Feather Palm Testing

[topofmurrayhill]

I decided to take a break from Tortoise Shell Palm and get a comparison with a different palm wax. This is Feather Palm from CandleScience.

The test pillar pictured below was poured at the recommended 190 degrees. It was cooled in the open at an ambient temperature of 70 degrees. As with the Tortoise Shell, the Feather Palm contracted and simply dropped out of the mold. As far as I can see, the crystallization pattern is ideal.

This wax is very easy to pour and produces a beautiful pillar.

[topofmurrayhill]

Here are the actual burn testers, poured the same way as described above. They all came out fine and are very consistent in appearance. They're scented at 5% FO by candle weight using the same fragrance that I used for the Tortoise Shell Palm testing.

I'm starting off testing CSN sizes 11, 12, 14 and 16 in 4 hour test sessions with no trimming or fussing with the wicks. The photos are at 1 hour and 4 hours.

Edited March 23, 2010 by topofmurrayhill

[cybersix]

While I'll wait to see how the test goes I'm curious to know if you found any strange void as with tortoise shell palm. Or were you going juts for wicks?

Thanks

[topofmurrayhill]

Here's the second burn for the CSN testers. The wicks have been holding up very well and burning consistently. The slow and steady burn, even with the largest wick size, makes it feel like watching containers rather than pillars.

It's very noticeable that Feather Palm has a much slower and more side-to-side burn than Tortoise Shell Palm. From what I've seen in other photos, it may be the same burn habit that people are dealing with in Starburst Palm.

Even this early in the process, I think I see what the basic wicking issue is. With such a wide, slow burn, the wax level does not drop very fast. The larger the wick and the longer the burn session, the more likely that the side blows out. I can decide to use a small wick that can be power burned but might otherwise leave a thick shell, or I can choose a wick that leaves a thin shell in 3 to 4 hour burns but may blow out if power burned. At least it's a simple decision.

It will be interesting to see how my other Wedo champ, LX NST2, will do in Feather Palm. It usually has a more downward burn that I suspect could work well in this wax.

Edited March 23, 2010 by topofmurrayhill

[topofmurrayhill]

While I'll wait to see how the test goes I'm curious to know if you found any strange void as with tortoise shell palm. Or were you going juts for wicks?

Thanks

Hi Sabrina. I think there are probably some hidden cavities. I see one of the testers has a little hole in the bottom where it sucked in air. I'm starting with the wicking right now, but we will find out more about the voids later. With these CSN testers, I would actually like to burn down to the voids to see if they are much of a problem.

[Candybee]

Thanks for doing this test Top. I haven't tried feather palm yet but would like to so I am interested in the wicking. Your testers are very pretty.

[soy327]

Top, I have been testing the feather since Sat with a CSN9 and for the shell effect it's doing good 5th 3hr burn so far. I like the CSN's and am interested in your findings with the bigger wicks. I have sample packs of all 7,9,11,12,14,16.

[topofmurrayhill]

Burn 3 for the CSN testers. Still slow and steady, very consistent, and no fuss. User input not required except to light them and blow them out.

CSN 11 has a fairly thick shell with 4 hour burns. CSN 12 is the one I'm rooting for at the moment, though it's early. CSN 14, for whatever reason, is not quite keeping up with CSN 12 even though it looks healthy. CSN 16 produces the closest thing to a conventional pillar burn, but I think it's a blowout risk. It would melt through the side with burns longer than this, and who knows, it may even blow out with 4 hour burns.

One thing I can't help but notice is that the scent throw from these Feather Palm testers doesn't seem to be as strong as with the Tortoise Shell Palm. Heaven knows I must have candle nose by now with this test FO, but I'm still noticing the throw from my LX 20 NST2 Tortoise Shell tester while 4 of these Feather Palm testers are not exactly making me flee.

[topofmurrayhill]

Top, I have been testing the feather since Sat with a CSN9 and for the shell effect it's doing good 5th 3hr burn so far.

My CSN 11 candle doesn't exactly have a whopper of a flame. What are you getting with the CSN 9? Does it seem bigger or smaller or about the same?

[soy327]

It's making a nice shell. I was afraid it might be to small, But hey ya never know unless you try. I have a pic if you don't mind me posting it later.

[topofmurrayhill]

It's making a nice shell. I was afraid it might be to small, But hey ya never know unless you try. I have a pic if you don't mind me posting it later.

You can certainly post a pic.

Sorry, I meant how big a flame are you getting with CSN 9?

[soy327]

It's about 3/4"

[soy327]

O'K here is the CSN 9 Been trying to turn and kepp the wick more centered with my wick dipper. I'm sure I have some air current going on here with the heat on and back to back snow storms. All and all I'm happy it's only my 4th pillar.

[topofmurrayhill]

O'K here is the CSN 9 Been trying to turn and kepp the wick more centered with my wick dipper. I'm sure I have some air current going on here with the heat on and back to back snow storms. All and all I'm happy it's only my 4th pillar.

From what I've seen so far, several sizes of CSN can all burn reliably in this wax and you can just choose how thick a wax shell you want and how long you want to be able to burn for. I'm shooting for a little more fire and a little less shell in mine because that's what I'm used to in pillars, but that lantern effect is nice too.

[topofmurrayhill]

Here's the 4th 4-hour burn of the CSN wicks, all still working consistently.

All the candles are glowing through to some extent or other, but the CSN 11 has a considerably thicker shell. It's a little rough on the inside and the melt pool isn't as round as the others. The CSN 12 and 16 in particular are working on melting the roof over their heads. My money is still on the 12 to be my favorite, even though I prefer the burn of the 16. I just worry that the shell gets thin at 4 hours.

The view from above shows CSN 11 and 14 at the bottom of the photo, CSN 12 and 16 at the top.

Edited March 24, 2010 by topofmurrayhill

[topofmurrayhill]

It's wick elimination time!

The first photo is the beginning of burn 5.

The second photo is the CSN 14 tester after 3 hours of burning. The thin dark line on the side of the candle is where the shell has gotten thin enough for the profile of the melt pool to show through. I'm calling that a technical blowout. There's no reason to wait for wax to spill all over the place; that's already closer than it should ever be. CSN 14 is a fail.

The third photo is the end of the 4 hour burn.

The fourth photo is the CSN 16 tester before being extinguished at the 4 hour point. The melt pool is showing through the side a little bit. This happened once before at the end of 4 hours and it was even more visible that time. Generally, the melt pool has been a little wide on that one. CSN 16 is a fail.

I will continue to burn CSN 11 and CSN 12. I'm not expecting to see any more technical blowouts. The next interesting event should be when they start hitting voids. I don't know how much hidden space there is or how far into the candle it goes. I'm looking forward to seeing what happens as they burn down.

These are never going to be totally one-pour candles for me because I want to cut the wick short, so I have to pour some wax to fill in around it. However, I'm hoping that maybe this wax will have less void space than the Tortoise Shell Palm and that possibly I don't have to do anything special about it.

Edited March 25, 2010 by topofmurrayhill

[topofmurrayhill]

Here's some light shining through the sides of the failed testers, showing the thickness of the shells and the points at which the melt pool got too wide. Also a look inside the CSN 12 tester, which has been working well so far.

[topofmurrayhill]

And we have a winner.

The first photo is 1 hour into the burn.

The second photo is near the end of the 4 hour burn. About half an hour before that, the CSN 11 blew out the side. CSN 12 has worked well. I'll burn that tester down further to see what happens when we hit voids. The wick will be tested again in a larger pillar (these were only 3 inches).

The third photo is a preview of the new "ivory series" of testers for LX NST2.

Edited March 26, 2010 by topofmurrayhill

[lrbd]

This is where I get so confused. How does the 11 blow out and a larger wick doesn't?

[topofmurrayhill]

This is where I get so confused. How does the 11 blow out and a larger wick doesn't?

The 11 blew out because it left so much wax behind it in previous burns. During this burn, a lot of the "hangup" was melting down into the pool. The melt pool stayed at the same level and got wider until it finally melted through the side. CSN 11 is plenty big enough to melt out that far, given an opportunity.

Imagine that the melt pool goes both downwards and sideways. Any time it stops going downwards for long enough, the sideways part could potentially go through the side.

[lrbd]

I think I get it now. So if the wick is larger the burn is more consistent. If it is smaller and has hang up and then catches up it causes the pool to be larger and then blow out. Is that correct

[soy327]

Topl, So I'm on my 8th burn with my feather palm. It has burned each time for 3hrs, except burn 4, I let it burn for 5 hrs. No blow out yet. Now I understand your science behind the difference between the CSN 11 & 12 but, I also am looking at the wrecking process as if you were compressing a pack of cigarettes by hitting on your hand before you lit it. It's compacked therfore it's going to burn better and slower. Am I making sense. I mean I understand your philosophy but, without compacting it your getting a good burn but not the best solid slower burn. Are ya with me? I have burned 4 starburst and feather palm pillars now:laugh2::laugh2:WOW not an expert by any means., 2-Cd12, 1-CD10 and now the CSN9 and have not had one blow out. I'm not challenging you but, I am interested in the outcome and this is my view with the testing that I have been doing pertaining to wrecking or not wrecking. Respectfully, I am wondering if your testing would show different results if you were doing the wrecking process to remove the voids.

Now watch my dam CSN9 will blow out:laugh2::laugh2:

[topofmurrayhill]

I think I get it now. So if the wick is larger the burn is more consistent. If it is smaller and has hang up and then catches up it causes the pool to be larger and then blow out. Is that correct

I wouldn't generalize too much. What happened comes not only from the wicking but from the way I chose to burn the testers. If I burned them a different way, I might have gotten a different result with the wicks. Palm pillars aren't a perfect world. You have to make some design decisions based on how you want them to work and it may not be foolproof.

Soy327, you can't really compact the wax like a pack of cigs. Most of it sets up as solid as it's ever going to get. What you have to deal with sometimes, just like with paraffin, is the fact that the wax shrinks as it cools. The extra space can fill with air pockets at the bottom of the candle. The way candlemakers typically deal with that is to make sure that any air cavities are exposed and then fill them with wax.

Personally, I start with the simplest solutions. If you prefer so-called wrecking, that will get the job done too. The purpose if it is to keep breaking the crust that forms over the liquid wax so that air pockets can't form beneath it. In the end, the extra space from shrinkage ends up being a crater instead of interior voids.

Edited March 26, 2010 by topofmurrayhill

[topofmurrayhill]

I should add that we have not yet hit any voids in the CSN testers. The CSN 12 appears to be burned down around 2/3 of the way and I expect we will probably hit something at some point. I didn't poke into these candles or do a second pour because I want to see how they burn if you don't.

[topofmurrayhill]

The first photo is near the start of the burn 1 for these new testers. The wicks, from left to right, are LX 16 NST2, LX 18 NST2, LX 20 NST2, and LX 22 NST2. In the LX line, that's a pretty broad range of size. The wicks were about 1/2" long when I lit them. That's a typical wick length on my finished candles, because I like the way it looks.

The second photo is 1 1/2 hours into the burn. The wicks have not curled or trimmed very well. The tips are at the edges of the flames, but in the upper part, which is probably encouraging the mushrooms that are forming. At this point I decided to end the test in order not to mess up my candles. I will start again with the wicks trimmed to 1/4" and test them that way from this point forward.

CSN wicking failed to curl or trim properly when I tried it in Tortoise Shell Palm, but it self-trimmed perfectly in Feather Palm. LX NST2 does not curl or self-trim satisfactorily in either wax. But it was worth a try.