HTP and CD wicks

[Kaybee23]

For those of you that have wondered if the HTP wicks and CD wicks were similar, here is a posting from the archives from Alan that shows a tested comparison of both of them. Someone was talking about it a short time ago and I thought I had read something on it at one time. What this post indicates is that the CD and HTP wicks are about the same wick, one is manufactured in Germany (CD wick) and the HTP is manufactured in the U.S.

Title: CD vs. HTP

Post by Crystal on Apr 30th, 2004, 5:24pm Hi is is safe to say that a CD6 is pretty close to a HTP41 and a CD 8 is close to HTP62? I am under the impression that the burn quality is very close, I am wondering if these would be good subs for each other in the time of need? TIA

CrystalTitle: Re: CD vs. HTP

Post by elizabeth on Apr 30th, 2004, 9:18pm Crystal, Alan posted a response on another thread recently in which he stated that CD & HTP wicks are essentially the same wick. He did extensive burn testing and in side by side comparisons, found there to be no real difference between the two. He did go on to say that HTP wicks are crafted in the USA and for that reason, Peak's decided to carry them over the CDs. I have some of both types of wicks and would love to see a size comparison chart. If I run into one, I'll be sure to post it for ya.

HTHTitle: Re: CD vs. HTP

Post by elizabeth on Apr 30th, 2004, 9:22pm Crystal,

Here is the thread :

http://www.candletech.com/cgi-local/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=Discussions;action=display;num=1083293450Title: Re: CD vs. HTP

Post by Slow-burn on Apr 30th, 2004, 9:40pm Liz, what size do you use in your jelly jar? An htp 83 works great for me. Don't get a complete melt pool on 1st burn, but do on consectutive burns. Plus the jar stays pretty cool this way. Maybe if we can compare what I have had luck with on htp's and what you have had luck with on cd's we may get somewhere :-/ Although, I am still testing like crazy--can't wait to get that darn basement done!

Edited to add this site, it has helped me with the use of my htp's. But didn't see any cd's? http://braidway.com/Wick%20Page/New%20Rate%20Charts.htmTitle: Re: CD vs. HTP

Post by elizabeth on Apr 30th, 2004, 9:58pm heather, it's been awhile since I've made an 8 oz. jelly. I think I used a CD10 last time I made one.Title: Re: CD vs. HTP

Post by Alan on May 1st, 2004, 11:50am Was going to do this yesterday, but I somehow I kept getting interrupted. This is a loose cross-reference.

HTP-31, CD-4

HTP-41, CD-5

HTP-52, CD-6

HTP-62, CD-7

HTP-73, CD-8

HTP-83, CD-10

HTP-93, CD-12

HTP-104, CD-14

HTP-105, CD-16

HTP-126, CD-18

HTP-1212, CD-20

HTP-1313, CD-22

[moonshine]

This is very intresting...

For me the HTP 105 burns like the CD 10 in soy (464) an HTP 83 would die in my candle- I use the 83 in 4 ounce tins.

A CD 5 in votives is way too hot for me and a HTP 41 dies out

I guess alot of has to do with all the variables in what wax, FO, etc. you use

Thanks for posting this- I am going to try the CD 12 and HTP 93 in a heavy FO I use and see what I get- my guess is the 93 wont make it to a full melt pool

[franu61]

Very helpful, thanks!

[Pam W]

Never used a CD wick but I do love it when Alan pops in.

[rjdaines]

That match up sounds pretty close to what I see in paraffin. I haven't tested nearly enough in soy to say one way or the other.

[Stella1952]

The type of wax matters a LOT.

[SliverOfWax]

Post by Alan on May 1st, 2004, 11:50am Was going to do this yesterday, but I somehow I kept getting interrupted. This is a loose cross-reference.

HTP-31, CD-4

HTP-41, CD-5

HTP-52, CD-6

HTP-62, CD-7

HTP-73, CD-8

HTP-83, CD-10

HTP-93, CD-12

HTP-104, CD-14

HTP-105, CD-16

HTP-126, CD-18

HTP-1212, CD-20

HTP-1313, CD-22

This is a very accurate comparison chart. I've used CDs and HTPs in everything from soy to comfort blend to lots of combinations and blends somewhere between all of the above. I have found if, for example, HTP 52 doesn't quite work, CD6 will be perfect. That's just one of many examples I could give. One of my votive oils didn't quite work with HTP 52 or CD6, so I went up to HTP 62 and got perfection.

I've used HTP far more than CD, but CDs are perfect to slip in where jumping one size in HTP just doesn't work.

[rjdaines]

This is very interesting and opens up some opportunities for fine tuning. My only question is about the last 3 HTP wicks. In terms of performance (ROC, flame height, etc) HTP 126 is above both the 1212 and the 1312, so I am surprised as to where it is in the chart. Here is the data (in paraffin) the first number is ROC, the second is flame height, and the third is pool diameter.

HTP - 126 0.27 2.12 2.37

HTP - 1212 0.23 1.64 2.09

HTP - 1312 0.26 1.78 2.29

[jeanie353]

This is a very accurate comparison chart. I've used CDs and HTPs in everything from soy to comfort blend to lots of combinations and blends somewhere between all of the above.

Ditto. In my experience also, CD/CDN (for example) are not limited to soy nor are HTP limited to paraffin, etc., etc. Edited January 17, 2012 by jeanie353
additional

[Kaybee23]

You are correct rjdaines, not sure why, but the HTP126 was designed to be a hotter wick than the HTP1212 and HTP1312. I don't use wicks that large since I double wick. But something to keep in mind if you are single wicking.

[HorseScentS]

Thanks for posting this, it's very helpful.

[jeanie353]

You are correct rjdaines, not sure why, but the HTP126 was designed to be a hotter wick than the HTP1212 and HTP1312. I don't use wicks that large since I double wick. But something to keep in mind if you are single wicking.

Oh oh...I did not read the chart closely. HTP 126 is larger/burns hotter than 1312.

Edit to say this was from my experience only.

Edited January 21, 2012 by jeanie353
additional

[rjdaines]

Oh oh...I did not read the chart closely. HTP 126 is larger/burns hotter than 1312.

Edit to say this was from my experience only.

The usual caveat is that these tests I posted are in paraffin, just what wax we don't know. The numbers are to only act as a guide and your results may vary with your wax and with your system.

[jeanie353]

The usual caveat is that these tests I posted are in paraffin, just what wax we don't know. The numbers are to only act as a guide and your results may vary with your wax and with your system.

It is an excellent guide. I saw it and put an HTP in my wax having VG results until the 3rd burn. That is another subject. The chart was very helpful. I just missed the 126 of where it was placed....And again, that could be dependent upon individual testing or as you stated the wax used to make the guide.

[HorseScentS]

It is an excellent guide. I saw it and put an HTP in my wax having VG results until the 3rd burn. That is another subject. The chart was very helpful. I just missed the 126 of where it was placed....And again, that could be dependent upon individual testing or as you stated the wax used to make the guide.

I'm having the same problem with HTP, if they burn perfectly during the first 2 burns, everything changes during the 3rd burn; whereas the zincs seem to burn consistently on all the burns. Testing HTPs in IGI 4627, 9% FO load (it's too high), in 2.875" dia Libbey Elemental jars...sigh... I was going to try CDs, but if they're so close in performance to HTPs, I might as well focus on zincs instead.

[jeanie353]

I'm having the same problem with HTP, if they burn perfectly during the first 2 burns, everything changes during the 3rd burn; whereas the zincs seem to burn consistently on all the burns. Testing HTPs in IGI 4627, 9% FO load (it's too high), in 2.875" dia Libbey Elemental jars...sigh... I was going to try CDs, but if they're so close in performance to HTPs, I might as well focus on zincs instead.

So strange. We expect the burn to change as the container heats up during each burn but that dramatically, I was not expecting.

[HorseScentS]

So strange. We expect the burn to change as the container heats up during each burn but that dramatically, I was not expecting.

I don't know for sure, but my hunch is that HTP doesn't work well in IGI 4627 if you use a thin-walled glass container, like the Libbey Elemental, so it needs the thicker walls of the square mason, or some other thick-walled container to retain more heat and help it work properly. Just a guess...

[jsanger]

I have never tried htp wicks, do you guys think they tend to burn slightly hotter or cooler than the cds?

Edited January 22, 2012 by jsanger

[HorseScentS]

This is very interesting and opens up some opportunities for fine tuning. My only question is about the last 3 HTP wicks. In terms of performance (ROC, flame height, etc) HTP 126 is above both the 1212 and the 1312, so I am surprised as to where it is in the chart. Here is the data (in paraffin) the first number is ROC, the second is flame height, and the third is pool diameter.

HTP - 126 0.27 2.12 2.37

HTP - 1212 0.23 1.64 2.09

HTP - 1312 0.26 1.78 2.29

rj, you pointed this out to me on another thread, and you were right. The HTP 126 gives a much bigger melt pool in my 4" dia. jar than the 1212 does, so I don't understand why they put it lower on the chart, it cause me a LOT of confusing during testing.

I've also discovered there are even bigger HTP wicks, so starting from HTP 104, from the smallest melt pool to the largest melt pool it should go like this: HTP 104, 105, 1212, 1312, 126, 136, and HTP XL-100.

[rjdaines]

Blame XL Spreadsheets for arranging the data from lower designation to higher. We all need to get into the habit of looking at the data and not just the sequence. There are other wicks that have similar "errors".

[retchf47]

All this information is useful. I am new to candle making. I am using Cargill C3 soy wax, using HTP wicks as recommended by the manufacturer. To my dismay, the HTP 104 has burned hotter and consumed more wax than the HTP 105. The flame heights are about the same but the wax pool has deveoped faster with the 104. Same variables in three different test. Can anyone help or explain? 

[retchf47]

I posted on Friday, I have the exact same problem. The HTP 104 burns hotter and faster than an HTP 105. All variables the same. The 104 does perform well in a slightly larger container. Main test were conducted in standard 8 oz jelly jar. I am using Cargill C3.