Starburst Palm Testing

[topofmurrayhill]

I started by exploring pouring and cooling variations. The four candles in the photos were made as follows:

[1] Poured at 190, cooled in the open at 70.

[2] Poured at 190, covered with a cardboard box.

[3] Poured at 200, cooled in the open at 70.

[4] Poured at 200, covered with a cardboard box.

1 and 2 have twice as much dye as 3 and 4. The crystal patterns may appear brighter on 3 and 4, which were poured at 200, but that's an effect of the coloring. The most prominent crystals are on 2 and 4, which were cooled under a box.

Pouring temperature was a secondary factor if it was a factor at all. Slowing down cooling by covering the mold had the most dramatic effect on results. Therefore I would say that the pouring range of 185-195 recommended by CandleScience is reasonable. Insulating the mold may also be desirable. The degree to which you want to slow down cooling might depend on environmental conditions and personal taste. The ones that cooled faster have formations that are more circular, while the slow-cooled candles have more columns of horizontal crystals separated by vertical lines of color. There is also a difference in the formation of voids depending on whether you insulate the mold or not (see my next post).

It's not good to generalize about waxes or advise on those you don't use. Before I ever used palm I had internalized the generic advice that goes around about the importance of pouring hot and cooling slowly. However, the three pillar palms I've poured are dramatically different. All of them can be poured cooler than is often advised, and one of them must be poured much cooler. One of them might benefit from slowing down cooling, another will come out the same regardless, and a third must not be cooled slowly. Generic advice only sows confusion.

[topofmurrayhill]

Mold release for starburst palm is virtually identical to paraffin. Unlike tortoise and feather, which contract so much that they literally drop out of the mold, starburst palm slides out. I had to jog the molds a bit, but didn't have any trouble removing the candles. Larger candles should be even easier to demold.

The three CandleScience pillar waxes differ dramatically in the way they set up, including the formation of voids. Tortoise shell sets up very hard and dense. There is a lot of shrinkage, much of which is focused at the bottom of the candle. It always develops a deep void area. Feather palm sets up less dense and contracts such that your candle may actually have slightly curves sides. This results in virtually no void space. Starburst palm set up less dense, like feather, but conforms to the sides of the molds and contracts very little horizontally. This results in some moderate air cavities focused at the bottom of the candle.

Covering the mold makes a difference in void formation. On the left in the photo is candle 3, poured at 200 and cooled in the open. Uncovered candles form a more spongy, interconnected void space that might be easier to expose and fill. The one on the right is candle 4, poured at 200 and cooled under a box. Covered candles form more distinct air pockets. Candles 1 and 2 followed the same pattern, but the void spaces were not as deep.

Edited April 6, 2010 by topofmurrayhill

[topofmurrayhill]

I will probably start the burn testing tomorrow. Unless wick compatibility differs significantly from feather palm, the testing will not be as comprehensive. I'll concentrate on the types and sizes of wicks that worked well in feather palm and just make adjustments for starburst.

Along the way, I may try a few more slight variations on pouring technique. I also plan to do a comparison of the properties and burning qualities of starburst with added stearic versus straight starburst. Finally, I want to experiment with starburst mixed with feather. To be honest, I don't like the starburst aesthetic nearly as much as the other two pillar waxes, but I have loved the pictures people have posted of those two wax types combined.

[cybersix]

Will follow your test with interest. Adding stearic acid to starbust wax in my experience increases a bit crystal formation. I don't like it much too, and I have a lot left. I plan to get other palm waxes, with different crystals formations.

Thanks again for your efforts and for the time you're putting in this. Going to answer in the other thread..

[lrbd]

pouring temp should not effect burn though is that correct?

[TxSioux]

I find the dissected candles very interesting! Do you think the voids are at the bottom cause that's where the heat is held longest & the outer/upper wax that has cooled/hardened is pushing the trapped air to that area? I hope that made sense. I'm still just trying to get the dynamics of this wax worked out in my mind. Are you going to do any poking around, or are you thinking the proper wicking can handle these voids?

Susan.

[topofmurrayhill]

Will follow your test with interest. Adding stearic acid to starbust wax in my experience increases a bit crystal formation.

I'm not surprised. The pattern on starburst resembles crystallized stearic acid. I see the posibility that adding more can backfire. Stearic is the exact thing that makes palm candles hard for wicks to burn. It's also surprising that it would help with mold release. It seems like it could be the exact reason that starburst pillars are tighter in the mold. If you pour a pure stearic acid candle, it's tight just like that--but much worse.

[cybersix]

I'm not surprised. The pattern on starburst resembles crystallized stearic acid. I see the posibility that adding more can backfire. Stearic is the exact thing that makes palm candles hard for wicks to burn. It's also surprising that it would help with mold release. It seems like it could be the exact reason that starburst pillars are tighter in the mold. If you pour a pure stearic acid candle, it's tight just like that--but much worse.

I don't know what's really behind the scene, but here's what I did so far.

Feather:

I always added a 1-2% of stearic acid to help in mold release. When I did so the pillars came out as you described, not straight sided, a bit compresses toward the center at middle height. But you had the same result pouring hotter than what I used to do.

Starbust: never had a problem with pillars coming out of the molds. I added a bit of stearic to help crystals show better.

In both cases my burns weren't affected by stearic.

I always used the same wick.

Now I'm going to start a new era, revisiting pouring temps and maybe cooling rates. I'm not a lover of cooling racks and cardboard boxes.

Anyway I'm going to drop starbust wax, and go for another type. Too much effort for a so-and-so effect. No one really likes it from what I saw.

[topofmurrayhill]

pouring temp should not effect burn though is that correct?

I'm assuming any difference is negligible.

I find the dissected candles very interesting! Do you think the voids are at the bottom cause that's where the heat is held longest & the outer/upper wax that has cooled/hardened is pushing the trapped air to that area? I hope that made sense. I'm still just trying to get the dynamics of this wax worked out in my mind. Are you going to do any poking around, or are you thinking the proper wicking can handle these voids?

I think that proper wicking can handle any air pockets in feather palm without a problem. I still have to pour a taller candle and make sure. Personally I plan to be using CSN wicks, which burn true to size and self-trim nicely in feather, so if you hit a little pocket you'd probably hardly notice. But so far I haven't hit any in testing.

As far as starburst is concerned, I think the void space should be filled. I want to cut the wick short anyway, so I can do that at the same time. The wax is easy to cut into, so a few holes along the wick and a hot repour should do the job--especially with the spongy version.

The dynamics are easy to imagine once you get what's happening. The air is actually coming in from the outside. The wax congeals mostly from the bottom and the sides towards the top and center. That why the void areas have that cone shape. The wax shrinks as it solidifies, so the extra space is taken up by air that's mostly sucked in from above. With the candles that cooled faster, you can see a small hole in the crust that the air got sucked in through. With the candles that cooled slower, the air found less obvious paths to seep in through the crust and the wick.

[topofmurrayhill]

I always added a 1-2% of stearic acid to help in mold release. When I did so the pillars came out as you described, not straight sided, a bit compresses toward the center at middle height.

I remember when you wrote about this. I don't know if you used the same wax or a different one, but maybe my feather is already formulated with enough extra stearic to produce the same result. I can't imagine ever having a problem demolding a feather pillar using my sample of wax. They really just fall out. I poured from 185 to 195, into cold molds and warm molds, under a box and in the open, and always got the curved sides. It's not so obvious that I mind it, but it's easy to see if you pay attention.

[lrbd]

It's also surprising that it would help with mold release./QUOTE]

It does I swear..... :laugh2:It pops out so easy. without It I struggle . I don't know why but I do and with it the pillar slides right out .I don't even know what else it is used for but you gotta believe me it does.

[topofmurrayhill]

These are the first two burn testers, both wicked with CSN 12. The candles were poured at 190 into warmed molds and screened from drafts but left uncovered.

The one on the left is straight starburst palm. Using a larger mold, the aesthetic I got is just perfect to my eye. I don't like it as much as the other two pillar waxes, but I like it. I also like this result more than any of the test pours. I'm glad that it didn't require pouring at 200 or covering the mold. The less you have to go to unusual lengths for a candle to come out well, the better.

The tester on the right is featherburst palm. The ratio was 50/50 for this one. I absolutely love the look of the two waxes combined. Based on what I'm seeing so far, it also helps the burn. Featherburst burns just like what it is--something in between feather and starburst.

My first impression is that straight starburst doesn't have quite as nice a burn as feather. The burn is slower, the melt pool is wider, the wick doesn't curl as much and mushrooms slightly. I'm seeing FO sweating out around the edges of the melt pool, so I'm wondering if the fragrance retention is less and how that might affect the burn. I started off letting the wick self-trim and the melt pool got pretty wide, although the flame was fine.

Will post photos of the first burn as soon as I have a chance to prepare them.

[topofmurrayhill]

Here's the first burn for the starburst and featherburst CSN 12 testers.

[topofmurrayhill]

Here's burn 2 at 1 hour and 4 hours.

The starburst pillar is still sweaty. I used 5% FO.

[topofmurrayhill]

End of burn 3.

Starburst and featherburst CSN 12.

[topofmurrayhill]

End of burn 4.

Starburst & featherburst CSN 12.

[topofmurrayhill]

Burn 5, which marks the end for the CSN 12 testers.

The first photo is 2 hours and the starburst pillar is on the verge of blowing out. (Notice also that it continues to sweat.)

The second photo is 4 hours and the featherburst pillar is also on the verge of blowing out.

[lrbd]

bummer

[oakbrookcandles]

What about using a wick that has a higher rate of consumption? I pored a tested with csn 16, just to see.

Theory is that if it consumes wax faster it will lower the melt pool faster and move heat lower.

Getting itchy maybe i will try the HTP 1212 yet...

[topofmurrayhill]

Here's the first burn with CSN 14. Photos are 1 hour and 4 hours.

oakbrook, I agree there's a balance with melt pool width and rate of consumption, especially near the top of the candle. You can get a blowout from too small as well as too large. In this case I'm betting CSN 12 was too small.

In my feather palm test thread there seem to be a fair number of examples of both too large and too small, all leading to blowouts near the top of the candle in 4 hour burns. The most recent was HTP 1312 at the end of the thread (too big). I tested a lot of wick types and size in feather.

Edited April 13, 2010 by topofmurrayhill

[topofmurrayhill]

CSN 14 test burn 2, with photos at 1 hour and 4 hours. Nice burn rate and I have a good feeling about this one.

[topofmurrayhill]

Burn 3 for CSN 14. Photos are at 1 hour and 4 hours.

[Debbie73]

I am confused. Are you saying that when you have a blow out it could actually mean you need a larger wick? I started a thread some days ago about having a blow-out on my starburst/feather candle. It was a 3x3 1/2. I started out with a csn 11 which is generally what I start with and adjust from there. I did one 4 hour test burn and on the second test burn I had a blow-out 2 hours into the burn. I knew it was going to happen, it was burning way to fast.

I intend to wick down to a csn 7 or 9, haven't decided yet. I know that in the past I thought a candle was tunneling for sure, but as it burned further down, it turned out to be a good burning candle.

I want to thank Desert Rose aka Tracey for helping with my remelting question!

I forgot to ask you Top, what size are your candles?

Edited April 15, 2010 by Debbie73
add on

[topofmurrayhill]

I am confused. Are you saying that when you have a blow out it could actually mean you need a larger wick?

Absolutely no doubt about it. Too big or too small can cause a blowout.

Try making simultaneous 3-inch candles wicked with 11, 12, 14 and 16 when you test a new fragrance and in many cases you will see a size in the middle work fine and the others blow out.

Your wicking can vary with the fragrance and whatever, so I can't say for sure what your candle needs, but my 12 blew out and the 14 looks like it will work perfectly. It strikes me as doubtful that you need to go smaller than CSN 11. It's quite possible that 12 or 14 could work out for 4 hour burns. At least don't discount the possibility.

Sorry that I missed your thread.

Edited April 15, 2010 by topofmurrayhill

[topofmurrayhill]

Here's the end of burn 4 for CSN 14.

There's also a closeup of the sweating. What might not be apparent from the photo is that the pattern of sweating across the surface of the candle is similar to that of mottled paraffin pillars. The FO seeps out more from the clear areas where there isn't much of a pattern at the surface. The white "starburst" areas offer more space for the FO to reside in without being squeezed out when the wax crystals expand on heating. So apart from aesthetic considerations, cooling slower for more visible crystallization at the surface should decrease fragrance bleed.

Edited April 15, 2010 by topofmurrayhill