Wick Size Errors

[wakeylad]

Hi:

I seen a few posts (old & new) relating to wick numbering (ie, LX-8,10,12) and their Rate of Consumption and that, in some cases, a lower numbered wick may have a higher R.O.C than a higher numbered wick. For example, Wicks Unlimited, has a CD-12 with a higher R.O.C. (0.24) than a CD-14 (0.22).

After comparing information from multiple sites, I was able to surmise that most of the sites out there have a least one error on their wick tables. I think most of the tables come from the manufacturers and that the odd piece of information got mixed up along the way.

I thought I would mention this so that people can do their own comparisons and reach their own conclusions.

Thanks

Neil

[HorseScentS]

I've noticed the same thing with HTP wicks: the HTP 126 actually burns hotter and makes a bigger melt pool for a bigger container than the HTP 1212 and HTP 1312, but from reading the suppliers' websites, I got the mistaken idea that the HTP 126 was for a smaller diameter container than the HTP 1212 and the HTP 1312.

[rjdaines]

In my tests CD-12 acts as a larger wick compared to CD-14, I would say that the published Wick Data is correct and that many people either don't know about these charts or make incorrect assumptions about the numbering sequence. HTPs in particular have a few "anomalies" which if one studies the chart can be used to their advantage.

[wakeylad]

Rjdaines:

I agree that some wicks don't follow logic when it comes to numbering or other data, such as yield, since the general consensus seems to be that the HTP-126 is the bigger wick. I just wanted to point out that the wick charts do contain errors so people can do their own research and reach their own conclusions. See the following links:

http://www.precisionwicking.com/our-products/waxed-and-tabbed/hjhv/139.html

http://www.wicksunlimited.com/heinz_KST_candle_wicks.php

Looking at these two sites, one has a burn rate that follows the sequence of the wick numbers while the other would put the CD-14 right after the CD-10. I created my own wick chart based on multiple wick charts available on the web. Wicks like the CD-14 are flagged so I know to do more research (or read my notes) when testing that particular wick. If a CD-16 wick smoked and the CD-14 didn't reach a full melt pool, doing my research and finding posts like yours would tell me that testing a CD-12 may work. Based on the precisionwicking chart, the CD-12 would have been ruled out. Based on the wicksunlimited chart, it would be a candidate for testing.

I just wanted to let make sure that people don't rely on a single wick chart since there are differences that could make all the difference when it comes to testing. Having the wick charts in Excel allows me to sort by such things as R.O.C. so it's easier to spot questionable wicks.

I have to go to work now........more to come later.

Thanks

[ChrisR]

You shouldn't take any wick chart as gospel!! The wick charts are normally from tests of paraffin candles, usually without any additives or color, unless they state otherwise. Use the charts the way they are meant to be used, as reference only for a starting point.

I know by personally using LX wicks that, in my wax, the LX14 burns better & a bit hotter than the LX16.

[wakeylad]

ChrisR:

I couldn't agree more. Once you add containers, additives, etc, into the mix then everything changes. Personally, I would use the message board to find a good starting point for my wax/container combination. I think the usefulness of the wick charts comes more into play then testing out a different wick line. Then you could probably use melt pool width and R.O.C. to find a good starting point in that wick line.

Obviously you and rjdaines have had the experience of a lower number wick burning hotter than a higher number wick. Based on the assumption that this is happening in a container environment, I wonder if that would be the same if you tested those two wicks in a slab of wax. I'm not trying to condradict anyone here. Just curious if, in a certain container, a particular wick creates certain conditions (air currents, etc), that allow it to burn hotter. Kind of like a hurricane's eye. That could mean that in some cases the LX-16 may burn hotter than a LX-18 based on the container shape. If either of you two decide to put that theory to the test, I would be very interested in the results. Until this has been tested, I guess we can only speculate.

Enjoy the rest of your day.

[rjdaines]

Certainly the contain alters the heating of the wax, straight sides vs curved and such. Constrictions in top or middle, thin glass vs thick glass. The data charts are not gospel as has been started and just looking at the MP sizes shows that containers have a huge affect or a 3.5 inch container would never have a FMP as most of the wicks we are using only make a 2 inch MP. Use the data as a guide to compare the characteristics of the wicks and test. The charts have been very helpful for me.

[wakeylad]

In my orignal post I just wanted to point out the differences in the charts. Now I'm more curious to find out whether certain containers have this "eye of the storm" effect (if it does indeed exist). BTW, to both rjdaines and ChrisR, did the hotter wick happen to be the widk of choice ofor the candle you were testing?

[rjdaines]

BTW, to both rjdaines and ChrisR, did the hotter wick happen to be the widk of choice ofor the candle you were testing?

In my case (twice), the wicks the at finally worked were ones that had a low flame height and a larger melt pool compared to the wicks adjacent to it on the charts. So, looking for that anomaly helped me out.

[wakeylad]

More reading:

http://www.craftserver.com/forums/showthread.php?78198-small-wick-burning-wax-quicker-than-large&highlight=burning

[HorseScentS]

More reading:

http://www.craftserver.com/forums/showthread.php?78198-small-wick-burning-wax-quicker-than-large&highlight=burning

Thank you! I guess that explains why my HTP 83s were burning hotter and melting more wax than my HTP 93s when I double wicked my 16 oz Ball Elite jar the other day. I was afraid Peak's had mislabeled the bags, but I guess not. Very interesting!

[wakeylad]

After reading about other people's experiences, I'm most likely going to do blind testing of my wicks so I don't subconciously make a decision based on the wick number. I'll probably just stick the wick information on the bottom the container so I can't see it until I'm done testing. I usually tag my testers with numbers that corresponds to a test sheet that contains all the pertinent information about that candle so I can easily leave the the wick# off the sheet if I need to.

Thank you! I guess that explains why my HTP 83s were burning hotter and melting more wax than my HTP 93s when I double wicked my 16 oz Ball Elite jar the other day. I was afraid Peak's had mislabeled the bags, but I guess not. Very interesting!