Tortoise Shell Palm Testing 3

[soy327]

Top, Oakbrook,

How do you tell the CD is affected by the acidity? Is that true with all the palm waxes?

Linda

[Stella1952]

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.

IMHO, there is not enough data at 90 minutes into a burn to justify your conclusions.

[topofmurrayhill]

Top, Oakbrook,

How do you tell the CD is affected by the acidity? Is that true with all the palm waxes?

Linda

Maybe the clearest way is to compare the performance of a wick that is treated for acidic waxes with that of its regular version. If you go back through the testing threads, you'll see where I did that for regular LX vs. LX NST2 and CD vs. CDN. Generally, the free fatty acids in the wax will cause the regular version to overtrim, so that a good part of the wick burns off or shrivels up after a short time.

You can see that I'm able to get a pretty consistent burn over the course of hours with the NST2 version of LX. In the tortoise shell palm, that's only been possible with a wick that has a sufficiently strong chemical treatment to withstand the acids. I couldn't get that with the regular version of LX.

I can't say for sure about all palm waxes because I have only tried this one, but I suspect it's all of them. A good way to understand it is that there is a ton of stearic acid in these waxes.

Edited March 12, 2010 by topofmurrayhill

[topofmurrayhill]

I'm back to testing the CSN wicks. These are CSN 12 (again) and CSN 14. They were both pre-trimmed before lighting. The photos are at 15 minutes, 1 hour, 2 hours and 3 hours.

Both had a consistent first burn, but the CSN 12 was starting to mushroom just a smidge at the end of 3 hours. I think that it is indeed too small. I have higher hopes for the 14.

For future burns, I might consider leaving CSN 12 untrimmed to see what happens. That will at least be more interesting than just just watching it fry like the first time. CSN 14 will be trimmed before each lighting.

[topofmurrayhill]

This is the before and after for burn 1.

Edited March 13, 2010 by topofmurrayhill

[topofmurrayhill]

IMHO, there is not enough data at 90 minutes into a burn to justify your conclusions.

This isn't about 90 minutes. This is about lighting up everything from a CDN 6 to a big honking CDN 12 and seeing the same result. And let us differentiate observations from conclusions:

Observation (specific) - Each wick ended up flooding itself with wax not that far into the burn, resulting in decreasing flame height and burn rate.

Observation (specific) - Once the burn slowed down, the majority of the wicks proceeded to overtrim. Much of the length of exposed wick became non-functional.

Observation (general) - All CDN sizes tested had a wonky, inconsistent first burn. That included contiguous sizes ranging from those that might have been too small to sizes far larger than required for any other wick type.

Conclusion - CDN rejected for this application.

[topofmurrayhill]

Burn 6 for LX20 NST2. Photos are 15 minutes, 1 hour, 2 hours, 3 hours.

Pretty much a typical session. I'm enjoying watching this pillar burn down.

[Judy, USMC]

I'm enjoying watching this pillar burn down.

So am I ! ! ! Thanks - Looks like a winner (so far.)

Edited March 13, 2010 by Judy, USMC

[Candybee]

From the pics of the CSN wicks it looks like the 12 is curling a bit more than the 14. A fluke or something to do with flame combustion/cunsumption? Sorry, I'm not much of a scientist.

[topofmurrayhill]

From the pics of the CSN wicks it looks like the 12 is curling a bit more than the 14. A fluke or something to do with flame combustion/cunsumption? Sorry, I'm not much of a scientist.

We'd have to be wick scientists I suppose. All I know is that flat braided wicks naturally curl and the smaller ones tend to curl more than the larger ones--they trim to a shorter length.

If we could use a small enough CSN without having it die, maybe it would curl and trim to a useful degree, but I suspect these won't. CSN seems to be an NST2-treated wick or something similar to that. Those seem to stay straighter and resist burning off at the edge of the flame.

Edited March 13, 2010 by topofmurrayhill

[topofmurrayhill]

Here's burn 2 for CSN 12 and CSN 14. Photos are at 15 minutes, 1 hour, 2 hours, 3 hours. The screwed-up wick photo is the CSN 12.

Due to poor results with the previous CSN 12 tester, I left the wick longer for the second burn; I just cut off the very tip. That didn't make any difference. It burned okay for a while, started to fade, then much of the wick shriveled up. I still have the previous CSN 12 tester and the wicks look identical after 2 burns. I can safely call this one a reject.

I had speculated that CSN 12 might be borderline too small, but that might be a better description of CSN 14. It burned well for a good while but was swimming upstream by the end. Maybe it would have done better if I had started off burning for 4 hours, but I want a wick that works reasonably well in 3 hour burns, so that's the way I'm testing for now.

I'll give CSN 14 a third burn and see how it does. I'll also make a CSN 16 tester. It's the largest size I have, but it doesn't seem crazy large compared to other wicks that work in palm pillars. Maybe it'll be the charm.

[topofmurrayhill]

This is the end of the 7th burn for LX 20 NST2. It performed very well. Nice, consistent burn. Great scent throw. The shell is pretty symmetrical and is getting to be like onion skin most of the way around the top. No adjustments have been made to the wick.

[topofmurrayhill]

All the photography is wearing my ass out, so I figure this picture tells the whole story about the 3rd burn with CSN 14. It obviously isn't cutting it. However, I have a good feeling about the CSNs and I think it's just a size issue. We'll try CSN 16 next.

[lrbd]

All the photography is wearing my ass out

I hear ya Edited March 14, 2010 by lrbd

[topofmurrayhill]

This is the CSN 16 tester that's currently burning. Lately I've been able to hit the mark on a striking tortoise shell aesthetic pretty much at will, so I thought I'd summarize the principles that have been working.

The pattern you get on tortoise shell palm pillars is pretty much set within the first hour of cooling. It's defined by how quickly the outer shell of the candle forms. Slower cooling at the outset gives a smaller, finer tortoise shell pattern. Faster cooling produces a larger pattern that can be more striking--up to a point. As the "scales" get larger they eventually become less distinct, so you don't want to overdo it.

The temperature of the mold has a big effect. So far I have been warming the mold (I haven't tried it stone cold yet), but it can't be too hot. Warm or even barely warm to the touch is perfect. If it feels at all hot, that's too much. If the pattern isn't bold enough, try a cooler mold.

The 175-185 degree pouring range suggested by CandleScience is correct. Going above that can give you a less interesting pattern and can start to create surface flaws--kind of a powdery filmy look. I generally pour about 180. My conditions have been pretty consistent at around 72 degrees, but I imagine that different seasons and conditions could call for an adjustment. Try starting at 180 though.

I find no benefit at all to coving the mold with a box. It's more likely to cause problems than not. Once the outer shell is formed, it's not particularly important whether the candles cool faster or slower. Without any additives, my sample of wax forms identical hidden voids at the bottom of the candle whether poured hotter or colder, cooled faster or slower. Break through the crusty layers at an angle towards the wick after the candle has been setting up for a while and again at the end (leave the wax shards in the candle). Top off with 190 degree wax to fill the cavities.

Edited March 14, 2010 by topofmurrayhill

[lrbd]

This is the CDN 16 tester

Did you mean CSN? I thought that was next

[Judy, USMC]

AWESOME SUMMARY! Thanks for being so specific, Top. I truly appreciate it.

I am also assuming that it's the CSN-16 ... CD & CDN were "X'd" a while ago I think.

Edited March 14, 2010 by Judy, USMC
added info

[topofmurrayhill]

Did you mean CSN? I thought that was next

Thanks so much. My editing time hadn't run out, so I was able to fix it.

Some of the wicking results I'm getting seem to hinge on the lower MP of this particular palm wax and how wide the wick types tend to burn. LX wicks are noted for their more downward burn. CDN wicks have been forming fast, wide melt pools, and they get flooded from the word go. Their burn characteristics are off the map for this particular wax, so we don't have a balanced wicking solution with them. CSN burns out a little wider than LX and we've been needing to bump up the size to avoid flooding the wick too much.

It may seem counterintuitive, but old hands at pillar wicking have noticed that there are many scenarios where you need the larger size for the lower-MP wax to avoid flooding the wick. My feeling is that the CSNs are very useful wicks, and I suspect that the smaller sizes would work better in the higher-MP palm waxes as opposed to this one. At some point I may also try varying the amount and type of FO to see how that affects the CSN results. Right now I want to keep things simple and not change variables other than the wick.

Edited March 14, 2010 by topofmurrayhill

[topofmurrayhill]

These CSN 16 photos are actually from two different burns. Here we have the end of the first burn contrasted with the end of the second burn.

Very gradually during the second burn, the wick flooded and overtrimmed. I think this is connected with the sharp melting point characteristics of palm wax as well as with the wick. As with the CDN wicks, we get the same effect regardless of size. However, the effect is much less extreme with the CSNs, so I think they are a better match for the wax.

If I kept burning this tester, I could hollow out the pillar to get the luminary effect (I commented more on all this over in Stella's thread). However, what I'm really looking for is a normal, consistent pillar burn. I may come back to the CSN wicks later to test an unscented tortoise shell pillar or to try them in one of the higher-MP palm waxes and see if they burn more consistently.

Right now I think I'm more interested in focusing on the testing of the LX NST2 wicks. I'm already getting the kind of burn I want with the LX 20. I'm going to recycle all the CSN candles and make three new LX testers: LX 18 NST2, LX 20 NST2, and LX 21 NST2. The two new sizes will be tested with 3 hour burns. Since the LX 20 already works beautifully in 3 hour burns, I think I'll test the new one with 4 hour burns.

Edited March 15, 2010 by topofmurrayhill

[topofmurrayhill]

Here's the end of burn 8 for LX 20 NST2.

Still slammin'.

[topofmurrayhill]

Here's the beginning and end of burn 9 for LX 20 NST2.

Also, the three new LX testers.

Edited March 15, 2010 by topofmurrayhill

[Stella1952]

Looks good! Palm burns differently when the candle is wicked for self-consumption. Some do not like the "ragged" look of the edges, but I've developed a fondness for the "untamed" look. The hardest thing for me is keeping my arthritic pickers off those fragile edges! This will be fascinating to watch all the way to the bitter end.

[topofmurrayhill]

So far I'm not convinced I've seen any candles that are "wicked" to leave a shell. Perhaps sizing down from something that works could do that. We'll see what happens with the LX 18 NST2.

I've noticed that palm isn't exceptionally viscous. What I'm using here is just a little larger than what you'd need for a paraffin pillar--one size up maybe. A paraffin pillar could average like an LX 18 or CD 6.

You demonstrated a CDN 10, which would be a torch in a paraffin pillar, and it burned for hours on end to painstakingly hollow out a 3 inch pillar. One might ask oneself, what is wrong with this picture? The simple conclusion to me is that it isn't burning right, just as none of the CDNs I tried burned right.

I could have saved any of half a dozen bad testers I made and declared that they were simply "wicked to leave a shell."

Edited March 15, 2010 by topofmurrayhill

[lrbd]

I could have saved any of half a dozen bad testers I made and declared that they were simply "wicked to leave a shell."

Wait not sure I get what your saying so go with me here ( I'm on meds ,was up all night bailing out my crawl space and lost my heat). Are you saying that if wicked to keep a shell they won't burn or throw well because that would mean the wick is too small? That would really bum me out since I have fallen in love with that glow while the candle is burning.

[Candybee]

You make a purdy candle top. Can't wait for the results of the CSN 16.