The whole melt pool thing confuses me.

[dixiegal]

If when testing a wick and after an hour you have almost a whole melt pool should you blow it out and harden was and try another wick or go ahead with and see what it does? It would seem if its burning that fast there would be no point in it.

I'm burning my first tester this morning ( 8 oz Sq mason 464 eco 12 ) and so far the HT is great but the first wick was way too high and melted an inch of wax in 15 mins so I pulled it out, let the wax harded again and tried an eco 10. At 52 mins I had almost a FMP but the flame looked really nice not too high no flickers smelled great. I pulled the wick out to let it reharden but am wondering now if I should have let it keep going and see what happened.

I did a search on testing hoping to find a step by step but didn't have any luck. I know there's info on it but must not be searching under the right key words.

[number2of7]

It's really going to depend on the size and shape of your container.

How many inches in diameter is your container? As a general rule, the number of inches dictates how long before you should get a full MP. Example: you should get a full MP in a 2.5" diameter container in 2 1/2 hours. Keep in mind that this is a general rule....I sometimes won't see a full MP until the third or fourth burn.

The shape of your container also plays a big role. If you have a container that gets really narrow at the bottom and you have a one inch MP going on at the top, then imagine how deep it's gonna get when it gets to the narrow portion of your container.

Hope this helps

EDITED TO ADD: Just re-read your post and see that you're using a square mason....wick one size down from the one that gave you a full MP in 52 minutes. If you don't get the desired MP and throw from it, go back to the other one and just let it burn to the end. Sometimes what seems to big ends up working after all.

Edited February 11, 2010 by number2of7

[dixiegal]

Thanks, I think the 8 oz sq masons have a 2- 1/2 inch opening and then widen to 3 inches. I think I got in too big a hurrry and will retry this wick again.

[number2of7]

Hope it ends up being the one for you!! Finally finding the right wick is a joy like no other

[dixiegal]

lol number I just read your last post. We seem to be one step behind each other. I'll give eco 8 a try, it wont hurt to see what happens if its not big enough. If it doesnt work I'll try the 10 again.

[Stella1952]

you should get a full MP in a 2.5" diameter container in 2 1/2 hours

That is a decent rule of thumb for paraffin but not for soy, but that's the rule of thumb I use for determining the duration of each testing period, ie. 3" = 3 hours, etc.

If I get a FMP on the first test burn, I am usually assured the container will be overwicked by the middle & bottom of the container. This is what we mean when we say to "wick for the last half of the container." The container heats up more as the candle burns down, so be sure to test all the way to the bitter end!

Keep in mind that this is a general rule....I sometimes won't see a full MP until the third or fourth burn

Unless it's a very wide diameter container (4"), I usually see FMP at the 2nd or 3rd burn. Average for the containers I use is 2nd burn. You have to understand that the diameter & shape of the container as well as the wax, additives, dyes & FOs used & amounts have a lot to do with this, so that's why it's hard for any of us to be absolutely precise about FMP and when it *should* occur.

If you have questions, take a photo and post it so we can see what's going on. HTH

Edited February 12, 2010 by Stella1952

[KoalaGirl]

Stella, when you say a ''full melt pool'' do you mean that the wax has melted all the way across the top {from edge to edge} but with no visible depth on the outer edge, or does a ''full melt pool'' refer to a melt pool that has reached its optimum depth of abour half an inch deep, right across the width of the container {whereby you can see the the melt pool level by looking at the side of the jar as opposed to a half inch or so, deep melt pool that is not quite all the way across, maybe leaving a tiny bit of hang up}

Which of these two examples is classed at a ''full melt pool''?

I hope my question isnt too confusing to understand? It was confusing for me to write it!!

What is the exact definition of a ''full melt pool''?

Thanks

[dixiegal]

at the end of a 4 hr burn with eco 8 I had a 1/4 inch melt pool with a bit of hang up on one side. The throw was nice and strong. Doing the 2nd burn now after letting the candle cool for about 3 hours. I don't know if this is too big of a mp, like I said the whole thing confuses me,lo.l Tomorrow I'll do the third and try the cd wicks on the other test candle just to see how they do.

Edited February 12, 2010 by dixiegal

[Stella1952]

KG, I think we're spitting hairs. FMP to me means that the candle is melted from edge to edge, more or less.* By the time a soy or palm wax candle (I don't know nuttin' about paraffin) has reached that width, the depth will be at least 1/4" (palm wax) - 1/2" (soy). Both soy & palm burn down, then out. I have never seen either achieve FMP without having depths as indicated above. Palm wax is hard beneath the melt pool; soy wax is soft, so sometimes it can be difficult to ascertain the exact depth of the soy MP.

maybe leaving a tiny bit of hang up

This has no bearing on the FMP status... a little hangup on one side because the candle is burning unevenly does not necessarily constitute a candle that hasn't reached FMP. If there is a little hangup in one area, it is usually because the heat is not fully centered in the container. This will correct itself as the candle burns down or may require one to adjust the wick slightly (or turn the container because of the air currents inside) to even out the burn.

*In the case of palm wax, it is common to have an almost FMP with just a slight shell on the glass all around that will melt off during the last third of the candle. This can also happen with soy containers, except that they usually "catch up" at the halfway mark. HTH

Edited February 12, 2010 by Stella1952

[Stella1952]

at the end of a 4 hr burn with eco 8 I had a 1/4 inch melt pool with a bit of hang up on one side

Keep burning your test candle. Be SURE that the candle has cooled COMPLETELY before relighting. I dunno if 3 hours is enough for the candle to reach room temp all the way inside the candle, so be sure to feel it to check.

I would not burn for 4 hours for a test burn on that size container; I'd stop at 3 hours, so I can't say whether the container seems to be burning too fast or too slow... You can't tell a lot by the first couple of burns anyway unless something is drastically over or underwicked. You are shooting for how the wick performs during the last half of the candle.

[topofmurrayhill]

As a general rule, the number of inches dictates how long before you should get a full MP. Example: you should get a full MP in a 2.5" diameter container in 2 1/2 hours.

This guideline has gotten so twisted up. It will result in either confusion or badness if you apply it to the melt pool. If you get a full melt pool at the top of the container, the wick will almost certainly be too big. Further down, you're quite likely to get a full melt pool in considerably less than the given time.

Adapting it to the real world, we can somewhat use the guideline to decide how long our test burns should be; for example, 3 hours for a 3-inch candle and 4 hours for a 4-inch candle. Even then, candles narrower than 3 inches don't carry instructions to burn them for less time, and 4-inch candles with 2 wicks probably don't need more time.

Conventionally, most candle labels say to burn for 3 to 4 hours at a time, so in reality that's the way we test most candles. Burn a tester down 3 hours at a time and see if the wick is good. If so, I'd suggest burning another tester for 4 hours at a time in order to cover the range in the instructions. If all is well, try 8 hour power burns.

So, the melt pool doesn't basically decide if the wick is good. Repeated burns do. With the shorter test burns, it may not even matter if you don't get a full melt pool until the middle (with candle tins, for instance, that's often a good thing). You won't want to see much hangup once you get to the bottom. If the wick didn't visibly soot and the glass isn't dirty, that's good. If the wick drowns out along the way or doesn't have any hope of catching up with the hangup, that's bad.

Edited February 12, 2010 by topofmurrayhill

[dixiegal]

thanks for all the info. I'm still testing this candle ( I made more than one ) eco 8 did really well on the first candle. The 2nd one poured from the same pot, not so much its about 1/2 burned and the flame is getting very weak still good throw. Tried switching to eco 10 and got way too big a flame and mushrooming. switched to cd 8 and lost the throw. I dont understand how eco 8 did so well on the 1st and poorly on the 2nd. Any ideas why?

Edited February 17, 2010 by dixiegal

[chuck_35550]

It's possible that your second candle had a greater concentration of fo than the first. Fo tends to settle to the bottom unless you continue to stir. More fo is probably clogging your wicking and producing a weaker flame. Stirring keeps your wax and fo more evenly incorporated. I try to stir my wax after each pour (unless I get in a hurry or I'm being lazy). Your candle should burn the wax at an even, slow rate and produce throw without overheating the container. Those elements tend to produce shallow melt pools with a small per cent of hang up that is eventually fixed by the last half of the candles burn.

[dixiegal]

It's possible that your second candle had a greater concentration of fo than the first. Fo tends to settle to the bottom unless you continue to stir. More fo is probably clogging your wicking and producing a weaker flame. Stirring keeps your wax and fo more evenly incorporated. I try to stir my wax after each pour (unless I get in a hurry or I'm being lazy). Your candle should burn the wax at an even, slow rate and produce throw without overheating the container. Those elements tend to produce shallow melt pools with a small per cent of hang up that is eventually fixed by the last half of the candles burn.

Thanks, I stir a lot. I start stirring with the wax in the melter and when I add fo I stir the whole time its cooling to a pour temp but it never crossed my mind to stir before each candle is poured.

[chuck_35550]

I don't necessarily stir all my fos between each pour. There are some really heavy ones that require constant attention due to their formulation. The whole idea is only a theory that you can easily put to the test. I can tell you that its not uncommon for my last poured candle to suffer more strange effects than any of the others. I keep my pour pot on a warmer to maintain temp and that may have some effect on the structure of the wax and fo; although I kinda doubt it. We just don't have any control over the many variables of our raw materials. Formulations change almost daily (it seems) and you never know if a wax or fo is going to behave like it usually does. Good luck.

Steve

[Stella1952]

When I am not pouring, I am stirring gently. I do this not only to keep the FO from "settling" or whatever, or to keep everything is soluton (it oughta already be pretty well mixed), I do it to keep the temperature in the pour pot constant.

[chuck_35550]

Good point Stella. Temp is a really important element that I forget often.

[dixiegal]

I understand keeping the temp the same when pouring lots of candles but right now I'm only pouring test candles ( 2- 8 oz candles at a time ) It doesnt take but a minute to do . Is that only needed when pouring more candles at a time?

[Stella1952]

I understand keeping the temp the same when pouring lots of candles but right now I'm only pouring test candles ( 2- 8 oz candles at a time ) It doesnt take but a minute to do . Is that only needed when pouring more candles at a time?

When testing, I am even MORE strict about procedure because I am trying to learn and gather good data. Whether I am pouring 2 candles or 2 dozen, I keep a thermometer in my pour pot and pay attention to what I am doing because I don't wanna screw up and have to repour. It's better for me to develop reliable, efficient, good habits from the get-go. Guess it depends on where you are going with all this... I test candles so I can develop products to sell, so I'm always watching the bottom line in terms of labor & materials.

[dixiegal]

When testing, I am even MORE strict about procedure because I am trying to learn and gather good data. Whether I am pouring 2 candles or 2 dozen, I keep a thermometer in my pour pot and pay attention to what I am doing because I don't wanna screw up and have to repour. It's better for me to develop reliable, efficient, good habits from the get-go. Guess it depends on where you are going with all this... I test candles so I can develop products to sell, so I'm always watching the bottom line in terms of labor & materials.

I see what your saying but not sure I'm getting it. If I'm pouring 2 candles in say 2 minutes time are you saying it will help make a better candle to stop pouring those 2 and put the pot on heat and reheat the wax if its gone below the pouring temp in that short amount of time? Just trying to understand this. I know pour temp is important for smooth tops but I'm not understanding how this will help wick problems.

[topofmurrayhill]

If you're pouring your soy wax cloudy or slushy, the frequent stirring might make some difference. If you're pouring clear, hot wax, the only point of stirring is to keep the temperature even.

Emulsions like vinaigrette, which are cloudy, can separate. Solutions, which are transparent, cannot. Your mixture of wax and FO is a solution. If you keep the temperature high enough for the wax to remain liquid, you can let it sit the whole day and the FO won't settle even the slightest bit.

[Stella1952]

Solutions, which are transparent, cannot. Your mixture of wax and FO is a solution. If you keep the temperature high enough for the wax to remain liquid, you can let it sit the whole day and the FO won't settle even the slightest bit.

Besides keeping the temp constant in my clear, hot wax, I can sometimes see FO in the clear solution (except when it is dyed a dark color). If it's a dark FO, it's pretty apparent. If not, it appears "wavy," like a mirage or hot air rising off pavement. This doesn't ALWAYS happen, but it happens frequently enough that I don't take a chance - I keep it moving.

[topofmurrayhill]

If your FO is not soluble at 160, you shouldn't be using it. But I doubt that is the case. The waviness you see is temperature variations in the liquid. Differences in the density of the liquid are visible due to refraction of the light.

If your FO is soluble and you end up with a clear solution, it cannot separate. If it could separate, it would not be a solution and it would not be transparent. That's basic chemistry.

[chuck_35550]

I've seen the same thing Stella. Vineyard Muscadine is an fo that is so heavy that it takes a great deal of attention to keep it in solution. I don't use that fo anymore because of its poor formulation (collects on the bottom and the top of the candle). It's really hard to give advice without knowing your procedure. If you are working in a warm environment and pouring your wax into a metal or glass pour pot and then adding color and fo (stirring about 2 minutes for color and 2 minutes for fo) your wax temp has dropped at least 5 to 10 degrees. I use an oven digital thermometer in my pour pot and by the time I have taken a warmed jar out of the toaster oven and wicked it and poured the wax, my temp has fallen. I put my pour pot back on the warmer and get my next jar ready, stir a couple of times and pour. Understanding that this is how I have developed my procedure over the years. I imagine that's not how anyone else does it but that's what works for me.