rjdaines Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 Did a little test this weekend with CD-5 and ECO-2.Jar - 2.5 inch round, straight sidesWax - 4630/464 (75:25)FO - Moonlight Path (Peaks) (added at 185)Pour - 175Results: The Eco wick burns very nice but still suffers from dancing after the halfway point. As for HT, the CD-5 beat the pants off of this ECO size, probably because the CD seemed to produced more heat (faster and wider MP). As a result, the candle had a shorter burn time. Neither container, however, got too hot not to be picked up and held. Moving up to the next size Eco may be too much wick but it's good to know that they do burn well in my wax blend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HorseScentS Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 Did a little test this weekend with CD-5 and ECO-2.Jar - 2.5 inch round, straight sidesWax - 4630/464 (75:25)FO - Moonlight Path (Peaks) (added at 185)Pour - 175Results: The Eco wick burns very nice but still suffers from dancing after the halfway point. As for HT, the CD-5 beat the pants off of this ECO size, probably because the CD seemed to produced more heat (faster and wider MP). As a result, the candle had a shorter burn time. Neither container, however, got too hot not to be picked up and held. Moving up to the next size Eco may be too much wick but it's good to know that they do burn well in my wax blend.Think all container candles will have a dancing flame below the halfway point, unless they're in a shallow bowl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjdaines Posted February 26, 2012 Author Share Posted February 26, 2012 Think all container candles will have a dancing flame below the halfway point, unless they're in a shallow bowl.Probably true but it was worth mentioning as I have seen claims that some wicks don't do this but I remain skeptical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeanie353 Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 (edited) Probably true but it was worth mentioning as I have seen claims that some wicks don't do this but I remain skeptical.That is the reason I am struggling with the flames dancing badly in the 2nd half of jar. If I had experienced only that it in the past, I'd not be in the dilemma now I didn't have that with 415/Eco years back or CBL130/Eco when I was using that. Everything since is doing it so I keep looking for that perfect combo once again. I'd go back to 415/Eco but was using 16 oz mason jars at the time in a country decor. My containers, labels and business are all designed around contemporary so unless I want to change all that I have to find another wax/wick/jar combo. 415/Eco is dancing badly in the containers I have now. CBL130 is no longer working for HT (for us).Your results were interesting and will keep in mind adding a little soy to 4630 once we get through working with the waxes now. Edited February 26, 2012 by jeanie353 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjdaines Posted March 2, 2012 Author Share Posted March 2, 2012 Tried a Premier Wick 750 wick in the above set up. It burned very well and had a good HT but dances just as much as any other wick. I think it would be a good substitute for a CD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stella1952 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 (edited) Think all container candles will have a dancing flame below the halfway point, unless they're in a shallow bowl. I have seen claims that some wicks don't do this but I remain skeptical. ANY wick will flicker and dance in a container if something about the candle system isn't right... While flames dancing isn't an uncommon event, this is NOT good if it goes on for more than a few moments and it isn't characteristic of a correctly wicked container. It's a sign that something isn't quite right... Edited March 2, 2012 by Stella1952 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeanie353 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Tried a Premier Wick 750 wick in the above set up. It burned very well and had a good HT but dances just as much as any other wick. I think it would be a good substitute for a CD.We've been using them off and on in testing recently and do like them too in the 700 series. Pair well with CBL125 for HT. Dancing is a little bit less for me than CD and HTP.What we found also is while some wicks are cotton and some paper that isn't what is making the difference. It must be in the composition of the wick. The 700 premier does quite well and almost as good as paper wicks for me. Yet the Premier 600 or 800 series being paper core do not do as well.What we are finding is making a considerable difference is the addition of CO. We just began adding it at different amounts this week and the results are sure showing it tames the wicks down nicely. It reminds me of the addition of BW but a lot less expensive. We use different waxes than you but thought I'd mention it.We're sure there is nothing wrong with the system(s) since we are working with or have worked with many paraffins and 2 soy waxes recently, every wick available (almost). Testing in two different states with somewhat different weather. Every single one did the same thing with the considerable dancing/wavering/wobbling. We have only used 3-5 different container types. Anywho....we are making some progress now. GL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjdaines Posted March 2, 2012 Author Share Posted March 2, 2012 I originally used CO to see if it help with 464s frosting, it did not. I don't need to tame the flame with 464 so I never went back to testing CO. Now that I am using 4630 and loving the HT and appearance, I do have a need to tame that flame. Adding CO to do that did n't occur to me but it is a cheaper alternative but it does impact the total amount of oil one can add into the wax. Adding soy wax (464) is the solution I came up with, at least the soy wax can hold FO whereas CO doesn't. Now the issue is which soy, I have 415, 444, and 464. If I now add CO into the test, I will be years before I am finished (joking, well not really). Are you using a tablespoon or 2 per pound? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChandlerWicks Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 (edited) Isn't 415 supposed to have the best HT out of all the soys? 1 Tbsp per pound of CO. I haven't seen any FO seepage with CBL125 or 4627 so far. Edited March 2, 2012 by ChandlerWicks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjdaines Posted March 3, 2012 Author Share Posted March 3, 2012 Isn't 415 supposed to have the best HT out of all the soys? 1 Tbsp per pound of CO. I haven't seen any FO seepage with CBL125 or 4627 so far.415 is supposed to but with the FOs I tried it seem equivalent to 464. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeanie353 Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 We are using 6% FO PP with the paraffins...sometimes less. Think that is why we are able to add it without any seeping since most waxes will hold more than 6%. With 415 I add 1.0-1.5 oz PP and C3 usually 1 oz pp does it. But am going to go with 415 instead of C3. After using them both side by side while C3 gives nice tops, excellent HT, the wicks are behaving better in 415. rjdaines.......I am liking your blend of paraffin w/464 though. HT took a tiny hit but not enough to cause me concern. Is definitely still in the running for a parasoy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wakeylad Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I'm still in the process of testing my container with out-of-the-box 4630 with absolutely no additives and still haven't gotten a clean burn (smoking/sooting). I still have three wick lines to test. I ordered the 464 for the 75/25 mix and I'm looking forward to testing that since it sounds like a winner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjdaines Posted March 6, 2012 Author Share Posted March 6, 2012 I'm still in the process of testing my container with out-of-the-box 4630 with absolutely no additives and still haven't gotten a clean burn (smoking/sooting). I still have three wick lines to test. I ordered the 464 for the 75/25 mix and I'm looking forward to testing that since it sounds like a winner.I am going to convert all of my 4630 candles over to this blend, when time permits I will see what happens when I use 444 or 415 instead of 464 but I am happy with the blend as it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flowerbaby Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 I guess I am a little slow, but what is CO and BW? Not seen these before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjdaines Posted March 7, 2012 Author Share Posted March 7, 2012 CO is coconut oil and BW is beeswax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pixie Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I like the 415 too. I've found it has very good ht (fwiw). 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.