooden wicks.

 

This is the one in action.  *Container stayed cool, but I would need to adjust the wick to little bit narrower than one in picture for little bit more shallower melt pool depth.

 

Is it possible to create a candle does not produce any(zero) soot even in draft?

It can be done when we have beautiful flame that creates perfect combustion.  Everything would need to be in perfection to have perfect combustion.  It's hard, but it can be done.

 

Set your goal high with wild imagination and execute!  This way, you will come out with better candle even if you failed your goal. 😃

[NightLight]

Haha well it would make candlemaking fun, if the wicks were made hotter at top cooler at bottom.!

They other way to adjust is to pour harder wax at bottom and or use tea light harder wax in bottom and pour softer wax top. Can it be done yes, is it a pain in the tushie, yes.

[TallTayl]

Or, use a harder to burn wax at the bottom. That would possibly make a visible divide between waxes. Not the end of the world, especially with opaque or  colored vessels. House of Intuition pours an unscented, uncolored bottom layer for all of their jar candles.  Holds the wicks, and could be a different wax than the rest of the candle. Super smart.
 

Or… make a little votive, seat it at the bottom and pour your wax around to hide the different wax. This worked well for me.

[Brotato]

On 7/6/2021 at 7:59 PM, TallTayl said:

Or, use a harder to burn wax at the bottom. That would possibly make a visible divide between waxes. Not the end of the world, especially with opaque or  colored vessels. House of Intuition pours an unscented, uncolored bottom layer for all of their jar candles.  Holds the wicks, and could be a different wax than the rest of the candle. Super smart.
 

Or… make a little votive, seat it at the bottom and pour your wax around to hide the different wax. This worked well for me.

This is interesting. I like the idea of the tapered wick but don't have steady access to that that I am aware of. I am struggling with a stinking 8oz jelly jar. Do you think this method would work for that? I am using 464 and upon recommendation going to try it with a small amount of palm added today. I'm actually getting ok hot throw with a CD5 wick. It burns very well up top but i'm about 1/2 way down and an hour into a test burn. I can see the melt pool growing. I think I am going to try a CDN wick as well? I did notice that my CD was curling quite a bit making one side of the jar hotter than the other. So far the jar temp has been below 175 but I imagine it will exceed by the end. Would be interested to try a small votive. That is really smart. Do you have a recommendation for what would work well with 464? 

 

Thanks!

 

[Tiinkers]

On 7/6/2021 at 5:06 PM, BusyBee said:

@Lawlaw410  You are welcome!

 

This might be irrelevant to candle testing, but I am using below to show how much difference all of us have in candle making design.

 

Is it possible to have a quick full melt pool from the beginning and keep the container temperature safe throughout the life of candle?

This would be considered impossible to all chandlers, and many think early hang up is the only way to go.  Many would choose safety over good appearance that full melt pool provides (To me, hang up looks so ugly.).  But is it really impossible?  If we can have taper wicks, then this problem can be solved.  If we can have a wick that becomes thinner(smaller) as it goes down the container, then we can achieve full melt pool candle from top to bottom.  Technically, taper wick design can be done with regular wicks, but no wick manufacturer was willing to mass produce them.  Waxing & tabbing would be nightmare for taper designed wicks.  So only way to do it was to using below design.

 

 

By using wick in this shape.  *Wooden wick would work, but I hate poor quality of wooden wicks.

 

This is the one in action.  *Container stayed cool, but I would need to adjust the wick to little bit narrower than one in picture for little bit more shallower melt pool depth.

 

Is it possible to create a candle does not produce any(zero) soot even in draft?

It can be done when we have beautiful flame that creates perfect combustion.  Everything would need to be in perfection to have perfect combustion.  It's hard, but it can be done.

 

Set your goal high with wild imagination and execute!  This way, you will come out with better candle even if you failed your goal. 😃

Dude... Your ideas amaze me! Can you start selling that paper wick already? I think I'm done with wooden wick -.-

[BusyBee]

On 7/25/2021 at 5:38 AM, Tiinkers said:

Dude... Your ideas amaze me! Can you start selling that paper wick already? I think I'm done with wooden wick -.-

Taper design is an idea that came out from of this forum, and I just tried it since I had those paper wicks which was perfect shape to try that.  Paper wick is not my invention either, and they are available in South Korea.  But it cannot be used in USA "As Is" due to Lumetique's "Planar Wick" patent.  If I can modify that to narrow cone or pyramid shape, then it should be alright even though Lumetique has all different kind wick patents on other shapes too.  I wanted to go to factory to discuss changing shape, so it is not planar anymore.  Furthermore, make some improvements on them, so it can be used in different waxes.  But I don't want to go there during this pandemic time.

[Brotato]

2 hours ago, BusyBee said:

Taper design is an idea that came out from of this forum, and I just tried it since I had those paper wicks which was perfect shape to try that.  Paper wick is not my invention either, and they are available in South Korea.  But it cannot be used in USA "As Is" due to Lumetique's "Planar Wick" patent.  If I can modify that to narrow cone or pyramid shape, then it should be alright even though Lumetique has all different kind wick patents on other shapes too.  I wanted to go to factory to discuss changing shape, so it is not planar anymore.  Furthermore, make some improvements on them, so it can be used in different waxes.  But I don't want to go there during this pandemic time.

That’s amazing! Will definitely be excited to see what you come up with. Didn’t realize the shape was patented.