Tortoise Shell Palm Testing 3

[cybersix]

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.

That's why I found flat braid works well.

I'm not sure there's the need of a treated wick also, but it can't hurt.

[topofmurrayhill]

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.

That's not necessarily what I'm saying. My idea of wicking for a shell is that you have a wick that burns well and tends to consume the shell, then you try a smaller size and it still burns well but leaves a shell. I don't know if that's possible, but maybe I will find out.

That's not what I have seen pictured. What I've seen so far in the example of leaving a shell is a large wick that dies down so much while its burning that you can leave the small flame going and hollow out the pillar with it over the course of hours. I have tried several wicks, some of them pretty large, that burn inconsistently like that. If I kept burning those, they would putter along and leave a shell just as was demonstrated. I don't like that approach though. When a big wick starts with a tall flame and ends up with a little flame, I think it just isn't burning well.

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

The CSN 16 burned inconsistently like the other CSN sizes, so I'm done with it. I guess the CSN 12, 14, and 16 were "wicked for a shell." I'm focusing now on 3 sizes of LX, which are hopefully "wicked to burn properly."

Edited March 16, 2010 by topofmurrayhill

[Stella1952]

When a big wick starts with a tall flame and ends up with a little flame, I think it just isn't burning well.

So long as one achieves the result they want, does this matter?

[topofmurrayhill]

So long as one achieves the result they want, does this matter?

That's an excellent question. The issue with any candle design is always "what is the best I can get?" I've gotten the greatest benefit from not being too easily satisfied.

In order to shoot high, of course, we have to be able to envision what to shoot for. When I first made pillars, they would often go though stages of struggling or having inconsistent burns. I didn't question that too much because I thought it was normal. But after trying well-designed pillars that burned consistently, I changed my standards, improved my pillars, and learned a huge amount in the course of figuring out how to make them work right.

My question now is "what is the best I can get with palm?" In my world, oversize wicks that burn inconsistently or become half-shriveled aren't burning properly. Now, it could very well be that the way you are getting the lumimary effect is the only way to do it. Maybe that's what I will find out in the end, but I have nothing to gain by jumping to that conclusion or prematurely changing my perceptions of what normal wick performance is.

On the positive side, I have already found that LX NST2 burns reliably and consistently in my tortoise shell palm, with no flooding or overtrimming. I can produce a nicely self-consuming pillar with it. That's a great start. One of the additional things I want to know is whether I can get a luminary effect from simply from sizing down a well burning wick instead of using one of the wick types that burned wonky in my initial tests.

Edited March 16, 2010 by topofmurrayhill

[topofmurrayhill]

Burn 10 for LX 20 NST2.

Cool.

This pillar throws great too.

[cybersix]

Burn 10 for LX 20 NST2.

Cool.

This pillar throws great too.

That's what my pillars usually do.

I may try LXs to compare with my fb.

Thanks Top!

[topofmurrayhill]

That's what my pillars usually do.

I may try LXs to compare with my fb.

Thanks Top!

Don't know what your experience will be, but this is what happened when I tried regular LX. http://www.craftserver.com/forums/showpost.php?p=827460&postcount=3

[topofmurrayhill]

Here is the first burn for the new testers:

LX 18 NST2

LX 20 NST2

LX 21 NST2

The middle one is the wick that is already working well through 10 burns, 3 hours at a time. Now it will be tested with 4 hour burns to ensure it works well for the standard 3-4 hour timeframe. The first and third testers are new sizes, which will be tested 3 hours at a time.

The photos are 15 minutes, 3 hours, and 4 hours (LX 20 NST2 only).

Edited March 16, 2010 by topofmurrayhill

[cybersix]

Don't know what your experience will be, but this is what happened when I tried regular LX. http://www.craftserver.com/forums/showpost.php?p=827460&postcount=3

I saw your test, if I'll try I'll use the NST2 LX.

Thanks a lot

[IwantItgreen]

Top, can you explain why there is a difference between the 18 & the 20 & 21's "tortoise shell" pattern? I'm assuming it's gonna have something to do with cooling?

[topofmurrayhill]

Top, can you explain why there is a difference between the 18 & the 20 & 21's "tortoise shell" pattern? I'm assuming it's gonna have something to do with cooling?

The 18 was closest to the corner of the workbench, in a slightly drafty spot. The faster the outer surface of the candle solidifies, the larger the tortoise shell pattern turns out. There's a tipping point where the pattern gets large but less distinct, as in the case of the 18. The "scales" of the tortoise shell are about twice the size on that one, but the contrast is lost.

I haven't found drafts to be too troubling with this wax, but they can cause a few inconsistencies.

[sherry]

Top were do you get the LX20 NST2 let as know who sales them please

[lrbd]

what is really sad about your victory with the Lx NST2 is that we can't get them:sad2:

[topofmurrayhill]

Top were do you get the LX20 NST2 let as know who sales them please

what is really sad about your victory with the Lx NST2 is that we can't get them:sad2:

Don't be sad. This wouldn't be as helpful a thread as I intended unless I came up with a wicking option that is actually obtainable. I don't intend to give up so easily.

Two of the three sizes of LX NST2 in the latest testers are struggling through the second burn, as pictured below (that includes the 20, which was the previous star performer). So even this type of wick doesn't always work without a hitch under the current test conditions.

What I'm inclined to do next, before any more size comparisons, is explore the effect of fragrance oil. I may try a different amount and/or type of FO to see if it can be optimized.

So far, LX NST2 has been the best-performing type of wick. CSN has been second best, and CDN has been a distant third. I would like to get both LX and CSN to test reliably because they clearly look like the two most promising options.

[lrbd]

Two of the three sizes of LX NST2 in the latest testers are struggling through the second burn, as pictured below (that includes the 20, which was the previous star performer).

I don't see the struggling. I wish I did but I don't. Would you mind explaining what you are seeing? They look great to me

[topofmurrayhill]

I don't see the struggling. I wish I did but I don't. Would you mind explaining what you are seeing? They look great to me

In the second half of the test burn, the flames on the 20 and 21 got smaller and smaller. The top third of each wick clogged and mushroomed. Those candles should have bigger flames than the 18 on the left, but when the burn ended 45 minutes later they were even smaller than shown in the photo.

Both have enough good wick exposed that I could trim them normally and continue burning, but I don't like how they performed in this round. I don't make candles that act like that in a simple test burn. Mediocre is easy to get. I could have wrapped this thread up days ago, but there's not much challenge or satisfaction in that. I'm sure it's possible to do better.

You can compare this burn to the second burn of the previous LX NST2: http://www.craftserver.com/forums/showpost.php?p=827462&postcount=4

I want to get the better result every time.

Edited March 17, 2010 by topofmurrayhill

[topofmurrayhill]

On the left, the end of the 11th burn of our original LX 20 NST2 5% FO. Every burn has been 3 hours.

On the right, a special test of an unfragranced candle with CSN 14. The photo shows the end of the second 3-hour burn. The wick has burned reliably and consistently all throughout the first 2 burns, which none of the CSN sizes did in previous tests. It should be worth trying some variations of FO tomorrow to see if we can get CSN to burn better and also iron out some of the inconsistencies with LX.

As a side note, pouring the wax as I normally would but without fragrance had two very noticeable effects on the results. One is that the tortoise shell pattern came out more fine and dense than I have seen it before. The other is that the surface of the candle was extremely glossy out of the mold. Glassy might be a better word for it.

Edited March 17, 2010 by topofmurrayhill

[topofmurrayhill]

Here's one of those amazing spiral voids from the side.

Please note, CandleScience says that the starburst and feather palms are one-pour up to a certain mold height. They do not claim that the tortoise shell palm is a one-pour, so this is performing as advertised.

You do have to break into that void and fill it with wax, of course. It's not a big deal.

[cybersix]

wow it looks like ancient ruins!!

[Candybee]

Thats an amazing picture of the disected candle. I don't know how you were able to cut it so that the thin layers didn't collapse or flake off. You must have had real patience cutting that.

[topofmurrayhill]

Thats an amazing picture of the disected candle. I don't know how you were able to cut it so that the thin layers didn't collapse or flake off. You must have had real patience cutting that.

Actually it didn't take any patience at all. I needed 300 grams of the candle to melt down. When I started by splitting it in half, that's what I saw. It was like, wow, check that out. I just cut the rest of my wax off the top and saved that bottom part to show you.

Edited March 17, 2010 by topofmurrayhill

[Judy, USMC]

I just cut the rest of my wax off the top and saved that bottom part to show you.

Just want verification, please. You poured a 3" diameter pillar and this spiral void formed at the open end of a 6" mold. From the photo it appears the narrowest part of the spiral started forming at a depth of about 2 1/2" from the open end. Is that a correct measurement?

[lrbd]

In the second half of the test burn, the flames on the 20 and 21 got smaller and smaller. The top third of each wick clogged and mushroomed. Those candles should have bigger flames than the 18 on the left, but when the burn ended 45 minutes later they were even smaller than shown in the photo.

Both have enough good wick exposed that I could trim them normally and continue burning, but I don't like how they performed in this round. I don't make candles that act like that in a simple test burn. Mediocre is easy to get. I could have wrapped this thread up days ago, but there's not much challenge or satisfaction in that. I'm sure it's possible to do better.

You can compare this burn to the second burn of the previous LX NST2: http://www.craftserver.com/forums/showpost.php?p=827462&postcount=4

I want to get the better result every time.

Thank you for the explanation and thank you for trying to find a wick that we can purchase

Laura

[topofmurrayhill]

Just want verification, please. You poured a 3" diameter pillar and this spiral void formed at the open end of a 6" mold. From the photo it appears the narrowest part of the spiral started forming at a depth of about 2 1/2" from the open end. Is that a correct measurement?

This was a 3x4 pillar and the spiral void forms in a funnel shape 2 1/2 inches into the bottom of the candle--more than half its height.

Edited March 17, 2010 by topofmurrayhill

[Judy, USMC]

This was a 3x4 pillar and the spiral void forms in a funnel shape 2 1/2 inches into the bottom of the candle--more than half its height.

Suprised that it's that far into the pillar!