CSN & CDN Wick Users iIn Feather Palm- Thoughts?

[bart70]

Had a conversation with the only CDN stockists in Australia today regarding CSN wicks. For those who may not know CSN is not available in Australia at present (from the 2 main suppliers anyway).

They said they have some for testing (not general sale) but really only believe it is suitable for tealights. They commented that CDN was the preferred feather palm wick as it was designed for feather palm.

After spending much time reading test burn results for CDN & CSN in feather palm I must admit I was becoming convinced that CSN was the pick for feather. My own testing maintained similar results with CDN as others have had - inconsistent flame, starts well then reduces etc....

My question is this - Where people have choice between CDN & CSN, Have many found CDN to be their preference? What were your reasons for going CDN over CSN? (assuming that people have)

Am interested to hear the responses.

Bart70

[Meridith]

I think that what happens is that someone might recommend or mention a wick they use and prefer and that's what everyone jumps on the bandwagon to use. It's happened with the CDNs in the past until someone tested them and found they did not like them as much as others. Now, we are seeing it again with the CSNs. Some places/people recommend CSN; some CDNs. Honestly, I think it comes down to preference and what you find you like and works best for you based on testing. You really can't just base it on what someone else likes or uses. But I do have to say there is a lot of value in the test results performed by others and what you can glean from that for yourself; it gives you a good starting point for your own testing so I in no way discount the experience of someone else. I just don't hang my hat on it until I know for myself.

I know I am seriously reevaluating the CSNs after being pretty happy with my starting results so far with wicks other than the CDN and CSN. My results are promising enough to test some more with these wicks. My issue with the CSNs has always been how torchy they burn regardless of how you trim the wick. Ahhh the joys of testing, huh?

[Tribalvixen]

I find cdn works well for my pillars. Candlescience dont ship international so to me it is kinda pointless to even consider them. JMO....

[tootie04]

not piontless at all...they can find someone to order for them and then ship to Austraila if they want them bad enough...

[Debbie73]

I use the csn wicks for my palm pillars, because that was what was suggested. I tried them, was happy with the way they burned, so for myself, saw no need to try anything else. With that said, that doesn't mean that nothing else would work, I was happy with the results, so I just went with the csn's.

With containers it is a different story. I started out rrd's, got a big flame with soot, so I went to csn's and did not like the big flame I was getting, but no soot. Next the cd's, which I stuck with, because it did the best for me. Some like the cdn's, which I tried single wicking (which would be my preference) but I couldn't get them to work.

I think everyone needs to experiment and come up with what works for them. I don't want soot, I don't want a big flame and I don't like mushrooms, so this is why I use the cd wicks. There probably are other wicks that would come up with the same results. You have to come up with what you feel is a good candle.

[snewbie]

Ive gotten good results with the cd6 in scented feather votives and the fil-tec ultracore 1.7something and the 1.8something(they go by a 4 digit melt pool diameter) in my unscented and scented feather votives.

The ultra cores barely bent over, and had a more reasonable flame compared to the ultra-torchy csn9 and somewhat torchy cd6 I tried. The bending and torching are my only csn complaints. The bending causes my pillars to burn unevenly, which isnt usually too much of a problem, but...

I need to try whatever fil-tec recommends for a 3" palm pillar. They(series) all supposedly bend less.

Try fil-tec.

[bart70]

Thanks for the responses,

I am not entirely happy with my test burns using CDN in feather pillars. They start great but become inconsistent as they burn. Flame heights go from great to ordinary to average to great again during the burn. I have read similar results from others who have tried them - my experience has been similar.

I also tried ACS wicks which had a beautiful consistent flame but there was too much difference between sizes - needed an ín between' size.

There are not really a lot of options - would love to try CSN if I could get it. It is here in Australia but the wholesaler is not releasing it for sale at present, and is not convinced it is worth using - particularly in feather.

Thanks again for your responses.

Bart70

[topofmurrayhill]

The information from the distributor you spoke with sounds a bit suspect. If you listen to distributors, CDN was designed for whatever market they want to sell it to. As far as I can see, most of the interest in CDN in the USA has been generated by distributor hype rather than test results. What that wick is really for remains a mystery.

CD is based on the HTP wick design from Atkins & Pearce here in the USA. HTP is mainly designed to burn viscous waxes like soy. CDN has a different and slightly stronger chemical treatment than CD, but the difference isn't huge. On the average it seems to work slightly worse in soy and slightly better in palm than CD.

However, I have yet to find an ideal application for CDN. There's nothing about its performance in palm that suggests it was designed for the purpose. Heinz has a lot of wicks and wick treatments, most of which aren't being exported to the USA or Australia. I think they do have a recommendation for palm pillars, but I don't think it's something we can buy.

In the USA, CandleScience is the only wick distributor importing a product (from Wedo) specifically for palm. The idea that CSN was designed for tealights isn't very plausible, since Wedo already has a wick called TL for that purpose. Even if they shared any heritage of materials or design, CSN clearly is a different product.

I successfully wicked palm pillars with a number of different products, but CSN is the one that seemed ideally suited to the application. Particularly in feather and starburst, it burns normally and consistently. Unlike the Wedo NST2-treated wicks I tried, it also curls properly, self-trims, and doesn't mushroom or clog. Everything else I tried, including CDN, required large sizes and tended to burn off or shrivel up at the tip of the wick.

All that being said, I would use CDN if I had to. As far as semi-compatible wicks go, it works acceptably and you can't beat all the size options. As you've seen, you just have to live with the fact that the wick is going to deteriorate as it burns. That means you need larger sizes to maintain a suitable burn rate. It also means that there's going to be some sputtering and inconsistent flame height, particularly in the initial burns.

Edited June 18, 2010 by topofmurrayhill

[bart70]

Thanks Topofmurrayhill,

As you say, the distributors will often tell you what they want you to hear to suit what they are selling. Whilst I am far from being an expert there is more than enough evidence around from people's experiences to validate that CSN does work well in Palm. Enough evidence to make we want to try some but unfortunately there is no point if I cannot reliably and economically source them.

Whilst CDN's are acceptable in my application I am not 100% happy with them - it would be nice to have the choice to to try the options that others have had experience and success with.

The distributor did note that he is happy to provide us with 'custom made' wicks subject to minimum quantities. I do not have the demand nor financial support to head down this path. If we had the choice in off the shelf wicks the chance of getting one that ticks most of the boxes would be better.

Thanks again for you input.

Regards,

[bugtussle]

I would always use CSN over CDN in my feathered palm because they burn better for me. Carole

[Stella1952]

CDNs work well for me in feather palm.

[nadiap]

I find cdn works well for my pillars. Candlescience dont ship international so to me it is kinda pointless to even consider them. JMO....

I'm in Oz, and same as Tammy don't have any probs using the CDNs with my pillars - or my container candles for that matter either

[bart70]

Thanks Nadiap,

Good to see a sound gathering of Aussies on here!

My CDN's are acceptable but are not performing like others are getting wicks to perform in palm. My biggest frustration is their inconsistency. I can wick 2 identical candles from the same batch with the same wick and get 2 very different burns. Sure wish I could get my hands on some CSN's to test with (might be closer to that option now than I was also....)

Have just started re-testing a wick that I had played with previously. I know a bit more now than I did then and want to revisit them as I have an inkling as to why they may not have performed for me previously. I have completed testing in my non scented feather palm pillars and it will be the wick of choice for them - hoping to get the same consistency with the scented ones.

As I said the CDN's I am using are acceptable - I just believe that there is room for improvement........or maybe I am setting my standards too high..LOL:laugh2:

Bart70