Bottlecrafters Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 I have been testing HTP wicks in GB464. I have tried ECO, and CSN so far, getting some Premiere hopefully by the weekend. HTP has given me the best flame, with no mushrooming (using 6%-8% FO)I am using a glass container that is 3" diameter x 4 1/2" high. I have tried HTP 93, 104, 105, and cannot get a full melt pool after 2 burns. Peak Candle recommends 93, 104, and 105 for containers larger than 3". But if I look here: http://www.wicksunlimited.com/atkins_pearce_htp_wicks.php They show the pool diameter at 1.81, 2.01, and 2.06 respectively. So going by wicksunlimited.com chart, these wicks will never get a full pool in a 3" container.What am I missing? I have also tried a 1212 in this container, and I could roast marshmallows on the flame Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JanetsCandles Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Good question, and I'm interested as well. I'm doing a test run with HTP 104 in Glass Glow Palm in the next few days. Just poured tonight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjdaines Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 I originally tried HTP with 464 and it worked great with small containers 2 to 2.5 inches but had the same problems as you with larger. I switched to CD wicks and the problem ended. Those charts were made with paraffin wax not soy as far as I know so they are only so useful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonshine Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Ditto rjdainesSmall tins I love them- jars the problem I have is they curl so much they drown themselves out within 15 minutes of the burn- I can pour some of the melted wax out and then they perform nicely but try telling that to a customer! LOLFor some reason though with straight 464 just scents FO's only work well with HTP- go figure but when I add additives it all goes to hellI have not had the problem with getting a full melt pool though- once I get them burning at all- 105 is what I generally try in square mason and some do beautifully Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricofAZ Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 I hear you about the differences between the 104 and 1212. Seems to be too cool or way too hot. I wish there were more inbetween sizes but there just aren't. I haven't used them in soys, just paraffins. When I get that gap that HTP can't seem to work with on the diameter of the candle then I just go to one of the other brands like CD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bottlecrafters Posted January 29, 2012 Author Share Posted January 29, 2012 I have pretty much given up on HTP wick. Most of my glass containers are 3"-4" diameter, so I can never get a full MP. I switched to CD per rjdaines suggestion above. Have done a few burn test over the weekend, and getting pretty good results with CD 16's...fingers crossed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 I'm pretty new at this, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. I'm using 4630 with 3" containers and HTP 105 wicks. Light FO's (Honeysuckle, Lilac etc.) gives me a full MP on the third burn and cleans the sides of the glass nicely. With heavy FO (Vanillas, Cedar etc.) I'm just getting slightly larger than 2" MP and it tunnels, 1212 just gets a little larger MP but soots to much for me. I have some CD's on the way this week and I'm hoping that will test better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjdaines Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 I'm pretty new at this, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. I'm using 4630 with 3" containers and HTP 105 wicks. Light FO's (Honeysuckle, Lilac etc.) gives me a full MP on the third burn and cleans the sides of the glass nicely. With heavy FO (Vanillas, Cedar etc.) I'm just getting slightly larger than 2" MP and it tunnels, 1212 just gets a little larger MP but soots to much for me. I have some CD's on the way this week and I'm hoping that will test better.Hi Paul, I see pretty much what you see and I think the CDs will help; I'm using CD-12 or CD-14. At 4" I run into a wall in that no single wick (ECO, LX, CD, HTP) gets a FMP with out being a torching sooty mess. Double wicking it works but only ECOs did the job. All of the wicks just mentioned work well between 2 and 3 inches. I don't wick for a FMP until the second half of the candle. That also means the the second half of the candle has a slightly better HT than the first half. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bottlecrafters Posted January 29, 2012 Author Share Posted January 29, 2012 (edited) I don't wick for a FMP until the second half of the candle.Just curious how you do this? Edited January 29, 2012 by Bottlecrafters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjdaines Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Just curious how you do this?Just use a smaller wick, let's say a CD-12 gives me a FMP in the first or second burn, after the half way point in the candle that same combo will made for a hot container and a larger that acceptable flame. Next rime is pop in a CD-10 and see how that goes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmc Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I used htp 126 with 464 in 3" 16oz canning jars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bottlecrafters Posted January 30, 2012 Author Share Posted January 30, 2012 The 126 throws a pretty big flame though doesn't it? I tried 1212, and the flame was too big for my comfort. On the A&P chart, it states the 126 flame is even bigger. Is this what you experienced? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HorseScentS Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 The 126 throws a pretty big flame though doesn't it? I tried 1212, and the flame was too big for my comfort. On the A&P chart, it states the 126 flame is even bigger. Is this what you experienced?I got big scary flames with HTP 126 and 1212 in 4627 in the 2.875" dia Libbey Elemental jar. It's a short jar, and I wasn't getting a FMP with the smaller HTP wicks, so I tried the bigger ones and they were nice at first, but then got crazy big and smokey. I've given up on HTP and am liking zincs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HorseScentS Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 (edited) I'm back to testing HTP wicks, even though I still like zincs. I think it was the Libbey Elemental jar that was causing the problems, not the HTP wicks as I had incorrectly assumed. Today wakeylad brought it to my attention that there are more HTP sizes than I thought, and he sent me some links. So, the HTP sizes go in order from the smallest melt pool to largest melt pool: HTP 83, 93, 104, 105, 1212, 1312, 126, 136, and XL-100. I didn't know about the 1312, 136, or XL-100. Has anyone tried those sizes in large containers? especially with 4627 or parasoy? Edited April 12, 2012 by HorsescentS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bottlecrafters Posted April 13, 2012 Author Share Posted April 13, 2012 I'm back to testing HTP wicks, even though I still like zincs. I think it was the Libbey Elemental jar that was causing the problems, not the HTP wicks as I had incorrectly assumed. Today wakeylad brought it to my attention that there are more HTP sizes than I thought, and he sent me some links. So, the HTP sizes go in order from the smallest melt pool to largest melt pool: HTP 83, 93, 104, 105, 1212, 1312, 126, 136, and XL-100. I didn't know about the 1312, 136, or XL-100. Has anyone tried those sizes in large containers? especially with 4627 or parasoy?What are you considering a large container? I tried 1212 (w 464) in a 3.125" container, and the flame was too big for my taste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HorseScentS Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 What are you considering a large container? I tried 1212 (w 464) in a 3.125" container, and the flame was too big for my taste.I'm working on wicking a 4" dia. container, so I guess I was thinking 4 to 5 inches, or even 3-1/2" I guess. I'm using 4527 wax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjdaines Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 As far as container diameter, I consider 4 inches to now be "large" and the point where I prefer to double wick. Using larger wicks in any of the waxes I use has never resulted in a burn that I like (large flame, soot) when I get close to getting a FMP. Using 2 or 3 smaller wick has produced a my more pleasing candle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wakeylad Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 I don't think that the wick manufacturers test their wicks in containers. I vaguely remember reading an article that mentioned sticking different wicks into a slab of wax to obtain burn characteristics. Since different containers would affect the way a wick burns, the only way you could really compare apples to apples is by testing a wick in a nice block of wax. If anyone has any links to any articles on how the manufacturers test their wicks, can you post them here? I'd be interested in reading them.Have a great weekend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HorseScentS Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 (edited) As far as container diameter, I consider 4 inches to now be "large" and the point where I prefer to double wick. Using larger wicks in any of the waxes I use has never resulted in a burn that I like (large flame, soot) when I get close to getting a FMP. Using 2 or 3 smaller wick has produced a my more pleasing candle.Thank you, rj, I'm glad to know I'm not alone in having problems single-wicking a large container with a big wick. But now I'm trying to double wick, or even triple wick, a 4" container with HTPs in 4627 and I'm having problems with tiny flames and drowning wicks. Edited April 13, 2012 by HorsescentS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjdaines Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 I think I posted this before but since I don't use 4627 I don't know if it got glossed over. For 4630 the only wick that worked without drowning was ECO-2. So double wicked with two ECO-2 wicks. My problem was solved and now that container (apothecary) is ready to sell. I have 4 different containers, one uses ECO, one uses HTP and two use CD all with the same wax. Don't get boxed in to being loyal to just one wick type. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HorseScentS Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 I think I posted this before but since I don't use 4627 I don't know if it got glossed over. For 4630 the only wick that worked without drowning was ECO-2. So double wicked with two ECO-2 wicks. My problem was solved and now that container (apothecary) is ready to sell. I have 4 different containers, one uses ECO, one uses HTP and two use CD all with the same wax. Don't get boxed in to being loyal to just one wick type.Wow! And I'm surprised you have to use CD instead of HTP when they're basically the same wick, just one is made in USA and one in Europe. Interesting. But, congrats on having your apothecary jar ready to sell! That's awesome! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjdaines Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 Not sure where is info about CD and HTP being the same wick came from but HTP have a significantly lower flame height for the same ROC as CD wicks. The may be made of the same materials but I think they are different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HorseScentS Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 (edited) Not sure where is info about CD and HTP being the same wick came from but HTP have a significantly lower flame height for the same ROC as CD wicks. The may be made of the same materials but I think they are different.I saw it being discussed on another thread, and if I can find it I'll post the info here; but Alan of Peak Candle Supply had done a comparison chart on the old Candletech forum showing which CD wick was equivalent to which HTP wick, and it was said that Peak's only carries HTP because they are the same wick as CDs but are made in the USA instead of Europe.But then Sliver posted that there's a slight difference between HTP and CD, so she sometimes slips in a CD between the HTP sizes, when the HTP is not quite perfect for her application. Edited April 14, 2012 by HorsescentS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.