The correct wick for these

[rjdaines]

All of them, so I had to wick up on them all. But, 4627 is more viscous than 4630. I was using 9% or 10% FO load on those.

I just pulled the 62z out with pliers and stuck an HTP 1212 in there, so we'll see. I just lit it, so right now the flame is spiking up in a thin needle shape and making the occasional little puff of smoke, so we'll see if it settles down in a couple of minutes. Looks like it's settled a lot since I started typing...

This suggests to me that you should forget about the HTPs in that set up. Even if the 1212 does work I think the final results will be nasty, it just too large a wick for a 2.5 inch container. If you haven't tried the CDs yet you might want to consider it.

[HorseScentS]

This suggests to me that you should forget about the HTPs in that set up. Even if the 1212 does work I think the final results will be nasty, it just too large a wick for a 2.5 inch container. If you haven't tried the CDs yet you might want to consider it.

But, this thread is not about wicking the Libbey Elemental jar, it's about wicking the 16 oz Ball Elite jar that's about 4" diameter, so that's what I'm testing right now with the HTP 1212.

I do want to try the CDs, and I hope they behave better than the HTPs. The CDs burn hotter, so they heat the melt pool more and that's why the HT is so good with those. I'll order some. I think I read that Bitter Creek primes theirs with 212 degree wax, and that's what I want.

The HTP 1212 has settled down and stopped smoking, finally. Oops! Nope, still some intermittent puffs of smoke, even though the wick is shorter than 1/4".

Edited March 18, 2012 by HorsescentS

[rjdaines]

But, this thread is not about wicking the Libbey Elemental jar, it's about wicking the 16 oz Ball Elite jar that's about 4" diameter, so that's what I'm testing right now with the HTP 1212.

Oh sorry, I apparently got confused. As far as the 4" goes, I had the same problem with that sized jar with 4630. No single wick was large enough and they sooted like a son-of-gun. I don't like large diameter wicks any more. Provided you are not against double wicking, I found a solution in using 2 ECO-2 wicks. Nothing else worked, not htp, lx, or CD.

[ChandlerWicks]

glad it's stopped. I'm trying to make the Elemental jar work so that I can use it to test fOs instead of wasting so much wax in the bigger jars.

[HorseScentS]

Oh sorry, I apparently got confused. As far as the 4" goes, I had the same problem with that sized jar with 4630. No single wick was large enough and they sooted like a son-of-gun. I don't like large diameter wicks any more. Provided you are not against double wicking, I found a solution in using 2 ECO-2 wicks. Nothing else worked, not htp, lx, or CD.

Thanks, rj, I might try that. I think Ravens said she double wicks that jar with two 51z in 4630. Kyme single wicks her parasoy in that jar with one CD 16, and someone else said they single wick it with CD 12 in their wax. I haven't tried ECOs yet.

[HorseScentS]

glad it's stopped. I'm trying to make the Elemental jar work so that I can use it to test fOs instead of wasting so much wax in the bigger jars.

I updated that post to say it was still smoking...I thought it had stopped, but no such luck. sigh...

I don't know if the Libbey Elemental jar can work, I gave up; but I think somebody said they were using a CD 6 in it, but I forgot which wax they were using.

[rjdaines]

glad it's stopped. I'm trying to make the Elemental jar work so that I can use it to test fOs instead of wasting so much wax in the bigger jars.

That's what I am doing, testing in the Elemental Jars, will eventually sell those as well. Depending on FO, I use HTP-83 or HTP-93, CD-5 or CD-6 in 4630. However, just poured an HTP-62 tester after going back and looking at the wick's burn statistics.

[HorseScentS]

That's what I am doing, testing in the Elemental Jars, will eventually sell those as well. Depending on FO, I use HTP-83 or HTP-93, CD-5 or CD-6 in 4630. However, just poured an HTP-62 tester after going back and looking at the wick's burn statistics.

It's a cute jar and a great price on sale from Hobby Lobby, but it's probably not a good match for 4627 wax. Glad it's working for you with 4630.

[ChandlerWicks]

It's so hard isn't it? Have you tried making 1 jar without anything at all? Wax & wick only? I finally gave up on the Status jar. Hate that jar!

I updated that post to say it was still smoking...I thought it had stopped, but no such luck. sigh...

I don't know if the Libbey Elemental jar can work, I gave up; but I think somebody said they were using a CD 6 in it, but I forgot which wax they were using.

[HorseScentS]

It's so hard isn't it? Have you tried making 1 jar without anything at all? Wax & wick only? I finally gave up on the Status jar. Hate that jar!

No, I haven't tried that because even if it burns perfectly with no FO, once I add the FO it's going to burn the same as it did when I made the candles with FO in the first place. I think the Libbey Elemental is too thin-walled, too short and squatty, and the opening is too wide to trap enough heat to help the super-viscous 4627 melt properly, so the wick has to do all the work. Just my theory on that jar/wax combo for now.

[ChandlerWicks]

I'll have to look at the chart. Did the glass ever get too hot at the bottom with the bigger wicks?

That's what I am doing, testing in the Elemental Jars, will eventually sell those as well. Depending on FO, I use HTP-83 or HTP-93, CD-5 or CD-6 in 4630. However, just poured an HTP-62 tester after going back and looking at the wick's burn statistics.

[ChandlerWicks]

I know the for now theory, mine changes daily it seems. But what if you learn the perfect wick for it, then gradually add FO starting with a smaller % to see which % works. Only throwing ideas out, don't know squat!

No, I haven't tried that because even if it burns perfectly with no FO, once I add the FO it's going to burn the same as it did when I made the candles with FO in the first place. I think the Libbey Elemental is too thin-walled, too short and squatty, and the opening is too wide to trap enough heat to help the super-viscous 4627 melt properly, so the wick has to do all the work. Just my theory on that jar/wax combo for now.

[HorseScentS]

I know the for now theory, mine changes daily it seems. But what if you learn the perfect wick for it, then gradually add FO starting with a smaller % to see which % works. Only throwing ideas out, don't know squat!

Because to me the FO load is for maximum scent throw, so if a candle burns perfect but doesn't have a kick-butt HT, I'm not interested. And I canNOT smell candles made with 6% at all, and the ones made with 8% are just OKAY, but not impressive, and once you get up to 10% there can be a funny fragrance note, so that means 9% has to be what I use in order to have an HT that's good for my nose.

Edited March 18, 2012 by HorsescentS

[ChandlerWicks]

Understood.

[HorseScentS]

Understood.

I think the HT is a little bit better with the HTP 1212, and it's not smoking right now. It's weird, when it was smoking it was just the occasional little puff of smoke, not continuous smoking.

And it's frustrating, because if I scoop this same scent and FO load wax from a candle into my tart melter, it's heck of strong, much stronger than the candle or than using a candle warmer. Why can't candles be a strong as tart melters? They should if we can get the melt pool heated up to the same temp. My melter is the Better Homes & Gardens one from Walmart with a 25 watt bulb.

UPDATE: No, the HT is not better with the HTP, it was better with the zinc.

Edited March 18, 2012 by HorsescentS

[CandyinVA]

I just finished testing these jars ( I use zinc wicks) a soy blended container wax. 62 worked perfect. Two 51's were wayyyyyyyyyyy too much.

[HorseScentS]

I just finished testing these jars ( I use zinc wicks) a soy blended container wax. 62 worked perfect. Two 51's were wayyyyyyyyyyy too much.

Interesting! Thanks, Candy! What FO load did you use? Maybe my 4627 is a bit more viscous than your soy blend? because I wasn't satisfied with using one 62 zinc in mine. But, I'm still testing with a different FO so I'll see how it goes.

[CandyinVA]

I use around 1 1/4 ounce per pound.

[HorseScentS]

I just finished testing these jars ( I use zinc wicks) a soy blended container wax. 62 worked perfect. Two 51's were wayyyyyyyyyyy too much.

So far the 62 zinc is working great with 10% CS Lilac and a light purple color. The level of the wax has burned down to the top of the straight side of the jar, and there's only a little bit of wax film on the glass.

There was a lot of film on the glass with the Peak's Birthday Cake FO at 8%, and I pulled out the zinc at the halfway point so I could try the HTP 1212, but I should have burned it all the way down with the zinc. I know the zinc would have cleaned the sides, I just didn't like the yucky wax film on the glass and wanted to see if it would clear up with the HTP.

[HorseScentS]

So far the 62 zinc is working great with 10% CS Lilac and a light purple color. The level of the wax has burned down to the top of the straight side of the jar, and there's only a little bit of wax film on the glass.

There was a lot of film on the glass with the Peak's Birthday Cake FO at 8%, and I pulled out the zinc at the halfway point so I could try the HTP 1212, but I should have burned it all the way down with the zinc. I know the zinc would have cleaned the sides, I just didn't like the yucky wax film on the glass and wanted to see if it would clear up with the HTP.

UPDATE: I tested using a 62z in 4627 and letting it burn all the way down, and with 4627 the 62z is not big enough. I just tried double wicking with two 105 HTPs spaced about an inch apart on the diagonal, and it was too much but did have a very strong HT with no soot or smoke, except the occasional little puff during the first few minutes.

Can somebody please advise me about which HTPs to use for double wicking in this jar with 4627? I have 83, 93, 104, 105, 1212, and 126. Also, is it best to space the actual wicks one inch apart, or to make the wick assemblies touch? And should I double wick on the diagonal corner-to-corner like I did? or line the wicks up straight across the middle?

I was going to order more zincs for double-wicking, but money is tight and I have almost 500 HTP wicks to play with, so it would be awesome if I can get them to work double-wicking this jar.

Edit: Right now I'm testing two 93 HTPs with wick assemblies touching, placed on the diagonal. Will post again after 4 hour test.

Edited April 10, 2012 by HorsescentS

[HorseScentS]

UPDATE: I tested using a 62z in 4627 and letting it burn all the way down, and with 4627 the 62z is not big enough. I just tried double wicking with two 105 HTPs spaced about an inch apart on the diagonal, and it was too much but did have a very strong HT with no soot or smoke, except the occasional little puff during the first few minutes.

Can somebody please advise me about which HTPs to use for double wicking in this jar with 4627? I have 83, 93, 104, 105, 1212, and 126. Also, is it best to space the actual wicks one inch apart, or to make the wick assemblies touch? And should I double wick on the diagonal corner-to-corner like I did? or line the wicks up straight across the middle?

I was going to order more zincs for double-wicking, but money is tight and I have almost 500 HTP wicks to play with, so it would be awesome if I can get them to work double-wicking this jar.

Edit: Right now I'm testing two 93 HTPs with wick assemblies touching, placed on the diagonal. Will post again after 4 hour test.

I'm on my second four-hour burn session testing two 16 oz Ball Elite jars, and the results are very confusing so far.

Jar #1: 9% Peak's Birthday Cake in 4627 wax double-wicked with HTP 93, wick assemblies touching, placed on the diagonal. The wax level is in the 3" diameter neck of the jar and I had a FMP in about an hour with a fantastic HT, no soot/smoke, but the flames are very small, like less than 1/2" tall and drowning is a concern.

Jar #2: 9% Peak's Birthday Cake in 4627 wax double-wicked with HTP 83, wick assemblies touching, placed on the diagonal. The wax level when I lit it was at the top of the straight sides of the jar where the curved shoulder starts. The flames danced around and sooted the jar, made a FMP very quickly within the first 30 minutes, made the rim of the jar HOT for awhile, and now the flames have gone down from normal size to very tiny, like 1/4" or so, and are threatening to drown.

I'm confused because I thought small flames that may drown are from underwicking, but the FMPs on both candles formed in 30 to 60 minutes and the sides are cleaned while burning, so they're wicked hot enough.

I'm also confused because the two HTP 83 wicks seemed to burn hotter than the two HTP 93 wicks, and I'm wondering if Peak's accidentally mislabeled the bag. It's hard to tell by looking, but the HTP 83 wicks look at little fatter than the HTP 93, which seem a bit flatter and maybe a hair wider. I'm quite BEFUDDLED!!!

But, I have to say that with double wicking I'm finally getting the hot throw of my dreams!!!

Okay, so, so far I've double wicked with HTP 105, 93, and 83. CAN ANYBODY WHO USES 4627 WAX PLEASE HELP ME????? By the way, 4627 in all caps is $^@&. So, do the results seem to indicate that the HTP 104s would work great? or that I should abandon HTP wicks forevah?! I love the HT from the double HTPs and the way the heat totally cleans the glass.

And, on a final note about HTP wicks: I thought the biggest HTP wick was the 1212, but Peak's has a 1312 HTP wick now, has anybody tried it? and has anybody tried it in 4627 in a large diameter jar?

And, for whatever it's worth for others trying to wick this jar with in 4627, I've copy and pasted from some old Candletech threads about wicking 4627 in large diameter jars:

Title: Re: Need help wicking 4627

Post by Ginger_N on Feb 25th, 2005, 4:12pm I know your frustration with attempting to wick large containers of 4627. I have tested, tested and tested some more.... all the while, stomping around, ranting and raving because of the "failures" >

It's that final 1/8th or 1/4th inch around the inside of the jar that just won't give up to the melt pool in the 4" diameter jars with the large single HTPs and the double HTP 73s, 83s and most of the time the 93s. Sometimes I can get a certain FO to give a great burn with double 93s, but most require double 104s. I thought the double 104s would be much too large, but they aren't...... for me at least. I think it all depends on the altitude you are burning at or whether the candle wick goblins are out to get you on certain days!

I've also been getting great burns with double 51 zincs too.

Don't pull your hair out yet....... you are bigger and stronger than the 4627 is!!!!!! Good luck!

Ginger

http://www.candletech.com/cgi-local/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=Discussions;action=print;num=1109303272

Title: Re: Attention: Users of 4627

Post by Ginger_N on Jun 3rd, 2005, 9:12am 4627 is simply a PITA to get wicked properly -- The only container I've ever been able to single wick with it is a standard 1/2 pt. jelly jar with an HTP 83. Heavier FO's sometimes even require an HTP 93 for me. Never could get a full melt pool with the HTP 73.

My apothecary jars (4" diam)are double wicked with HTP 104s and some with double 51z wicks.

With this wax, I've found that you must wick up two sizes most of the time.

HTH,

Ginger

http://www.candletech.com/cgi-local/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=Discussions;action=print;num=1117483758

Title: Re: Attention: Users of 4627

Post by mizbizzyb on Jun 6th, 2005, 9:21pm Okay, this is what I have done so far (4 tins):

All 8oz tins ~ same color and scent.

Double wick-44z's

Double wick-HTP 52's

Double wick-LX 14's

1-HTP 1212

The zincs after 4 hours had the entire container melted ~ no go! Also, high flame. :-/

The LX's same thing ~ no go! Nice flame though ;D

The HTP 52's....nice burn....just about to the edge no too deep, very thin layer not melted will assume it will do a "catch up" melt. Very nice flame ;D

The HTP 1212...nice burn, but more hang up than I would like. ???

I will keep you posted after a few more burns.

I have some other scent/color combos I have to test as well.

Title: Re: Attention: Users of 4627

Post by mizbizzyb on Jun 26th, 2005, 4:47pm Okay...None of those wicks worked..so I tried the HTP105. So far, this is the one with the 8oz tin. http://www.candletech.com/cgi-local/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=Discussions;action=print;num=1117483758

Title: Re: IGI 4627 Comfort Blend . . . HELP!

Post by HopelessFOaddict on Oct 9th, 2004, 8:26pm I've had great burns in a 9oz hex with HTP 83. I had a 4" square double wicked with the 83 also. Great burns, melt pools, etc. My problem was NO THROW! Good luck!

Title: Re: IGI 4627 Comfort Blend . . . HELP!

Post by Ginger_N on Oct 10th, 2004, 3:37pm I use straight 4627 with HTP wicks.

One thing I will say that is that you will have to test, test, and test on your wicks.

For instance, some of my FO's will take an HTP 83 in an 8 oz. jelly, while others will require an HTP 93. Rarely will a 73 do the job.

On my 16 oz. and 26 oz. apoths (both 4" diameter), I double wick with using either the 93's or the 104's. The 73's and 83's are generally useless with the apoths and this wax.

With 4627 I've found that you have to wick UP from what you would use with other waxes.

HTH,

Ginger

http://www.candletech.com/cgi-local/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=Discussions;action=print;num=1097373848

Also, see this thread about wicking 4627 in wide mouth mason jars:

http://www.craftserver.com/forums/showthread.php?45542-Wicking-Wide-Mouth-Mason-with-4627

Edited April 10, 2012 by HorsescentS

[rjdaines]

The largest HTP wick in terms of ROC, flame height and MP is HTP126. Can't help with the rest as I don't use 4627

Atkins & Pearce HTP Wick

Wick

Designation Yield(yds./lb.)ROC (oz./hr.) Flame Ht.(in.)Pool Dia.(in.)

HTP - 13 1186 0.11 0.82 1.38

HTP - 31 794 0.10 0.76 1.31

HTP- 41 672 0.11 0.84 1.41

HTP - 52 509 0.13 0.96 1.60

HTP - 62 477 0.15 1.01 2.0

HTP - 72 431 0.15 1.03 1.64

HTP- 73 381 0.16 1.05 1.67

HTP - 83 331 0.17 1.22 1.73

HTP - 93 315 0.18 1.38 1.81

HTP - 104 304 0.21 1.62 2.01

HTP - 105 295 0.22 1.69 2.06

HTP - 126 249 0.27 2.12 2.37

HTP - 1212 201 0.23 1.64 2.09

HTP - 1312 182 0.26 1.78 2.29

Edited April 10, 2012 by rjdaines

[HorseScentS]

The largest HTP wick in terms of ROC, flame height and MP is HTP126. Can't help with the rest as I don't use 4627

Atkins & Pearce HTP Wick

Wick

Designation Yield(yds./lb.)ROC (oz./hr.) Flame Ht.(in.)Pool Dia.(in.)

HTP - 13 1186 0.11 0.82 1.38

HTP - 31 794 0.10 0.76 1.31

HTP- 41 672 0.11 0.84 1.41

HTP - 52 509 0.13 0.96 1.60

HTP - 62 477 0.15 1.01 2.0

HTP - 72 431 0.15 1.03 1.64

HTP- 73 381 0.16 1.05 1.67

HTP - 83 331 0.17 1.22 1.73

HTP - 93 315 0.18 1.38 1.81

HTP - 104 304 0.21 1.62 2.01

HTP - 105 295 0.22 1.69 2.06

HTP - 126 249 0.27 2.12 2.37

HTP - 1212 201 0.23 1.64 2.09

HTP - 1312 182 0.26 1.78 2.29

Thanks rjdaines! I've been confused about that because when I was wicking the little Libbey Elemental jars with 4627 wax, my HTP 126 did seem like a bigger and smokier torch than my HTP 1212, but when I read the info on the supplier's website, like this info I copied from Peak's posted below, it wasn't clear to me that the HTP 126 is the biggest:

"Coreless HTP wicks. 6" length HTP-126. 20 mm base with a 6 mm neck. Coating 212F. For Large Containers (3.75-4.25").

"Coreless HTP wicks. 6" length HTP-1212. 15mm base with a 3.8mm neck. Coating 212F. For Extra Large Containers (4-4.5").

"Coreless HTP wicks. 6" length HTP-1312. 20 mm base with a 6 mm neck. Coating 212F. For Extra Large Containers (4.25+")."

Okay, good to know. I'll try single wicking this jar with the HTP 126, I guess, because the HTP 1212 didn't work. But, so far it seems like double wicking gives me a much stronger HT.

I just finished my 2nd burn and the two HTP 93s are working better than the two HTP 83s. With the HTP 83s the flames are too tiny but the FMP is too deep. But, I'm not sure Peak's labeled the bags correctly and I wish it was easier to tell by looking at the wicks.

So, I'm going to stick both those candles in the freezer for a bit to re-harden them; and then, after I take them out of the freezer and they get closer to room temperature, I'll try double wicking with two HTP 104s, and also single wick with one HTP 126.

I might have to order HTP 1312 also, and I still want to try two 51 zincs, and also one CD 16.

On a final note, I know of someone who always single wicks 4627 in the 12-sided dodecagon jar (aka classic jar) with 9% FO load and a single 60z wick, but when they use a heavy FO they cut back on the FO load % instead of wicking up.

Edited April 10, 2012 by HorsescentS

[rjdaines]

I know you were disappointed with the Elemental Jars but take a look at the data for HTP-62. It seems to be a little hotter than it's adjacent wicks. Using this wick in 2.5 inch container has been a pleasant surprise.

[HorseScentS]

I know you were disappointed with the Elemental Jars but take a look at the data for HTP-62. It seems to be a little hotter than it's adjacent wicks. Using this wick in 2.5 inch container has been a pleasant surprise.

Thank you, rjdaines! I still have some Elemental jars left, so I could order some HTP 62's and try them. It's odd how the wick sizes work, I never realized that a smaller size wick could burn hotter, etc.

I've just started my new tests with double HTP 104's in one jar and a single HTP 126 in the other jar.

The two HTP 104's are not giving an HT, whereas the two HTP 93's gave a strong HT, but the flames got so small.

The HTP 126 is giving an HT, but I'm not sure how strong because my nose is used to Peak's Birthday Cake now.

But I'm wondering if the only way to wick 4627 in this large diameter jar is by triple wicking with HTP 52's or something. Is it okay to triple wick in this type of jar? or could the three flames make too much heat build up due to the thick glass?

Edited April 10, 2012 by HorsescentS