My first palm pillar

[topofmurrayhill]

When it comes to the different crystal patterns, I think a large part of it is a matter of proportions rather than additives. My understanding is that palm wax is formulated to a great extent from palm oil fractions. That means they split the oil into the harder (more saturated) and softer (mostly monounsaturated) fats. The fractions can be combined in various ratios to create different properties.

There may be lesser ingredients that qualify as additives. Free fatty acids come to mind in this regard. These would be fatty acids that are not combined as triglycerides (oil), and they are the issue when we talk about whether a special chemical treatment would be recommended for a wick to burn a certain wax. The stearic acid you routinely add to your palm wax would be an example of that. Free fatty acids, as the name suggests, make the wax acidic.

Normally I think of one-pour waxes as being those you can pour and walk away from. Pouring and having to periodically stir the muck qualifies more by the letter than the spirit of the term. However, I never had an expectation that palm wax would be a fully-fledged single pour material. Since some suppliers make a one-pour claim about these waxes, I did think it was possible that void formation could be limited enough that some people would find it acceptable.

In the case of the tortoise shell palm, it's looking really dubious to me that one-pour could apply to the wax in any sense of the term. The volume of the cooled wax is so much less than that of the liquid wax. Either you have big hidden cavities or you have a crater that needs to be topped off.

Where the cooling rate and aesthetics are concerned, my theory is that the cooling rate is only relevant to the appearance of the candle for a limited amount of time after the pour. Once a significant shell has formed against the surface of the mold, the crystal pattern for the outer surface it set. That may really not take very much time. After that, the cooling rate can be whatever works best for other considerations. I suspect you could even just dump the liquid wax out and fill the shell at your convenience.

Edited March 6, 2010 by topofmurrayhill

[cybersix]

WOW that's a really big void.

I tried tortoise wax just once and let it aside because of the cracking, but I remember that, strange to say, when I tried to "wreck" the bottom it was not necessary.

It was a sample but I don't know where it came from.

I talked to my new local supplier and he suggested I'd try their tortoise when I talked about cracks. Anyway,

"Wrecking" for me is limited because I wick molds, so there's the wick and the chopstick and I don't have much freedom on movements.

So I end leaving some holes here and there, and refill. I can refill up to 5 or six time. Maybe it's the void asking for more wax

I'm not a chemist, but this is what I noticed:

I started to add a little % of palm stearic acid to feather wax, because pillars were always stuck in the mold.

When I try to open the bottom to wreck, wax spills out like magma in a volcano eruption. No voids. The sides of the pillar are deformed toward the center, so I don't get a perfetct cylinder.

It seems that something is pushing really strong toward the center, all the wax is compressed, and no void space.

Hope this makes sense.

I stopped using stearic acid because the shape of the pillar was significantly modified and I didn't like it, but sure it helped having a "one pour wax" as Top intends.

[Stella1952]

Normally I think of one-pour waxes as being those you can pour and walk away from

Ahh, I understand now. You are not so much meaning literally one-pour, but something that one has to futz with as it cools. I agree - this is not a pour it and walk away from it wax.

The volume of the cooled wax is so much less than that of the liquid wax. Either you have big hidden cavities or you have a crater that needs to be topped off.

Essentially, yes - topped off or lopped off! When stirring occurs to disturb the cavernous formations and release the air trapped, the volume level will go down. This is one way I can tell if I have been successful in "wrecking" the interior of the candle sufficiently.

my theory is that the cooling rate is only relevant to the appearance of the candle for a limited amount of time after the pour. Once a significant shell has formed against the surface of the mold, the crystal pattern for the outer surface it set. That may really not take very much time.

Well, a tentative yes... The pattern does set reasonably quickly, but depending on heat, it can diminish or grow stronger. I've noticed this when wrecking on light-colored pillars and shining a light down into the pillar to see what's happening on the sides.

After that, the cooling rate can be whatever works best for other considerations.

Also a tentative yes. If the candle cools TOO rapidly, it will suck in the sides as Sabrina reported. I have made a few with "waists."

I suspect you could even just dump the liquid wax out and fill the shell at your convenience.

LOL - I have tried this and it is a lesson in "how brittle is brittle." If one were into adding wax to fill the volume deficit left by releasing the air trapped, this would work semi-well. The bottom would still need finishing work, which is why I just do it all at the end, but I end up with a slightly shorter pillar.

"Wrecking" for me is limited because I wick molds, so there's the wick and the chopstick and I don't have much freedom on movements.

I use wick pins so the problem is similar, although I don't have to be so careful when I bump a wick pin as I do when I bump a wick. When I do prewick the mold, I keep the wick semi-secured on top and actually loosen it, move it around, then resecure it in the wrecking process. It's a PITA to keep repositioning it as the pillar cools, but that's how I work around it. That's also partly why I use wick pins because they are much easier with which to deal when wrecking than are wicks. I suspect if there's a wax that wants to be poured solid and drilled later to receive a wick, this one is it.

When I try to open the bottom to wreck, wax spills out like magma in a volcano eruption. No voids. The sides of the pillar are deformed toward the center

I have not found that this is related to the addition of stearic acid so much as it is the pour temp of the wax, the rapidity of cooling and the intervals of wrecking.

If the wax cannot form big crystals, with the air taking up the volume, the contraction of the cooling wax will cause the pressure inside to be lower and suck against the fragile, brittle exterior of the candle, causing the deformation. When the candle is pierced from above, air rushes in to equalize the pressure and spewage initially occurs. The sides are prone to cracking where the vacuum pulling against them is been greatest. When you pierce the candle to wreck, a tiny crack develops where the vacuum was pulling and air enters from there rapidly. The air that has entered further down in the candle causes the liquid wax to initially spew out the top (because it's easier for it to do so there than the tinier space below).

This is more a problem of rapid cooling, and timing in wrecking, although I'm sure ingredients which alter the amount of contraction (shrinkage) do have an effect to some extent. If the candle is poured very hot and forced to cool more slowly, and you do your wrecking a little earlier & more frequently in the cooling process, you will not experience this phenomenon. I hope that made sense...

[cybersix]

Stella thanks a lot as always for finding the time to write so exhaustive answers.

I can assure you that when I added stearic it was the only different thing I did, everything was the same, pouring temp, cooling rate, and so on.

It changes dramatically the behaviour of the wax. The wax I'm using of course, which I believe is feather from CS.

[Stella1952]

Stella thanks a lot as always for finding the time to write so exhaustive answers.

You're welcome, but I'm done for this beautiful Saturday. Much of this has already been described in other threads over time...

I can assure you that when I added stearic it was the only different thing I did, everything was the same, pouring temp, cooling rate, and so on.

It changes dramatically the behaviour of the wax. The wax I'm using of course, which I believe is feather from CS.

Okie dokie. Well, I guess your wax behaves totally differently. I don't find any dramatic behavior changes with its use at all, whether feathering, starburst, granite, or tortoise shell (from several different suppliers). Except when I don't use it and a pillar gets stuck... THEN there's drama galore! Whatever works for you, works for you.

[cybersix]

I know many of this issues have already been discussed on here, wasn't looking for answer I hope you didn't take it bad!

Actually stearic doesn't work for me LOL since it deforms so much my pillars, I may try cooling in a different way the ones I add it to.

Again, thanks! And have a good saturday!

[topofmurrayhill]

Continued in Tortoise Shell Palm Testing 2

[Meridith]

I want to be able to burn a pillar without too much care and worries. I want to be able to keep a shell( cause I like the look ) . I want the wick to able to stay centered, maybe straight is the right word . the curl causes me too much uneven burning .I have not been able to burn a pillar to the end without getting a slit in the sides and all the wax pour outs. I made 2with LX instead of CDN to see if that makes any difference.I have not tested them yet. The 3 inch pillars I have tried in the past were with CDN 12 and 14 . now I am trying LX22. For giggles I made a 4 inch and wicked it with a LX 24.That I just finished my first burn for 3.5 hours. huge mushroom and the flame very large. so I am thinking this was wrong too. But as I said I still have not tested the 3inch with the LX 22 so I don't know

When I asked you how you wicked them I meant what did you wick them with. Sorry I wasn't clear . But no more leaking when i pour thanks for that tip.

I agree about the curl causing too much trouble. Even when I twist it. The testing I'm reading about with the LXs does not sound promising either but I'll still give it a shot since our experiences can be so different. I've yet to try those ones since I haven't poured any candles in a couple weeks but we'll back at it soon. I'm still going to try the CDN 10 and the CSN 11 and I want to give the RRDs a try. I am a bit reluctant with the RRDs since I can recall that in my soy they produced huge mushrooms. I know I will find a wick that burns without all the fuss. You will too.

[lrbd]

Hey Meredith

The testing I'm reading about with the LXs does not sound promising either

It's not. I am failing . I am in the process of melting down the candles and trying again . It was terrible I will post the photos in a second

Here you go

Edited March 7, 2010 by lrbd

[Stella1952]

It's not. I am failing . I am in the process of melting down the candles and trying again . It was terrible I will post the photos in a second

Just my 2¢...

I don't see anything in those photos that remotely constitute failure and a reason for a meltdown. Once again, testing has to go on to the end unless a wick completely drowns or absolutely is a TORCH. I can barely see the 'shroom in the photo. That is not a reason to abandon a test. I hope you will reconside, have patience and continue testing.

[lrbd]

Just my 2¢...

I don't see anything in those photos that remotely constitute failure and a reason for a meltdown. Once again, testing has to go on to the end unless a wick completely drowns or absolutely is a TORCH. I can barely see the 'shroom in the photo. That is not a reason to abandon a test. I hope you will reconside, have patience and continue testing.

Thanks stella and your 2c is always welcome. Too late though I melted down but I did wick again using the LX 22 along with a LX24, CDN10 and for sh*ts and giggles a HTP126 . All using the same 3 inch molds and all from the same pour pot . I promise once I start testing these I will go to the end. but no kidding the flame on the 4 inch pillar was huge, tall ,scarey and smoking .

Edited March 7, 2010 by lrbd

[Candybee]

Irbd -On your first set of pics with the flame height comparisons; the 1st is not what I would call 'huge, tall, and scary'. If thats the LX24 that is the typical height of that wick size. I find the LX has a tall flame. It looks in the normal range to me. Like Stella said you really need to burn down to the end of the candle to see how well it test burns.

The shorter flame candle next to it does look like it may drown out but that could happen if it hit an air pocket while burning. Or not. I can't tell from the pic or how far down it burned. But it does appear to have started to tunnel much more than is desirable.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Candybee

[lrbd]

Irbd -On your first set of pics with the flame height comparisons; the 1st is not what I would call 'huge, tall, and scary'. If thats the LX24 that is the typical height of that wick size. I find the LX has a tall flame. It looks in the normal range to me. Like Stella said you really need to burn down to the end of the candle to see how well it test burns.

The shorter flame candle next to it does look like it may drown out but that could happen if it hit an air pocket while burning. Or not. I can't tell from the pic or how far down it burned. But it does appear to have started to tunnel much more than is desirable.

Thanks for your input . It seemed large to me but now i know that is typical. I am trying again using the same wicks and will be sure to go to the end. When i am ready to burn them I will start a thread to share my results. Maybe I jumped the gun but I am still thinking I didn't there was a lot of soot coming from that wick enough so that it caused my husband to come get me to see. He doesn't alarm easy . The other seem very tiny which lead me to think it would drowned bbut again who knows will try again. Thanks again totaly appreciate everyones thoughts

[topofmurrayhill]

Your problem here is with the LX wicks.

Sizes above LX 22 didn't used to exist. They were added to extend the range into viscous veggie waxes. They are sometimes if not always sold with the NST2 chemical treatment, even if it's not mentioned. That's why your LX 24 is working, but the high flame and soot indicates that it's too large.

Unfortunately, you can't use the smaller sizes because they don't have the chemical treatment and will drown out in palm wax as your LX 22 did.

Edited March 7, 2010 by topofmurrayhill

[lrbd]

Sizes above LX 22 didn't used to exist. They were added to extend the range into viscous veggie waxes. They are sometimes if not always sold with the NST2 chemical treatment, even if it's not mentioned.

So even though I purschased or thought I purchased raw spool wicking the treatment is on there for the 24 but not the 22? Want to make surei understand what you are saying and thanks

[topofmurrayhill]

So even though I purschased or thought I purchased raw spool wicking the treatment is on there for the 24 but not the 22? Want to make surei understand what you are saying and thanks

Yes, that's probably the case.

More accurately, they are treated differently. All wicks get soaked with a salt solution to make make them work as candle wicking. It's the way wick has always been made. However, the formula can be adjusted to make the wick work better in different waxes. NST2 and KST (with CDN wicks) are treatments for acidic waxes. Your LX 24 has that and the LX 22 just has the regular treatment. It doesn't matter if you buy wick assemblies or spools.

Soy wax doesn't have this issue because it's basically made of oil, which does no harm to the wick. In addition to oil, palm wax contains "free fatty acids," which basically fry the wick unless it's made the withstand them.

Edited March 7, 2010 by topofmurrayhill

[lrbd]

ok I get it but why are they only treating the 24 and not the 22 . what's up with that. by what i saw in the two that could make all the difference. don't you agree

[topofmurrayhill]

ok I get it but why are they only treating the 24 and not the 22 . what's up with that. by what i saw in the two that could make all the difference. don't you agree

Different wicks can be made for different purposes.

LX 8 through LX 22 was originally the entire size range. It was sold in the USA with the regular wick treatment. You can't change that because it would drastically change the way it works. I'd never use an NST2 wick in a paraffin pillar because it would work crappy.

LX 24 through LX 30 were added later for veggie waxes. Apparently it was felt that those sizes should be offered with the NST2 treatment "just in case."

As far as how it's sold in this country, you can think of LX as two slightly different lines of wicking: the normal 8-22 and the special 24-30. That's just the way things developed. The distributors and suppliers could sell the smaller sizes with the NST2 treatment, but that might make things even more confusing. Normally you have to get those specially.

Choosing a wick for a particular application is sometimes not a simple matter.

Edited March 7, 2010 by topofmurrayhill

[lrbd]

[Choosing a wick for a particular application is sometimes not a simple matter.

/QUOTE]you said it brother