Jump to content

wicking advice and my test burn - images included


Recommended Posts

Hi all,

I made 2 container candles (honeypot - 3" at the widest point).

Previously used CND7s, HTP73 and HTP83x and all these were drowned out.

At that time, I was using 10-12% FO sometimes more, but after reading here that that is way too much I cut back to see if this was the reason why the wicks were drowning.

The following is what I used for this test:

Ecosoy Advanced plus

the correct amount of coconut oil per each container....

We can't get the USA here, so it was suggested on this board I try the coconut oil for frosting, scent throw etc

1. 8% Rose FO

1/4 colour chip - baby pink

1/4 teaspoon coconut oil

2. 8% Lilac FO

1/4 colour chip - lavender

1/4 teaspoon coconut oil

Both jars were made at the same time. Jars were warmed in the oven and then left to cool in a turned off oven for a few hours.

The rose jar turned out the best - no frosting on top or pull away from the jar. The Lilac jar had frosting on the top and a little wetspot (pullaway ?) on one side - not very visible, but there. There was a little difference in the pouring temp., only about 5 degrees.

These are 2 days old now - so testing more for wicks than scent throw.

I show one image where I started the burn then after one hour:

Deceptive from the image - but there is no hangups on either jar - both burned cleanly.

one-hour.jpg

Photo taken from the top

one-hour-top.jpg

AFTER 2 HOURS TAKEN FROM THE TOP:

two-hour-top.jpg

FROM the side - written the results on the image:

two-hour-results-1.jpg

AND THE STATE OF THE WICKS AT THIS POINT:

two-hour-wicks.jpg

I know it's early days in the testing, but can anyone see any problems straight off ??

At the moment, the HTP93 is performing much better than any others I've tested to date.

As for the mushrooming on the jar on the left (rose), what causes that generally - I admit I don't understood too much about this and it's causes as yet, have to do some more reading :-) This also happened when I used the CND7 which drowned out, but not this this extent.

Once the candles have set, I'll do another 2 hour test and record the results again at that point. I realise that the results could be totally different ;-)

I am having no problems with melts/tarts with hot or cold throw - the scent is great. I'm getting there with the votives and pillars (though again, the scent throw isn't the greatest - but I am having a good hangup on the pillars so they don't spill - jus the damn scent throw :)

With the containers, my biggest problem is the hot scent throw that is causing me issues - the cold throw is excellent, but have not achieved any good results with the hot throw with any jars - though others have said they can smell the scent - not too strong, but certainly there.

Sorry, if I've rambled on, but with no other outlets except this board to seek advice, I'm at your mercy (or the other way round <lol> so I hope you can bear with me :-)

Edited by nadiap
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both of those wicks are too big. The CDN for sure, that melt pool is way too deep for those burn times.

I'd go down 2 sizes on the CDN and 1 size on the HTP and do another set of testers. It is not essential to get a full melt pool on the 1st few burns. Usually if you are getting FMP on the 1st burn then once the candle burns down you're going to find that the jar is getting way too hot and the melt pool too deep. If you have the right size wick you'll usually get some hangup on the 1st burn or 2 but by the 3rd or 4th burn there is enough of a chimney effect to create enough heat to melt any residual wax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. Your wicks are too big on both candles. You are probably burning off your scent too fast and that's why you aren't getting any hot throw. I would also suggest that you work on just one fragrance and maybe make two testers of the same fragrance so you can compare apples to apples. Fragrance oils perform differently and may need different wick types or sizes.

Keep posting:cheesy2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks ladies - now I'm stumped :-)

Firstly I'll show 2 shots of the candles at 2nd burn at 2.5hr stage - at which point I extinquished them. Will do further test tomorrow.

second-burn-2.jpg

2nd-burn-1.jpg

The CDN 10 certainly looks as if it's too big and needs wicking down. There is no CDN9 at my suppliers, but am waiting on CND8s. The CDN7s as previously mentioned just failed to work at all.

As for the HTP93 - flame does look big at the beginning - but settles down somewhat. It's at this same point in testing these and my other testers, that the HTP 83s drown completely - this htp93 looks like it's on the way to doing the same thing - but certainly burning slower than the CND :-(

The fun and joy of testing... Ah well, I'll see what results I get tomorrow for 3rd burn. Out of testing about 8 of these containers to date, I just haven't managed to get the wick right and I"m running out of wicks choices <lol>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're getting that deep of a MP at the widest point of the jar, imagine how deep it will be when it gets to the bottom where it's narrow....

When I was testing with HTP's I always wished the made one in between the two sizes :) I don't use your wax and it's been a while, but it seems like where an HTP wouldn't work for me, the RRD would....have you tried those? Or an LX?

I'm sure others here appreciate your extensive posting and results though :) Good luck...hope you get it all figured out!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was testing with HTP's I always wished the made one in between the two sizes :) I don't use your wax and it's been a while, but it seems like where an HTP wouldn't work for me, the RRD would....have you tried those? Or an LX?

The 2 suppliers I've found for candle making here in AU - only have the htps and cdns and one has an ACS (haven't tried those - have no idea how to compare that to the wick carts I've seen - not seen this one mentioned in them )..

I'm sure others here appreciate your extensive posting and results though :) [/ quote]

As I said, I hope no-one minds me rambling - and I do appreciate the feedback from all the people who are more expert than I :-)

I'm in the middle of doing a 3rd burn and I must say, both of them are burning much better - not even a FMP at 1hr so that's a good sign !!

I'll post pics after the 2hr mark and hopefully you can all tell me what you think again.

It appears that with this jar, I may have to live with the fact that it burns faster at the top, works great in the middle and we'll see what happens at the bottom as it burns down that far <lol>

I was given over 10 of these jars - and do really want them to work !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi I am also an Aussie and Im wondering what coconut oil you used cos the only one I can find here that seems similar to the one suggested on the board is copha. I have just done my first test with this and I got fmp after only 2 hours (10oz apoth) and I have huge mushrooms same jar and wick without copha I still havnt got fmp after 3 burns. Was just a thought...might be the CO.

Tammy

Edited by Tribalvixen
forgot last part
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Tammy, happy to see another Aussie - I'm down in Wollongong - not too far from you :-)

My previous jar tests didn't contain any additives - and these with the CO do seem to be working ok - apart from the troubles at the top where it's narrow.

Just about done with the 3rd 2hour burn - so I"ll be off to check them in a minute.

I'm using the plain old copha bar :-) cut off a piece, melt it slowly and weight out what I need and mix with the wax before I add the colour and FO. With these test jars I took Stella's advice and heated the FO a little as well before mixing with the wax.

As for the HT, hard to judge them individually (2 different scents) as I'm burning them side by side and they only cured for 2 days anyway - this is more of a wick test than anything.

Photos of the new tests shortly :)

PS: What wax are you using Tammy

Edited by nadiap
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the results of the 3rd burn - I'm liking the HTP93 at this point I think :-)

After 1hr

3rd-burn-1hour-1.jpg

AFTER 2 HOURS:

3rd-burn-2hrs-1.jpg

No mushrooming on the CND at all this time round.

A little hangup on the HTP93, but I'm told that's not a bad thing :-)

The depth of the MP with the CND10 is about 0.28in

and the depth with the HTP93 is about 0.25in

A little more HT seems to be coming off the CND10 though.

Is this getting any better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going tomorrow to get some cba and 135 and try mixing them hopefully I can come up with something that works soon.

I saw that recommendation here too - and I was going to try the same thing :-)

I get great cold and hot throws from everything I've made using the Advanced, 135 and the PB blend (melts, tea lights, votives, even Pillars), but no such luck with the HT with the containers - though I must admit that 3 ladies who tested 2 jars for me said they could smell the scent - so go figure :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like how the CDN 10 looks - wish I could smell it! :) Since that's the third burn, I think it looks about right... It'll be interesting to see if the HTP 93 cleans the jar or if the CDN 10 heats up too much at the end or if the 10 soots a little at the end...

I sure do like the shape of that jar - very pretty! :)

Is the "copha" a coconut oil that is solid at room temp 72°F (22.2°C), off-white color, no odor, clear when melted, pourable at higher room temp? Or is it like a stick of shortening? :confused:

A random thought... maybe a small amount of palm wax or palm stearic acid would slightly raise the MP if you get to an "in-between" place (ie. no size 9) with the wicks?

Keep those wonderful photos comin'! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like how the CDN 10 looks - wish I could smell it! :) Since that's the third burn, I think it looks about right... It'll be interesting to see if the HTP 93 cleans the jar or if the CDN 10 heats up too much at the end or if the 10 soots a little at the end...

I sure do like the shape of that jar - very pretty! :)

More testing later - but I think the HTP 93 is drowning out as well :-( I burned for a few more hours last night and the CND10 played nicely, but the 93 was throwing a very very small flame.

The CDN10 wasn't too hot to the touch though - so that's a good sign.

(but then again, I'm very frustrated and looking for any little sign of something actually working!)

Is the "copha" a coconut oil that is solid at room temp 72°F (22.2°C), off-white color, no odor, clear when melted, pourable at higher room temp? Or is it like a stick of shortening? :confused:

Yep, Tammy explained it well. I remember one of your last posts to me and it did mention the ingredients that were in it, so that's what I used.

Even if it was wrong - the results with this wick test is pretty much what I had with the other tests where I didn't use any CO of this type. There were smaller wicks of course and burned out anyway.

A random thought... maybe a small amount of palm wax or palm stearic acid would slightly raise the MP if you get to an "in-between" place (ie. no size 9) with the wicks?

I have some arriving tomorrow - so will do another lot tomorrow.

Ah !! I also found the USA - though they called it UA - when I queried them, they said they were trying not to be too confusing - which I fine I guess cause they only sell soy waxes :-) That will go on order as well, but will take about a week to get here which is a bummer !

Keep those wonderful photos comin'! :)

Sure after my next test burn - but as Tammy also said, it's very hot here right now - probably just right for candle making :laugh2:but I'd wilt a lot fasterthan these rotten wicks LOL

Back later with a progress report.

PS: I should burn for longer now anyways shouldn't I - or should I keep to the 2hr schedule - I read somewhere to burn for 4 hours and then again for the same amount of time...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does "conditioning" mean? The soy lecithin isn't automatically a good ingredient. Additives are great when you need them and when you have the right amount. Otherwise, not so good.

This copha vegetable shortening is not the sort of coconut oil that Tribalvixen meant to try and it doesn't sound like it had a good effect overall. Unburned gunk was accumulating at the tip of the wick and causing huge mushrooms. The heat from the mushrooms was creating the full melt pool at considerable expense of burn quality. Sounds like it might be worth trying other solutions.

A few thought for the original poster:

If you are having problems finding a wick that will perform in one of those fragrances, it might be worth experimenting further with the amount of FO in the candle. Just because it's down to 8% from 10-12% doesn't mean it isn't still causing a problem. Some FOs are murder on wicks.

I don't know if you ever tried these candles without the coconut oil. You always want to be using an additive for a specific reason, not just because other people are using it. That means you should know what the difference is between using it and not using it. That's a necessary test.

Also don't overlook the possibility that the dye is contributing to the problem. While it wouldn't be my first thought, we have had cases of drowning wicks here that were caused by a particular dye.

Edited by topofmurrayhill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does "conditioning" mean? The soy lecithin isn't automatically a good ingredient.
Lecithin is a soy-based emulsifier used in NatureWax C3, Top. It DOES help to smooth & "condition" the texture of the wax, which is why they and other veggie oil/butter/shortening/food/wax manufacturers use it. Copha is coconut butter, hydrogenated to prevent spoilage, and emulsified with the lecithin.I don't know the total amount of wax that the 1/4 tsp. was added to, but it might be useful at a lesser dosage - or not at all. While it isn't the same as LouAna 72, there's no reason not to try it in a small amount to see if it would have the desired effect on the hot throw that Nadiap was seeking. Trying different things is how we make breakthroughs that could help all of us who share similar issues. ;) Or not...
Unburned gunk was accumulating at the tip of the wick and causing huge mushrooms
Yep, but hard to say if it was lecithin, residue from burned CO, excess FO or dye... Who knows - might have been some of those botanical oils! :shocked2: I am not a huge CO fan in the first place, but if folks want to experiment a little, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

I do agree with Top that testing with a reduction in the FO content and no additives would have perhaps given more solid data, 8% is right in the middle of NGI's recommendation of 6-10%.

Nadiap, I didn't think the HTP looked like it was "drowning" - I thought it looked like it had settled down to burn more slowly in the widest part of the container. Don't give up on it! The CDN 10 really does look like it will be too big, but burn them both all the way down to see...

Me? If reducing the FO amount, dye amount, eliminating the Copha & using a CDN 8 resulted in an underwicked situation, I'd try some palm stearic acid or palm wax to harden the wax and raise the MP a little. Looking at all the photos, I can't comment on the HTP, but the CDN looks like it needs trimming in most of the photos. 1/8"-1/4" is about right.

I also found the USA - though they called it UA - when I queried them, they said they were trying not to be too confusing
Hmmm... I find that VERY confusing. Did you ask them what their "UA" is? If it isn't the monoglyceride stuff, it isn't what you want. Just because they only carry soy stuff doesn't mean they necessarily have the same Universal Soy Additive rather than Universal Additive for paraffin. The devil's in the details!

Good luck & keep testing & posting those photos...

This is very interesting! :)

Edited by Stella1952
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lecithin is a soy-based emulsifier used in NatureWax C3, Top. It DOES help to smooth & "condition" the texture of the wax, which is why they and other veggie oil/butter/shortening/food/wax manufacturers use it.

I don't know where you got that info, but none of the patent literature (including Murphy's for Cargill) suggests that C3 or any other soy wax product contains lecithin. Monoglycerides and suchlike are the additives of choice for candle wax. That's why we add them rather than lecithin to plain soy.

Copha...might be useful at a lesser dosage - or not at all. While it isn't the same as LouAna 72, there's no reason not to try it in a small amount to see if it would have the desired effect on the hot throw that Nadiap was seeking. Trying different things is how we make breakthroughs that could help all of us who share similar issues.

I don't know what you're responding to here. I don't object to trying anything. I was pointing out that Tribalvixen found that copha had a bad effect on burn quality in her tests versus no copha. I was additionally pointing out that your comment on this additive was confusing and not very meaningful. You have this habit of commenting on things you have no experience with.

I do agree with Top that testing with a reduction in the FO content and no additives would have perhaps given more solid data, 8% is right in the middle of NGI's recommendation of 6-10%.

What I said is that the FO content, the additive and the dye would be the variables to change to see the effect on wick performance. But preferably only change one variable at a time.

NGI recommendation is about what the wax can deal with, not what the wick can deal with. The wax could be perfectly compatible with 8% FO but it could still fry the wick.

I can't comment on the HTP, but the CDN looks like it needs trimming in most of the photos. 1/8"-1/4" is about right.

Wouldn't it be easier to say that 1/4" is right? It's not even ideal to have candles that will light up like torches if you don't trim them to 1/4" before lighting, but that at least has become generally acceptable. Having to trim wicks to 1/8" is just unrealistic.

Hmmm... I find that VERY confusing. Did you ask them what their "UA" is? If it isn't the monoglyceride stuff, it isn't what you want. Just because they only carry soy stuff doesn't mean they necessarily have the same Universal Soy Additive rather than Universal Additive for paraffin. The devil's in the details!

I find a lot of what you've been writing very confusing. If they only sell soy stuff, then their Universal Additive is the correct stuff. That's what soy suppliers have always called it. USA is an acronym that was made up here on CraftServer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, final results are in and I'm abandoning the rest of the test :-)

After 4th burn - image speaks for itself.

4th-burn-4hrs.jpg

After todays 5th burn after 4hrs...

5th-burn.jpg

Stella - I have been trimming the wicks before the start of the burn btw :-) What you see is the results after the burn.

Have no idea what that gunky stuff is made of - maybe you guys can clue me in - it's an accumulation of something - the CO..... particles from the wick itself maybe? sooty stuff - though no soot inside jar ?

The CDN burned the jar the cleanest, but much too fast and leaves that residue. Though the jar itself wasn't too hot to the touch - a fraction warmer than the 93.

The 93 didn't do a good job in the middle stages - started off ok, but fizzled - as you can see leaving the hangup on the sides and didn't clean itself higher up either.

I have a new set of testers ready to rest tomorrow. Received some Stearic Acid and used that as an additive and will test with a CND8 and a HTP104 instead.

Not sure if people would like to see the results of my next test, I may be filling up the board with a lot of rubbish :-) but I will if anyone is interested.

PS: Top - I've tested a variety of different wicks in these rotten containers, and am willing to try anything - whether it's mixing the waxes I have, or adding an additive of some type to get them to work. At least now I know that the CO I used, doesn't work and I won't be using it again - so another lesson learned.

I doubt (from my limited experience admittedly, whether I would have had different results had I not added FO with these containers.

There must be a way to wick them correctly, cause I've seen many being sold locally (market stalls etc), or else, they are selling stuff that hasn't really be tested... and many with the FOs I used in this test ... ah well, I'm doing something wrong - and that's where the continual testing will sort out I guess.

Note: Though this was a disaster - I'm happy to say that I have some feathered palm wax pillars & votives completed that look terrific. I'll post those up in a new thread - I'm quite proud of them <lol>

Edited by nadiap
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please keep those pictures coming.:smiley2: This has been a good learning experience for me and I'm sure for others, too. It's one thing to read about how a candle performs, but it is far more helpful to actually see it and get feedback from the experts. Thanks for starting this thread!

Naomi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have learned so much from your thread :) thanks heaps. I love playing with palm too...so pretty. I have some Lava (glassglow I think) in one of those pots. No idea how thats going to go cos Im thinking I way under wicked it from your posts with soy. Any way its all about learning isnt it. I tried mixing cba/135 at 50/50 and so far its looking beautiful but will have to wait a few days at least to test for ht

Tammy

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...