All The CDN Hoopla

[topofmurrayhill]

I'm starting to wonder if people are testing CD versus CDN side by side to see what the real differences are in burn quality, or whether folks are just jumping on a bandwagon.

There's a misconception that CDN wicks are designed for use with vegetable waxes. That is completely untrue. They're basically designed for waxes (vegetable OR paraffin) that contain a large amount of stearic acid. That might apply to a few soy waxes that are designed for molded candles, but I don't think any of the popular soy container waxes contain any stearic acid. For vegetable waxes with a low acid value, Heinz recommends CD wicks.

I did a quicky test using straight soy wax with 6% FO, poured into votive glasses with CD 8 versus CDN 8. The CD wick trimmed perfectly while the CDN wick accumulated a little gunk at the tip. That's the result you'd expect if the chemical treatment of the CDN wick wasn't suitable for the wax.

The claims I've heard for CDN wicks is that they produce a larger melt pool and stronger scent throw. If that were true, it could easily be the result of the wicks burning badly -- just as zinc wicks are popular with some Comfort Blend users because they clog up and mushroom, but produce an easy-peasy melt pool and scent throw without flickering. Some people might think that's fine, but others might prefer a clean burn from a wick that's compatible with the wax.

We should at least be clear on what we're doing and why. Maybe you really would like CDN better, but you should be choosing it as a result of proper testing and not because you caught the bug like H1N1. People should not think they're supposed to be using this wick for any soy candle or that it's intended to be used with their wax.

Unfortunately I'm a little short on time these days, but I'm very tempted to do a more serious test with photographs to demonstrate whether this CDN obsession has real merit or is just distorted advice.

Edited November 23, 2009 by topofmurrayhill

[SEP]

Top, Thank you for your post. I tested the CDN and wasn't impressed at all. I will just stick with my plain old CD wicks in my 415. I thought that maybe I was crazy for not seeing what all the hype was about, but you made me feel better. Sandi

[Gypsyjen]

I've been doing a bit of CDN testing. I've found it works very well in EcoSoya CBA, but only works with one FO in a 70 soy/30 para blend wax, and with that one FO it throws like mad (but I'm using a Candle Cocoon oil, so it would probably throw like mad anyway).

I've ordered some CD's to test in the parasoy.

[Meridith]

I've tested the CDs and the CDNs and did not find much difference between the 2. I tested the CDN with a real heavy FO that I can't single wick in one of my jars with my CD's or any wick and it pretty much burned the same as the CD.

[islandgirl]

I tested both..

Not a big difference IMO except locations to purchase.

I get all my wicks at candlewic in bulk. They do not carry them.

I chose CD. They work well for me in soy.

[deb426]

Thanks from me too. I use C-3 with Eco after changing over from LX. My ecos work fine for most with a couple of LX's mixed in.

[IwantItgreen]

Thanks Top,

I am still testing and will observe which wick is better. I'm struggling with HT now. I'm using 70/30 464/4627.

[chuck_35550]

The CDN wick series is considered the highest premium wick by seasoned candle makers. It is a coreless, non-directional, flat braided wick with a special paper filament woven around it. This configuration is engineered to promote maximum and consistent capillary action while insuring a wick trimming flame posture. The CDN wick series is used in many different applications and is especially compatible with the harder-to-melt viscous waxes of both soy, vegetable and paraffin base. The CDN series of wick is identical to the CD wick series except that it has been treated with a special patent-pending process to resist the corrosive action of the acidic nature of natural-based candle waxes.

So I bought into the insurance type mentality concerning something which is not confirmed by sight or performance. I don't know if the wick is being attacked by veggied wax but what does it hurt if it performs basically the same way as a plain cd?

[topofmurrayhill]

So I bought into the insurance type mentality concerning something which is not confirmed by sight or performance. I don't know if the wick is being attacked by veggied wax but what does it hurt if it performs basically the same way as a plain cd?

Putting aside which chemical treatment you choose, I think that CD is an excellent wick in both design and manufacturing quality.

What you quoted is derived from the marketing hype of a large wick distributor rather than the recommendations of the manufacturer, who is the first authority on the nature and purpose of their product. It makes it sound as though CD is the "plain" version and CDN is the "fancy" version that discerning connoisseurs of wicking would use.

Actually, both wicks have their own unique chemical treatment and both are made using a special process that Heinz claims is more effective than the way other manufacturers chemically treat their wicks. Also, in reality, CD wicking in general is recommended for vegetable waxes while the CDN treatment is for stearic acid candles.

If they both performed the same, it wouldn't make a difference which you used. While I haven't done enough testing to confirm my suspicion that CD wicks burn better in typical soy container waxes, I have done enough comparisons of wick treatments to be totally certain that you would see a difference in the burn if you compared CD and CDN side by side. The chemical treatment always has an effect on the burn.

Without doing such a comparison test, it would be logical to simply use the wick that's recommended by the manufacturer. That would usually be CD. It wouldn't make sense to use the non-recommended wick unless you actually compared side by side and found it to work better. You wouldn't want to do it in response to marketing hype being relayed through a supplier or message board poster.

[Stella1952]

There's a misconception that CDN wicks are designed for use with vegetable waxes. That is completely untrue. They're basically designed for waxes (vegetable OR paraffin) that contain a large amount of stearic acid. That might apply to a few soy waxes that are designed for molded candles, but I don't think any of the popular soy container waxes contain any stearic acid.

Stearate is not the only fatty acid contained in soybean oil...

The five major fatty acids in soybean oil are palmitate, stearate, oleate, linolenate, and linoleate.

source: http://www.biotech.iastate.edu/lab_protocols/Soybean_oil.html

The 2 most predominant fatty acids in palm oil are C16:0(saturated) palmitic acid and C18:1 (unsaturated) oleic acid. Typical fatty acid composition of palm oil is given as:

C12:0 Lauric - 0.2%

C14:0 Myrstic - 1.1%

C16:0 Palmitic - 44.0%

C18:0 Stearic - 4.5%

C18:1 Oleic - 39.2%

C18:2 Linoleic - 10.1%

Others - 0.9%

source: http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jitkangl/Palm%20Oil/Refinery%20of%20Palm%20Oil.htm

Not everyone uses "pure" soy wax - many use blends, such as EcoSoya & NatureWax. Because of the higher acid content of both soy & palm waxes, I think it's quite appropriate to use CDNs as one of the wicks of choice. Since they do not cost more, there's no reason not to try them to see if they work for one's vegetable wax candles, especially since they were designed for higher acid waxes. They are not magic, but they are a logical tool available to veggie wax chandlers.

You wouldn't want to do it in response to marketing hype being relayed through a supplier or message board poster.

Nor a naysayer who loathes soy wax in the first place!

Without personally dipping a litmus strip into my soy wax, I'm gonna proceed on the basis of its chemical composition containing a lot of fatty acids.

Edited November 24, 2009 by Stella1952

[Meridith]

CDs and CDNs are not bad wicks. I like them both. I just don't find much difference between the 2.

[Sharon in KY]

I tested both..

Not a big difference IMO except locations to purchase.

I get all my wicks at candlewic in bulk. They do not carry them.

I chose CD. They work well for me in soy.

CandleWic rocks.... Bulk pricing and sales are a good thing. CD works for me...

[Judy, USMC]

I remember similar discussions years & years ago about the octane ratings of gasoline. 87? 89? 92? 93? Which one would be the best to use ... many assumed the larger the number the "better" the gasoline.

Then the car manufacturers started recommending just an 87 or 89 octane rating. 93 would/could actually harm the engine.

Now this discussion about wicks.

I can see Top's point of view. My take on his first post was: Just because there are many favorable reports being posted about CDN wicks don't automatically assume it's the best wick for your candle.

What I've gotten from Stella's post was: I've tested these wicks in my wax and like the way they work ... so I use them. They should be included in testing if/when you are not satisfied with the wicks you are using.

Both seem logical approaches to me, technical jargon aside. Bottom line you have to test your wick/wax combinations until you find something that works for you. That advice has been around this forum more than once.

Edited November 24, 2009 by Judy, USMC

[topofmurrayhill]

Stella, we were having a perfectly good discussion up until now and you haven't added anything constructive with that post.

The fatty acid composition of oils doesn't pertain to the subject of wick treatments because they are in the form of triglycerides, which means that non-rancid oil has a nuetral pH. That would describe most and maybe all soy container waxes these days. The recommended wick in that case would be CD, as indicated in the manufacturer's selection chart.

Free fatty acids such as stearic acid included in a wax blend would give it a high acid value. That might include some vegetable waxes intended for pillars or votives, but not necessarily. It would also include some types of palm wax. A wick with a treatment similar to CDN would be recommended for such acidic waxes.

Those are the facts and I stand by them. If people want to try CDN, I never suggested that they should not. But I think the selection of CDN should be based on a comparison test, not just because someone told them to use it on the basis of half-baked information. I think some people are understanding that they are supposed to use it and that it's made for their wax, which is the opposite of the truth. So I think they should compare it against the recommended wick before deciding.

Stella, I'm not sure if I should answer those insinuations you made against my credibility, but I think I'm at least as familiar with soy wax as you are and maybe more. I may not use it for all-soy candles, but I'll put my ability to make those up against yours any day. As you know, the reasons I don't use it unblended have nothing to do with loathing. In fact, I've seen you repeat those reasons to others time and time again, using exactly the wording you got from my posts.

Edited November 24, 2009 by topofmurrayhill

[Sharon in KY]

Who gives a shit! I'm outta here............

[Meridith]

Who gives a shit! I'm outta here............

:laugh2::highfive:

[LPENDA]

Top-

I'm in TOTAL agreement with you.

The Emperor is not only naked, she has an arrogant attitude which is counter to the potential assistance she might share.

Have tried both wicks and can find no appreciable difference in 464 or blends we use.

LPenda

[lsbennis]

Dam....I'm glad I use zinc wicks...:tiptoe::tiptoe::tiptoe:

[chuck_35550]

Now come on guys. Thanks Top for pointing out the obvious. What kind of measurable affect would there be on the burn? Increased smoking/sooting? Reduced throw or clogging? I have to admit that my decision making on this wick has been a lemming mentality. It seemed like a logical choice but it was not based on any measurable improvement in the quality of the product. Stella makes a good argument concerning soy composition and the wild card in this discussion would be the fact that we don't know the absolute formula of these waxes. There are just too many variables in an industry that is absolutely unregulated. There is no existing agency that holds any mfg feet to the fire concerning the quality or standards of their products. Do you feel that there is more reliability within the mfg of paraffin products Top?

[Stella1952]

Bottom line you have to test your wick/wax combinations until you find something that works for you.

I totally agree with you, Judy. When people complain that they are having trouble, I make suggestions about materials I have found valuable to my candles and give my rationale for making those decisions. What people choose to do with the suggestions I make is solely up to them.

I see no reason to attack ANY kind of wicking for candles so long as it's working for that candlemaker. CDNs are NOT a widely used wick, so when people have tried most of the standard "tried & true" wicks with no success, it only makes sense to try them, too.

People do a LOT of things because they read it *somewhere* or *someone said so*... Perhaps it would be more to the point to have a discussion about being a good consumer of information by researching and applying critical thinking before we choose a solution to a problem. I agree that some folks do not know WHY they are doing something, like using a wick assembly or particular type of wick, adding coconut oil or crisco or USA or any of that stuff - they don't research for themselves and are simply willing to take someone else's word on the subject, whether it's a supplier, poster on a forum or some person they talked to at a local craft show! If they try it and it works, they *assume* it's a good thing; if their *experiment* fails, then they badmouth the whole concept without realizing that their test design or some other aspect of candlemaking might be at fault. This is precisely why I frequently encourage people to search the forums for information (then I usually post links anyway to point them in the direction they are seeking) - if the question is important, research and learn about it for oneself!! In doing so, one might learn other important stuff along the way. I get criticized regularly for having the nerve to suggest that people actually look something up for themselves, but I'm not gonna stop encouraging people to do just that: do your own homework and don't just copycat someone else's or take ANY one person's word for it as gospel...

Top, I'm sorry if my words caused you to feel that I was making "insinuations" against your credibility - I do not feel that way about you at all and have always respected your knowledge and expertise. I don't always agree with everything you write, nor the way you express yourself, so if that is a challenge to your credibility, well, that's just silly. I understand that you are encouraging people to know what they are doing and why; not to just do stuff because *someone* said it was a good thing, but your post came across to me more as critical of a particular product (ie. the title of the post...) and those who suggest its use. You have made many statements about what a poor candle product soy wax is, and you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but the critical stridency of some of your statements makes me wince sometimes because I use soy & palm wax exclusively, despite the undeniable challenges of working with them. I will continue to search for reliable solutions to them. I have no doubt that your years of experience and expertise outstrip mine on my best day. However, even a mere plebe like myself can have reasonably sound ideas and make good points which may not necessarily agree with more wizened chandlers.

Stella, we were having a perfectly good discussion up until now and you haven't added anything constructive with that post.

I think I did bring up some good points which you did not address nor fully explain. I found several sources which contradicted your statements:

The fatty acid composition of oils doesn't pertain to the subject of wick treatments because they are in the form of triglycerides, which means that non-rancid oil has a nuetral pH... Free fatty acids such as stearic acid included in a wax blend would give it a high acid value.

The sources I read listed the fatty acids cited previously AS free fatty acids. I looked at the MSDS & TDS for Naturewax C3 but did not find a pH value listed... I didn't check any other soy-based waxes because I don't use them. Guess the litmus test will settle the pH question...

You have stated before that you think the treatment applied to Stabilo KSTs (CDNs) is bogus. I do not know conclusively nor scientifically whether that is true or not. Like others, I am only going on my own research and experiences which I share with others here. If that's not what I am supposed to do, I'll be glad to refrain from posting anything because I can only base my comments upon my own experiences, knowledge and ideas.

The Emperor is not only naked, she has an arrogant attitude which is counter to the potential assistance she might share.

I post here because of my passion for candlemaking, learning and helping others. At least I try to assist and discuss - and you contributed what? to this discussion other than making aspersions about my choice of apparel? Frankly, I don't much care for your attitude either, dear. How did I get on the menu? I thought we were just roasting large fowl this week...

Dam....I'm glad I use zinc wicks...

No sh*t!! It's almost enough to make me switch to square braid and not bother to suggest a damned thing nor discuss anything with anyone again!! :rolleyes2:lipsrseal

Who gives a shit! I'm outta here...

Good plan, Sharon. I'm headed for the exit, too. I don't personally care WHAT kind of wicks ANYONE uses!!! Whatever works for anyone else is just dandy with me. It so is not worth all this... :rolleyes2

[Debbie73]

My head just exploded:whoohoo:

[soy327]

Mine did tooo, Thanks Top, Thanks Stella I told you I learn more when you're at it.

You guys both are here to help I can see that, you are both experience Chandlers. No matter what is said between you too, I learn. Thanks top for the thread, I think I'm going to stay with the CD's it's getting too confusing.

Stella, I totally understand what you are saying about searching the forum, you are right. The Gold Mine of information is right here.

I hope you and Top both stick around for a long time.

I'm staying:laugh2::laugh2:Can't wait to here the next post.

Linda

[topofmurrayhill]

What kind of measurable affect would there be on the burn? Increased smoking/sooting? Reduced throw or clogging?

You'd see the difference between one wick treatment and another primarily in how the wick curls, how it trims, mushrooming, and consistency of the wax flow from the beginning to the end of the session. Those things could also have an effect on the melt pool and the scent throw.

Stella makes a good argument concerning soy composition and the wild card in this discussion would be the fact that we don't know the absolute formula of these waxes.

It's not that big a mystery really.

Golden Brands explains what their products are. Each one is either straight soy fat, soy plus cottonseed oil, or soy plus monoglyceride. All of them have a negligible acid value.

Free fatty acids are listed for all the Naturewax products:

C-1 Container Wax, 0.05% maximum

C-3 Container Wax, 0.1% maximum

P-1 Pillar Wax, 0.2% maximum

EcoSoya has their cottonseed and their pure soy blends, and some talk about "botanical oils" that doesn't really change the picture. I'm sure their products are much like all the others.

I've studied a lot of the patent literature out there. Popular container blends are basically just oils and monoglycerides. Everyone does much the same thing. By default, CD wicking would be the best match for all of it.

Whether it be a vegetable- or paraffin-based wax, pretty much the only way you end up with a high acid value is if they put a bunch of stearic acid in it. Depending on how much there is, that's what CDN wicks are made for. It just doesn't describe most of the products people are using here. Possibly some of the palm waxes.

[topofmurrayhill]

You have stated before that you think the treatment applied to Stabilo KSTs (CDNs) is bogus.

I never said anything like that. I happen to think that Heinz makes excellent products and that CD is an exceptionally good wick. You can get it with two different chemical treatments, which is good too. The KST treatment just doesn't happen to apply to the soy waxes people here are using.

I'm headed for the exit, too. I don't personally care WHAT kind of wicks ANYONE uses!!! Whatever works for anyone else is just dandy with me. It so is not worth all this...

I would think you'd find the subject matter interesting. Nobody was making this about you until you came along and did it yourself.

[LPENDA]

"I post here because of my passion for candlemaking, learning and helping others. At least I try to assist and discuss - and you contributed what? to this discussion other than making aspersions about my choice of apparel? Frankly, I don't much care for your attitude either, dear."

Stella, sweetheart, I was obviously not alluding to your clothes. The reference was to Hans Christian Andersen's story. Many of us are not the rubes you treat us as. Your condescension is patronizing and totally unnecessary to any discussion. This is a pattern in your posts. I don't post on the board often because I have already shared my experiences and see no need to be redundant.

I think Top's statement was earnest, valid and worth sharing. I thought it was very rude of you to treat him as you did.