A Few Words on the Lack of Oxygen Hypothesis

[rjwhite6]

I don't think that the wick drowning in tall jars is due to lack of oxygen. Here's why:

1.) When I burn all the way to the bottom, I find that the wicking that was drowning is now too big -- tall flame and lots of heat. This is true having repeated the test with different sizes of wick each time.

2.) Using the oxygen tank and airstone that I use when making beer, I fed oxygen to the drowning wick. Not a huge honking mass of oxygen but a nice gentle steady oxygen supply. The wick burns brighter but not any better over time.

Here's what's really happening. Wax has a really large expansion coefficient. When you are in the top third of the candle most of the heat goes out the top of the jar and does not heat up the mass of the wax as much as when farther down in the jar. In the middle third of the candle that mass of wax heats up and expands, drowning the wicking.

You can see this because if you watch you will see that when in the "drowning" phase the wax has risen partly above the previously burned black part of the wick. When the candle has cooled completely back down to room temperature through and through, you will see that the wick is now miraculously longer and in fact there is white unburned wicking sticking up above the wax.

This also explains the sooting of the wax itself. If you watch during the drowning phase you will see the soot coming out from the now submerged previously burned part of the wick.

When you get to the bottom third of the candle, there is much less wax mass heating up so there is less expansion and the same wick that was drowning in the middle third is now too large with a nice size flame -- not gasping for air at all.

If you would like to verify this yourself, you can see what is going better if you do not add any dye to the wax.

[ChandlerJane]

Interesting. I'm assuming this post is directed at me, given my post directly above this one. So, what is your opinion then as to how to get the "right wick"?

I'm not quite sure I agree with this, however, given the following.

Using the SAME exact fragrance oil, fragrance load, wax and wick, there is NO drowning of the wicks in a straight sided tumbler that is significantly shorter and doesn't have the "neck" which means there is no "chimney" effect.

In other words, the ONLY variable changed in the two scenarios is the jar, and the jar in which the wick drowns is the taller jar with a neck, where presumably, there is less oxygen in there than in the shorter jar without a neck.

I'm curious as to your thoughts on this.

[ChandlerJane]

I would also use the fact that this oxygen deprivation phenomenon is ONLY experienced during double wicking as further proof that it does exist. I have yet to experience this when single wicking this jar. Only when two wicks are consuming and competing for oxygen is this something I have seen.

Furthermore, the fact that you fed oxygen into the top of the container can't really be used as any sort of proof. Unless you fed the oxygen BELOW the point of combustion (impossible), it simply doesn't help.

In addition, I'm not sure what you mean when you say it burns too hot at the bottom of the jar. In all the testing I've done (and I've done ALOT of testing), when this phenomenon begins to happen, there isn't a single circumstance where the wicks have lasted to the end. In all instances, they have drowned themselves out entirely before ever even nearing the bottom of the container. Again, I must reiterate that these are wicks, wax, fragrance oil and fragrance load combinations that worked PERFECTLY in a straight sided tumbler about 3.375" in diameter and 4.375" in height. The ONLY variable was the container.

Edited June 16, 2010 by ChandlerJane

[rjwhite6]

I hope that I have not unintentionally offended you. My post was not linked to you. That is why I started a new thread rather than replying in yours.

I too have struggled with the drowning wick and have seen many many threads about this so I wanted to share my observations and testing experiences.

[ChandlerJane]

Goodness no. My intent was to get a good dialogue going. I'm not remotely offended. I don't agree with what you have said, and provided evidence to support my case, but, I'm not at all offended. I am quite certain (and in speaking with folks at Wicks Unlimited...they do this for a living) that it has to do with oxygen deprivation (something that the folks at WU have confirmed).

[bugtussle]

Rtwhite, I think you raise a very good point. I have always advocated "wicking for the bottom 1/3 of the candle." You just don't want a fireball at the bottom third. I see your point about the middle 1/3 when the drowning out frequently occurs. I have never believed the drowning was from lack of oxygen and that the dancing wick was probably due to drafts caused by the heat. No matter, that is why testing a candle from top to bottom has to be done. Good work! Carole

[ChandlerJane]

Problem with his theory is that it simply doesn't work, at least in our observations. When a wick starts to drown from the lack of oxygen, it drowns. It's not like it comes back to life. It never even MAKES it to the bottom third.

[bugtussle]

In that case, you would have to wick up or try a different wick. I double wick 11 oz tureens with zincs. If the zinc drowns out in the middle 1/3, I try the Performas. They are hotter and stand up very straight and can survive the drowning. The only problem is they tend to burn VERY hot in the bottom 1/3. You just have to reach a satisfactory burn between the different 1/3rds. IMHO Carole

[ChandlerJane]

But you see what I mean? That jar (the tureen) is a TOTALLY different jar, presenting TOTALLY different problems. It's a short squatty jar, where oxygen deprivation would really never come into play (and I've tried wicking those jars without ANY of the problems described here). So the point is, his hypothesis doesn't really hold water as it relates to the jar in question.

[bugtussle]

1st, all apothocary jars are almost the same. Tried to look up your jars a TV Guilfoil and they don't have a webby, but I know what apothocary jars look and wick like. They are very difficult. Yankee used them for their old line of candles. They do not double wick, maybe for a reason, and that is why you never get a full-melt and have so much wax left with Yankees.

I HAVE tried the same jars as you are most likely talking about, and I agree they were very difficult. That is why I choose the tureen.

If your apothocary jar is different than what I have described, pls post a pic. I believe there is NOT A lack of oxygen with dble wicking, just a problem with keeping the air currents generated with 2 wicks burning that cause problems. I do not think you can successfully double-wick a really tall apothacary jar. No wick I have ever used has ever made it through the middle and last 1/3. IMHO Carole

[ChandlerJane]

It can be done, and there are manufacturers doing it (take a look at pure integrity soy candles). What I was referring to before was the fact that YOUR tureen is vastly different from any apothecary jars, and any issues you run into with wicking would likely not have anything at all to do with oxygen deprivation. I wasn't saying that my apothecary is different from other apothecaries.

And, regardless of whether you call it oxygen deprivation, or lack of air currents, it's six in one, half dozen in the other (same thing). And, the "experts" at Wicks Unlimited (it's all they do all day every day), believe it's an oxygen deprivation issue. But, again, there isn't much difference between lack of oxygen and lack of the proper air currents (air is oxygen), the problem remains.

However, it can, and has been done (double wicking) with these jars.

Edited June 16, 2010 by ChandlerJane

[bugtussle]

You report using J50. Do add any soy? Soy burns very differently than paraffin. It might be possible with all-soy. But then there are a myriad of other problems which are associated with all-soy.

I use J223 + soy and it is a very successful blend, but I do not think I could ever dbl wick a really deep apothocary.

Have you ever burned an "Integrity Soy Candle" to the bottom?

Carole

[ChandlerJane]

Yes, I have actually (in their 16 and 26 oz apothecaries). It's the very reason I carry that jar/wood lid combo (cause I bought two of their candles a few years ago).

Believe me, it can be done, and it is being done. Just in this thread there are reports from two different people who have, in fact, accomplished it. Once I crack the riddle, I would be glad to report back here as to how we did it.

To answer your question, no, I use straight J-50. I tested every readily available commercial container blend on the market and felt J-50 had a better hot throw than any other. that's not to say it doesn't have it's problems (glass adhesion, some sooting/smoking...normal with most any paraffin blen) but I love the wax.

Out of curiosity, how much soy do you add to your J-223, and what problems does the soy help you with? Sooting? Glass adhesion? Do you add a straight soy, or a blend like GB464?

[bugtussle]

I add 1/3 plain soy like C3 or EZ soy. It does help with glass adhesion, slows down burn, doesn't sink in middle when 1-pouring. From my experience J-50 is very close to J-223. Try it and sure, let me know when you are successful with your dble-wicking. Carole

[ChandlerJane]

I'm no soy expert but C-3 I think is a soy with additives...not really a plain soy. Am I wrong?

[bugtussle]

C3 is straight soy and we 1st started using it because we had some, then we started using EZsoy from BCN, BCS because it was cheap; we just bought a box of GW415 and it seems to work fine also. To my knowledge all 3 of these ARE pure-soys. I'm just telling you what works for us. Carole

[chuck_35550]

Ok, here we go. The wick drowns out because it is not handling the wax efficiently enough to keep up with the supply. The wick maintains itself on top of the wax and as long as it is able to draw up the wax and burn it at a fast enough rate does it remain stable. So in some respects everyone is partially correct in identifying the problem. There are some jar configurations that are universally recognized as requiring more than a single wick to handle the wick pool demands but the price that is often payed is in how the wicking becomes more precise. We all know that you can burn a candle to the end with a large enough wick but the negative is the resultant increase in temp on the jar wall, increase of sooting, and large mushrooms that are proof of an inefficient wick. What Carole is saying is most sensible, in that she has learned what works for her and her product. I just don't understand spending huge sums of time and money to make something work that is flawed or complex in its configuration from the very beginning. Do you set your two wicks to imitate the one large wick or do you place the wicks on opposite sides to more efficiently handle the melt pool? Independant wicks are going to compete for oxygen and they're going to drown if you have merely added another wick that is not well suited or designed to meet the demands of the wax under the jar configuration you have chosen. IMHO.

Steve

Edited June 16, 2010 by chuck_35550

[ChandlerJane]

So what do you suggest then?

[ChandlerJane]

Chuck, wouldn't the fact that the same wax, wick, fo combination works in ANOTHER jar lead you to believe that it has nothing to do with the efficiency of the wicks (independent of the jar) and more to do with the jar configuration? That's my point here. These wicks worked perfectly in straight sided tumblers. They don't work at all in the apothecary. The ONLY variable is the jar, and the fact they are competing for the same oxygen supply in the jar.

[bugtussle]

What was the diameter of your straight sided jar? My straight sided jar is 3 1/4" wide (inside) and when I use dbl-Wicks, I get flickering (air currents,) and just way too much heat at the bottom. Yes, they can drown around the middle. Now I use them for palm-wax only, single-wicked and they do great.

I think there are so many factors to consider, diameter, width of top, shape of jar, etc. I know the "heat" currents have have a huge effect on how your candle burns. Think of a fire in a fireplace and the variables on the chimney.

Jane, say thks for the formula, I don't pass that out very often. lol

Edited June 16, 2010 by bugtussle
add

[ChandlerJane]

Steve, if I'm reading your post correctly you think that a jar like this, which is notoriously difficult to wick, shouldn't even be bothered with, and, that is a bit of a defeatist attitude. Because it's difficult doesn't mean that it can't be done.

Furthermore, these are all theories. None of us can "prove" any of our viewpoints one way or the other. There are, however, certain "facts" which can't be denied.

1-a flame (fire) requires oxygen to burn. No oxygen means no flame/fire.

2-two flames require more oxygen to burn than one flame does.

3-when combustion occurs, oxygen is consumed

Given the above, it's reasonable to assume that, in a container like this apothecary, which has a neck, with a top that is smaller in diameter than the rest of the jar, and oxygen supplies are limited, that it's a lack of oxygen leading to wicks that no longer combust efficiently/fully. Further proof of this is, again, the SAME exact combinations work perfectly in a shorter, straight sided jar. Further proof still is the fact that in the top third of the jar, where presumably, oxygen supplies are greater, this problem is not encountered.

[ChandlerJane]

LOL. Thanks for the formula.

My straight sided tumbler is 3.375" in diameter. 4.25-4.35" in height. I've never once run into what you have described with our current wax, wick, fo combination. My candles burn beautifully with no flickering, drowning wicks or smoke/soot. We use double Eco-1's in that jar, and in two of our tougher oils, we wick up to Eco-2's. From what I understand, there are now Eco-1.5's available, so we will be testing those in the two oils that we currently wick with Eco-2's.

[chuck_35550]

Well, yes basically we are chasing our tails about jars effecting the outcomes of a formula. Does the jar design allow for air to draft or circulate is a given concern about the jar but it is not an absolute. It may be that if you changed the other elements (wax and wick) you would get a perfectly fine candle in that jar because everything is operating efficiently within that environment. I suggest that when you get stuck in the testing phase with a situation that requires very narrow parameters; move on and do something else. Fortunately, my customers have grown fond of the little fat salsa jars and don't want or request one of those awful jars that are a constant pain to wick. I don't know if its laziness on my part or logic but either way it allows me to move foward with the least amount of resistance.

Steve

[ChandlerJane]

I guess, however, we have committed to more than 5,000 jars, so giving up on them isn't an option. Furthermore, it's not in my nature to give up, even if I had not financially committed to the extent that I have. I know it can be done. Two others in this very thread have successfully done so. I will do so as well.

[chuck_35550]

Good luck and I'm sure you will succeed with your positive attitude. I have the same attitude about discovering the perfect wax blend. I almost obtain it and then something else fails to meet the standard and it begins all over again. Fortunately, I have my base wax that continues to supply reliable candles while the blending quest goes ever on down the road. Take care.

Steve