Cooking soy wax & scent for 20-30 minutes plus a flashpoint ?

[Stella1952]

It should be easy to keep a double boiler on 125°F - it's far more difficult to get wax to heat up to 200°F in one than just to keep it at 125°F. I hope she knows that the water does not have to be kept at a simmer or rolling boil. I have made many delicate egg concoctions - puddings, sauces, fudge, etc. - in double boilers and they really will keep the contents that low...

Having said that, it is far more difficult to control temperature in a double boiler than it is in a Presto. You have to stir constantly, keep an eye on the thermometer and one hand on the temperature control of the burner... then there's the matter of the steam, which can condense and drip water back into the wax... messy!! If it is a close-fitting double boiler, try using a clean veggie can in which to melt the wax in a saucepan of water rather than in a typical double boiler. The desirable gentle heating is still in effect, but the steam does not build up underneath when heating a can of wax in hot water than it does with a close fitting double boiler top pan. Be sure to put something in the bottom of the saucepan to keep the veggie can off the bottom (I use jar rings for this).

Honestly, allowing the temp to climb to 195°F and "cooking" is not advisable because the FO and wax are held at that temp for far longer than just heating to that temp, adding FO and stirring down to pour temp. I can easily see how one could lose FO from "cooking" at that temp...

464 is one of the soy waxes that has a better appearance when poured hotter (165°F) han cooler. C3 works the same way.

[jeanie353]

Honestly, allowing the temp to climb to 195°F and "cooking" is not advisable because the FO and wax are held at that temp for far longer than just heating to that temp, adding FO and stirring down to pour temp. I can easily see how one could lose FO from "cooking" at that temp...

Possibly you didn't understand the OP with the above results........the cooked candle had a better CT and appearance. I have two here in my possession w/pics with the same results as the OP is reporting. OP also has the pics.

OP reports even while friend had trouble regulating temperature w/double boiler her cooked candle still had a better CT...thus no sign of loss of FO there.

My wax "cooked" at approx 120-125 degrees for 20 minutes in Presto, into pour pot and straight into jars. No extra time wasted by cooking since I didn't have to wait for the wax to cool down b4 pouring. No fragrance loss whatsoever, in fact HT is undeniably stronger in cooked candle. Very little frosting on cooked candle, much frosting on one done regular way.

Tested after cool down and again after one week cure. Both times HT and CT were stronger on cooked candle.

I used KY125

I didn't care either way how results would turn out since I don't use soy alone in my candles anymore. Just tried it to see what the results would be.

The results are in....and are proven. Sorry to inform you the theory you scoffed when this was originally posted.... before trying it....just proved you wrong.

'

Edited December 16, 2011 by jeanie353
additional info

[Stella1952]

The results are in....and are proven. Sorry to inform you the theory you scoffed when this was originally posted.... before trying it....just proved you wrong.

Jeanie, I was replying to angellie's post right above mine where she discussed what she and her friend did. I was not replying to yours. Your test was not set up the same - the temps were different, and the wax you used is quite different from 464, so your results may or may not have a bearing. I don't have an issue with either appearance or HT in the soy candles I make so I don't have a personal dog in this hunt. It's not a competition, it's a discussion.

If you have discovered a new technique that works for you in KY 125, I am delighted for you, but my focus was on the OPs discussion of her friend's issue with "cooking" 464 and HT... and the appearance. The "cooking" probably enhanced the appearance but diminished the HT, but it's hard to say because the data isn't very clear regarding the comparison between THEIR candles...

[jeanie353]

Jeanie, I was replying to angellie's post right above mine where she discussed what she and her friend did. I was not replying to yours. Your test was not set up the same - the temps were different, and the wax you used is quite different from 464, so your results may or may not have a bearing. I don't have an issue with either appearance or HT in the soy candles I make so I don't have a personal dog in this hunt. It's not a competition, it's a discussion.

If you have discovered a new technique that works for you in KY 125, I am delighted for you, but my focus was on the OPs discussion of her friend's issue with "cooking" 464 and HT... and the appearance. The "cooking" probably enhanced the appearance but diminished the HT, but it's hard to say because the data isn't very clear regarding the comparison between THEIR candles...

I am aware what you were replying to. I am replying to that reply of yours and this one:

I think the purpose (from reading the site) was that because the FO was added at a low temp (we usually add it higher) was to "incorporate" the FO into the wax via time at a low temperature. I am assuming that the person who developed this method did not know that "incorporation" means adding at a high enough temp and stirring well into the wax. The same "cooking" is achieved when we add at a higher temp and stir down to a lower pour temp...

What the results show is the same thing is not achieved in both methods. It is clear the cooking method provides a better CT and HT as well as a very visually pleasing candle.

I had reported my results to the OP along with pics and left it alone on this forum until it was brought up once again about losing ST through cooking whether it is high temp, low temp or whether the same results are achieved.

We don't know HT yet on the 464 but we have reports on CT. Same as the results using KY125.

I'm not in a competition nor do I have a dog in this race especially since I don't use soy on its own.

My point is...don't knock it or assume the results will be the same until you've tried it. I tried it and the results are not the same. As reported.

[Stella1952]

When one sets up a test, it's very important to replicate the methods as exactly as possible; otherwise one cannot be sure of how much or if the different methods contributed to the results. There is a lot left out of all of the "reports" I have read here... such as the "normal" and "regular methods used as "controls."

If indeed the method does seem to work, to prove the method, one would then have to track back and discover why people who do not use this method are still able to obtain good results. This takes MANY tests using many different methods to get to a point where one can isolate the ONE factor as causing the superior results.

Again, I am delighted you had good results and I am hoping the OP will have good results using whatever method she discovers works best for her.

Me? I'm going to stick with the method I worked out for my wax over years of testing. I am not going to "cook" the FO because I simply want as much of the volatile aromatic chemicals in the FO to stay IN the wax until they are released when the candle is burned. I have read nothing in this thread that leads me to conclusively believe that "cooking" FO into wax makes a significant difference in the ultimate HT and my experience has taught me that exposing FO to prolonged heating does it no favors.

[jeanie353]

Me? I'm going to stick with the method I worked out for my wax over years of testing. I am not going to "cook" the FO because I simply want as much of the volatile aromatic chemicals in the FO to stay IN the wax until they are released when the candle is burned. I have read nothing in this thread that leads me to conclusively believe that "cooking" FO into wax makes a significant difference in the ultimate HT and my experience has taught me that exposing FO to prolonged heating does it no favors.

The purpose of the test on my end was out of curiosity. The science of it all. That's it. The OP was not trying to convince anyone to change methods that I interpreted.. nor was I. In fact, it was the opposite. It was much more about doubts this method actually worked going with what we knew and had learned to this point.

If you had no interest in this method, and your finding nothing to conclusively cause you to believe this method works when you have reports from two different side by side tests....Mine being a conclusive, significant increase in HT...why are you still on this thread?

Edited December 16, 2011 by jeanie353

[Pam W]

Jeanie; I don't intend to change my method but I do appreciate the time you took to do the testing. Now I know that I haven't shot myself in the foot if I get distracted and leave my wax mixture on the heat longer than normal.

Stella1952

If indeed the method does seem to work, to prove the method, one would then have to track back and discover why people who do not use this method are still able to obtain good results.

My guess (yes, just a guess) is that if you can achieve the same results in less time, why not??

Edited December 16, 2011 by Pam W

[jeanie353]

Jeanie; I don't intend to change my method but I do appreciate the time you took to do the testing. Now I know that I haven't shot myself in the foot if I get distracted and leave my wax mixture on the heat longer than normal.

Really, Right! I'm not doing soy anytime in the near future and not going to try this on parasoy or paraffin so guess I'll have to continue to stand guard over my Presto.

If I did go back to soy, I'm going to have to say I do think I'd do this method...as unorthodox as it is from what we all have known. It was just nice to let it sit there, do other stuff, pour into the pour pot and right into the containers. After I got the initial temp setting right. That did take a little bit of adjusting the temp dial, unplugging and plugging back in.

Had I not tried it, I wouldn't of believed it myself especially since the person who wrote the instructions didn't know how to secure a wick or cure soy......

[HorseScentS]

Really, Right! I'm not doing soy anytime in the near future and not going to try this on parasoy or paraffin so guess I'll have to continue to stand guard over my Presto.

If I did go back to soy, I'm going to have to say I do think I'd do this method...as unorthodox as it is from what we all have known. It was just nice to let it sit there, do other stuff, pour into the pour pot and right into the containers. After I got the initial temp setting right. That did take a little bit of adjusting the temp dial, unplugging and plugging back in.

Had I not tried it, I wouldn't of believed it myself especially since the person who wrote the instructions didn't know how to secure a wick or cure soy......

Jeanie, this is very interesting! Thanks for taking the time to do an unbiased test of this cooking method. Maybe I'll try making candles with 464 this sometime, who knows.

[jeanie353]

Jeanie, this is very interesting! Thanks for taking the time to do an unbiased test of this cooking method. Maybe I'll try making candles with 464 this sometime, who knows.

You're very welcome. When the thread came up, I thought I'd give it a try for grins. Am always up for some type of new adventure, technique or mixing to try myself rather than read reports from others.

On a similar note....just yesterday was in kitchen whipping up some soaps. Daughter came through and asked if maybe one of these days I could mix up something edible...she suggested a cake....lol.

[stlredbird]

Have we found out if this method works? I ask bc I'm about to do a candle with 464 and mulberry scent which happens to have a really low flash point of something like 120. If I didn't cook the wax at 120 for 20 mins and just added the scent right after the melt point and poured immediately do you think there would be a scent throw problem since it was added at such a low temp?

Also does anyone think I should heat the 464 to 180 like usual and then let drop to 120 and add the scent? Or would that make a difference at all?

[rjdaines]

I think you may be over thinking the flash point data of the FO. Flash point the the temp at which the FO will ignite. It will be releasing fragrance well below that temp. Cooking it for 20 minutes will drive off some of the FO. I would stick with the heat to 185, add FO, stir and then pour at the temp you like. Once the FO is in the wax the flash point data doesn't mean too much.

[stlredbird]

Ah! Great! I'm learning new stuff everyday.