Feather Palm Testing

[cybersix]

Mine is working fine so far also. The burn is not so different from CSN, even though the size seems large. If it keeps going well, I would probably include it as one of the recommended wicks.

I'll wait the end of your testing, are you taking HT into account while doing this?

My tester is a multi-reborn pillar so maybe some scent could have gone. at the beginning I was able to smell it, not so much now.

Thanks

Edited March 29, 2010 by cybersix

[sherry]

Top or Stella I have a question that keeps bugging me you both saying that we have to wreck the palm pillar many times so it does not live any cavities. On the other hand we have to poured between 195 and 200 degrees into a warmed mold and cooled under a cardboard box. now my question is how can you wreck a pillar for several times, with out disturbing

the heat of the pillar, Now I hope I don't sound like a nut :laugh2:but before I get in to making any Palm wax, again ether a container or a pillar, or anything to do with palm wax I would like to know everything and save it on a dick. I hope I explain my self OK! and understand. thank you

[Stella1952]

you both saying that we have to wreck the palm pillar many times so it does not live any cavities. On the other hand we have to poured between 195 and 200 degrees into a warmed mold and cooled under a cardboard box. now my question is how can you wreck a pillar for several times, with out disturbing the heat of the pillar,

Sherry, Top is not wrecking the interior of his candles nor is he pouring into warmed molds nor cooling under boxes.

When wrecking the interior of a palm wax candle, I just wreck and then, if I am cooling under a box, I replace it. Unless one is very slow at wrecking, the amount of heat lost during the process doesn't bother the candle. I do not ALWAYS cool palm wax candles in a cooler or under a box - that depends on the air temperature when I am pouring. During the summer, I do not have to slow down the cooling at all. There is no hard, fast rule: it depends on the environment where you are pouring your candles.

[topofmurrayhill]

Top or Stella I have a question that keeps bugging me you both saying that we have to wreck the palm pillar many times so it does not live any cavities. On the other hand we have to poured between 195 and 200 degrees into a warmed mold and cooled under a cardboard box. now my question is how can you wreck a pillar for several times, with out disturbing

the heat of the pillar

"Wrecking" isn't a typical technique and isn't really necessary. Tortoise Shell Palm has cavities that must be filled, but it is easy to do by breaking a hole into the candle and pouring in wax. Feather Palm so far has been a one-pour wax that does not require any special attention for hidden cavities.

Pouring extra hot and cooling very slowly does not appear to be necessary with the CandleScience/IGI palm waxes. With Tortoise Shell Palm, it will create a bad surface on the candle. Feather Palm produces exactly the same results whether you pour it hotter or cooler, or whether you cool it under a box or not. At about 70 degrees, it works perfectly to pour it at 190 and cool it in the open.

[topofmurrayhill]

I'll wait the end of your testing, are you taking HT into account while doing this?

The only thing I can tell right now is that the Tortoise Shell Palm seems to have stronger throw than the Feather Palm. I have candle nose with this fragrance oil and I've been burning multiple pillars at once, so I can't really distinguish the scent throw between one wick and another very well.

[sherry]

Thanks you guys, now I understand little better and I thing I will wait for now

[cybersix]

The only thing I can tell right now is that the Tortoise Shell Palm seems to have stronger throw than the Feather Palm. I have candle nose with this fragrance oil and I've been burning multiple pillars at once, so I can't really distinguish the scent throw between one wick and another very well.

Thanks Top, if you happen to note something about throw I'd be interested in knowing your opinion.

[topofmurrayhill]

This is burn 2 for the CDN 10 on the left and burn 4 for the 36-ply flat braid on the right. The photos are start-of-burn, 2 hours and 4 hours.

It appears that these wicks only partially stand up to palm wax. They will both burn it, but don't burn true-to-size except the very first time you light them. As I observed earlier, the CDN might actually burn with a bigger flame in soy wax than in palm even though soy is a lot more viscous.

We seem to have the right size FB in this test. It's burning the pillar nicely so far, as Sabrina suggested it would. The CDN 10 looks like it might just go down the center. I suppose we may need to wick up to at least CDN 12 to get some consumption of the shell.

[topofmurrayhill]

The end of burn 5 for 36-ply flat braid. There was only time for 3 hours instead of 4 this time. Still burning down nicely.

[cybersix]

I like it. It's as my pillars burn.

Don't know how to give a sense in sizes at this point. I was looking at WU site, and found that fb 36 is a "colder" wick than a CD10.

it has smallest yeld, a smallest ROC and a smallest flame and a bigger mp.

I know it depends on waxes, but curious to read. I use cd 10 in 4 oz soy tins... ok I'll think about these technical things later on today, thanks again for your test.

[topofmurrayhill]

I like it. It's as my pillars burn.

Don't know how to give a sense in sizes at this point. I was looking at WU site, and found that fb 36 is a "colder" wick than a CD10.

it has smallest yeld, a smallest ROC and a smallest flame and a bigger mp.

Hi Sabrina. The smaller yield would be the bigger wick in the majority of cases. The yield is the length of wick compared to the weight, so a smaller yield means that the wick is physically thicker. According to the numbers I'm using, the FB 36 is a thicker wick with a significantly higher burn rate, which I believe is correct. I got the CD numbers from the CERA-TEC site:

Stabilo 10

ROC: 5.68 g/hr (0.20 oz/hr)

Height: 1.97 in

Pool: 2.32 in

You can see how inconsistent the numbers can be. It's hard to compare them when different companies do the testing. There is supposed to be a standard, but differences in materials and procedures create big variations. If I take two types of paraffin with similar melting points and test wicks in them, they are likely to burn very differently. I have some paraffin that should be the type required for the test, but in my experience it's not such a commonly available material.

Edited March 30, 2010 by topofmurrayhill

[cybersix]

I may have misread, I thought a small yeld meant a thin wick, anyway I can see from the numbers you're posting that there's really no consistency.

So I wonder why often we are suprised by wicks working in some applications, for example this 36 ply seems out of the plausible range for a pillar, but it works.

And not approximatively, it behaves well in my opinion.

Oh well it's really late for me so maybe I can't explain myself clearly, sorry. Thanks for letting me know about differences in these tests coming from different sources!

[topofmurrayhill]

So I wonder why often we are suprised by wicks working in some applications, for example this 36 ply seems out of the plausible range for a pillar, but it works.

It burns smaller than you would expect from its size because of the effect of the palm wax on it. It has a "medium strong" chemical treatment, so it holds up in the wax but does not burn to its full capacity. I will try HTP to see if we find the same thing, since it is also made by Atkins & Pearce and perhaps has the same or similar treatment. CDN also seems to fall into the "medium strong" category.

My impression is that CSN has a "strong" chemical treatment and wicks like LX NST2 and RRD NST2 have a "strong" or "very strong" chemical treatment, so they burn more according to their true size.

Wicks with a "weak" chemical treatment like regular LX and CD can just die in palm.

ECO has its own special treatment that we don't know too much about, so I will also try that one and see which category it belongs in. I think it might be useful if we could categorize wicks in terms of their general compatibility with palm wax.

Edited March 30, 2010 by topofmurrayhill

[topofmurrayhill]

I decided to start over with CDN and test sizes 10 and 12 from scratch.

The photos are 30 minutes, 1 hour, 2 hours, 3 hours and 4 hours. I took more than the usual photos to show the effect of the wax on the wicks.

These were poured at 190 into unheated molds and cooled in the open at 70 degrees.

[lrbd]

I get blow outs with the 12s and sometimes the 10 as well . I just blew out the bottom of an 8. Not sure what the heck my problem is

[Stella1952]

Love that series of photos! If one clicks quickly, the candles look animated. MONDO KOOL!!!

[topofmurrayhill]

Burn 6 for the 36-ply tester was on the fast side. The melt pool was a little wide at the end of 4 hours and came too close to blowing out the side that the flame was blowing towards. You can see the light shining through the horizontal thin spot on the front of the candle in the first photo. That spot would be at the top of the second photo. A little mushrooming might have contributed to the wide pool too.

Well, nothing's perfect I guess. I've rather liked the way the flat braid has been burning this pillar down and I still think FB 36 is basically workable for 3 or 4 hour burns. Right now I can't really put the time into testing other sizes. (Sabrina, I would be interested to know how it works when you try 30-ply.)

[topofmurrayhill]

Here is burn 2 for CDN 10 and CDN 12. The photos are at 1 hour, 2 hours, 3 hours and 4 hours.

As previously noted, very inconsistent performance in palm wax. CDN 10 had a feeble burn this time around. CDN 12 caught a second wind and proceeded to make too large a melt pool. The shell got uncomfortably thin around more than a third of the circumference of the candle.

[topofmurrayhill]

Attempting to cover a few final bases, here we have ECO 6 and HTP 105. The ECO was fried by the 1-hour point; the HTP took a little longer. Any larger HTP size could officially be called enormous, so I'm done with that wick.

I will continue with the FB 36 because it's been burning down in a pleasing way. Thanks to Sabrina for her work in discovering it.

I will also do some more burning of the CDN testers. Better that I waste my time so that others don't have to.

[cybersix]

Top, I tried a 30 ply back in time and was somehow not pleased.

Now that I had the time to refresh my notes I could give it a try and post here, comparing it to 36 ply.

I never had a blowout but there are times that the shell becomes very thin and soft, never went beyond this point anyway.

Now it would be interesting seeing a 36 ply in tortoise shell (I don't have this wax).

But I know it takes time, so I'm not asking anything :smiley2:!

Thanks for sharing

[topofmurrayhill]

I never had a blowout but there are times that the shell becomes very thin and soft, never went beyond this point anyway.

The flame was a little smaller in previous burns, but now it seems to be burning faster and making a bigger melt pool. So far I haven't needed to trim the wick and it doesn't seem too long.

The flat braid almost burns too well. It's unfortunate that this is just at the point where the sizes become farther apart. 30-ply is a big step down--I want a size 33!

The photo is the middle of burn 7.

[cybersix]

never noticed such a big difference at the end of the pillar.

You know I often wonder why there's a 30 ply and a 36! But, listed on wicks unlimited site, there is not the 12 ply, which I bought at candlewic. Who knows? Maybe you!

I use only flat braid for my pillars, I was satisfied from day one and to me are really reliable wicks, I know I can trust them.

I'll be back in the lab tomorrow, now I NEED to make a palm pillar and re-watch a 30 ply burning.

Thanks for this, it's always good to go back to school!

[topofmurrayhill]

Check it out. Atkins & Pearce has a wick selection guide that I don't remember seeing before.

http://www.apwicks.com/download/wick_selection_guide.pdf

It seems that our size discussion makes sense based on their recommended sample sets for palm pillars. The set for 2-3" pillars includes FB 30 at the high end. The set for 3-4" pillars includes FB 36 at the low end.

As far as 12-ply is concerned, Wicks Unlimited either doesn't sell it or didn't have space in the table for it. They do use the test numbers from Atkins & Pearce. This is the entire set:

http://www.apwicks.com/rate_chart_classic.htm

The photo is the end of burn 7 for 36 Classic.

[topofmurrayhill]

Here is the end of 4-hour burn 3 for CDN 10 and CDN 12. They burn small and wide. You can clearly see the melt pool through the shell of the CDN 12 tester by the end of the burn. It's just a matter of time before it blows out. The CDN 10 is not as bad but is burning similarly, so I wouldn't be surprised to get that result with the smaller wick as well. So lrbd, it's probably the wicks and not you. These are not the carefree wicks you're looking for--they are the evil twins thereof.

[Stella1952]

You can clearly see the melt pool through the shell of the CDN 12 tester by the end of the burn. It's just a matter of time before it blows out. The CDN 10 is not as bad but is burning similarly, so I wouldn't be surprised to get that result with the smaller wick as well.

I don't think so. I don't see the shell thin enough anywhere to blow out on either the 12 or the 10... Might wanna keep your test going - you may end up with your first perfect shell.