Tortoise Shell Palm Testing 3

[topofmurrayhill]

Continued from Tortoise Shell Palm Testing 2

[topofmurrayhill]

Say hello to our new CDN 6 and CD 6 testers.

These were poured at 180 and cooled in the open directly on a workbench at 74 ambient.

The wicks will be lit at the length shown. That's to confuse Stella, but also because these are the ones that I think might trim properly. CD (Stabilo) might normally trim better, but CDN (Stabilo KST) is more suited to the wax and I hope that KST will at least curl and trim better than the NST2 of the Wedo wicks.

Edited March 10, 2010 by topofmurrayhill

[topofmurrayhill]

This is my ugly duckling, reincarnated as a swan.

It was poured at 180 and cooled on a rack under a cardboard box. I would say this is something like the ideal tortoise shell palm aesthetic.

The wick is CSN 12, which will be trimmed by hand before each burn.

[Stella1952]

Are these 3" pillars, Top?

...You know how easily confused I get...

Dang, that's a pretty turtle shell...

Edited March 10, 2010 by Stella1952

[topofmurrayhill]

All of the pillars for the tortoise shell palm testing are 3x4, molded in seamless aluminum. Thanks, I never thought to mention that.

Edited March 10, 2010 by topofmurrayhill

[Stella1952]

I'm already afraid for the CDN 6...

[topofmurrayhill]

My guess was 6, 7 or 8, so I thought I'd go in order.

Physically, CD 6 is about like CSN 11. That is, they would probably be quoted with a similar yield if we had that info for both of them. But CSN 11, we discovered, is too small.

From what I'm seeing so far, the first test is going to be a dud. The CD wick is succumbing to the acids. As with LX, it actually had a higher burn rate than the treated wick, but the top of it has now fried off in less than an hour. The CDN is physically holding up fine, but the burn rate just isn't fast enough to deal with the concave top.

I'm going to blow these out and swap in the CSN 12 so that I can get another useful test tonight. I guess I posted a pic of the CD pillars for nothing, because that's the last you'll see of them Tomorrow they'll be reborn.

[oakbrookcandles]

Ever tried htp in these? I poured one the other night so so results. Just poured another tonight only twisted the wick. Got bored with excel... lol

The htp does not seem to be affected by the acidity of the wax. I tried a cd 14 with crappy results.

[topofmurrayhill]

The htp does not seem to be affected by the acidity of the wax. I tried a cd 14 with crappy results.

I haven't tried it, but even comparing them in paraffin I got the feeling HTP has a stronger chemical treatment than CD.

Edited March 10, 2010 by topofmurrayhill

[topofmurrayhill]

Here's the first 3 hour test for CSN 12. It went fine: consistent burn, no mushrooming. Flame was a little tall, but not too usual for the first burn of a pillar. So far so good. We'll continue this with manual wick trimming.

CDN 7 and CDN 8 testers are in the mold.

[Candybee]

I love the reborn swan candle! I am very interested in how the CSN 12 performs so I will be watching this thread.

I currently use the CSN 12 in my salsa jar container candles with the glass glow. My glass container has an outside diameter of 3.38 inches. I also get a tall flame from it which seems characteristic of the CSN wicks.

It would be convenient to use the same wick for my palm pillars.

[Debbie73]

Top, I have a question, if it's ok. I've been reading and wanted to make sure I understand this, are you getting better crystalization by pouring at 180-185 and then covering the mold? That last pillar you did was stunning! I was not a big fan of the tortoise shell palm, but the last pillar you did was beautiful.

[topofmurrayhill]

are you getting better crystalization by pouring at 180-185 and then covering the mold? That last pillar you did was stunning!

So far, it seems the only bad results come from pouring too hot or cooling too slowly. Notice that the recommended pouring range from CandleScience is lower for tortoise shell than for the other two waxes. When I pour in the recommended range of 175-185 and cool out in the open, I always get results that are at least nice and free of flaws.

The "ideal" result I got with the CSN 12 tester might have come from slowing down cooling just a little bit and eliminating all drafts. I poured at 180 and placed the mold on a cooling rack under a cardboard box.

The same thing did not work when I put two candles under the same box. I'm not totally sure why it worked the previous time but not this time, but it seems that it may have slowed down cooling a bit too much with two hot candles under there. They ended up with a mild case of "the ugly duckling syndrome" that I previously encountered by cooling very slowly.

We'll be burning those two new testers later. They are a remake of the salmon colored candles from the first post, now wicked with CDN 7 and CDN 8 .

[Debbie73]

Thank you very much, Top!

[topofmurrayhill]

I'm not having much luck yet with the CDNs. My normal idea of a pillar wick that's too small is one that doesn't have a high enough burn rate or can't make a wide enough melt pool. However, this is more of a question of what will live or die. The first three CDN sizes I've tried all started off respectably enough but just fried after about half an hour. I guess it may be the nature of the wax, but I'm kinda thinking that the CDNs don't really have such a strong chemical treatment compared to the Wedo wicks.

[topofmurrayhill]

It wasn't a good day for CSN 12 either. My attractive "swan" tester isn't destined to have a fulfilling life.

The wick was trimmed to 1/4" before lighting and at first it had a real nice flame, just like yesterday. But within the first hour of the burn, half the wick fried. After that it just puttered along as shown below for the rest of the time. That is pretty similar to what happened with CSN 11--I trimmed it for the second burn and it fried. These wicks don't seem appropriate if this can happen.

So what do we make of it? Use a larger size? Don't trim the wick? Neither of those ideas sounds entirely plausible.

Edited March 11, 2010 by topofmurrayhill

[Candybee]

I think I would go as high as a CSN 14. I found although CS gives good recommendations they are not always spot on about wick size. A good example is their wick guide recos for glass glow are too high. People have reported on this forum (myself included) that they found they had to wick one size down for their container size. Perhaps CS did the opposite with the tortoise shell and you need to wick up. Just a thought.

[Stella1952]

Try a CDN 10 & 12 for your 3" pillars.

I use CD 5-7 in votives (don't have CDNs smaller than 8). CDN 12 works well for me in palm pillars. The tortoise shell seems to be slightly softer than other palm wax pillar blends, so trying a 10 might be a good idea, especially if wicking for a shell. HTH

[topofmurrayhill]

CSN 14 may get a shot.

Since the LX NST2 wicks seem pretty robust in tortoise shell palm, I'm still thinking about making a trio of 18, 20, and 22 to try side by side.

CDN 10 and 12 are already made. I'll post the burns later. Those are pretty big wicks and it's hard to imagine going bigger, so hopefully they'll work. I kinda think one or two of the smaller sizes would work if they didn't die. The CDNs are more fragile than I expected in this wax.

Along with the fragility comes the fact that they do trim. Those two things may unfortunately be related. One you have to go to a large size to prevent them from dying, self-trimming is not as helpful.

[topofmurrayhill]

So here is CDN 10 on the left and CDN 12 on the right. The photos are 5 minutes, 30 minutes, and 90 minutes into the burn.

I've figured out what's going on with the CDNs: relative to the burn rate, they burn out too wide and get flooded. The CDN 10 is hanging in there because the balance of burn rate and melt pool is coincidentally working out.

The problem crops up on the very first burn because I'm using concave-top molds. With a flat top they might get off to a better start, but once there's a shell it would be back to walking the tightrope--and mostly falling off it. Maybe these would work better with a higher MP wax, but the tortoise shell is a little lower than the others if the specs are to be believed.

The reason people comment on higher flames with LX and CSN wicks is that they have a more downward burn. Although they will need to be trimmed, I think the Wedo wicks will prove to be the most suitable for this wax. I'll concentrate on those from this point on.

[topofmurrayhill]

Burn 5 for LX 20 NST2.

Photos are 15 min, 1 hour, 2 hours, 3 hours.

[topofmurrayhill]

Here's where I'm at with the wicks so far:

Regular LX - X

LX 24 NST2 - X

LX 22 NST2 - ? Try

LX 20 NST2 - Good - keep testing and try again

LX 18 NST2 - ? Try

CSN 11 - X

CSN 12 - Not good but try again

CSN 14 - ? Try

CD - X

CDN - X

Edited March 12, 2010 by topofmurrayhill

[lrbd]

LX 20 NST2 - Good - keep testing and try again

Where can you get the LX with the NST2 ? That one is burning great. So the X indicates you don't like it ?

[topofmurrayhill]

I would say the X indicates it doesn't work properly.

Where it says LX 22 I actually meant LX 21.

Honestly, I don't know where you get the NST2. Mine was special ordered from Wedo on like 4 lb rolls. You may not need it though. CSN is another Wedo wick that I think has the same treatment, and we haven't finished testing it. Maybe it will work out in the end.

Edited March 12, 2010 by topofmurrayhill

[Candybee]

Great photos! Did you already trim the wick on the LX20 NST2 or did it self trim? Seems to be burning nicely. Its a shame the NST2 treatment isn't widely available on all LX wicks. Of course this may change if palm gets more popular and widely used. But I won't hold my breath.