HorseScentS Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 (edited) How much does the FO load affect the diameter of the MP? For example, if a certain wick will create a 3" diameter MP in wax with a 6% FO load, would the diameter of the MP be smaller in wax with a 7% FO load? like would it shrink to 2-3/4" diameter because of a 1% higher FO load? or how high an FO load would affect the diameter of the MP? I remember seeing a video of a candle maker who tested wicks by making a baking pan full of unscented wax and putting various wicks in the wax. After three hours of burning each wick had created a different size/diameter MP and he would then match the diameter of the MP's to whatever jar would fit that size MP, but would the MP diameter be the same with FO added to the wax? Edited June 17, 2012 by HorsescentS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertgibbens Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 FO load does affect MP diameter. But colorant, vey bar, and other additives affect it far more. The sheet pan wick test is an inefficient method and should be avoided by anyone who doesn't have unlimited time and money... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisR Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 If I remember correctly that sheet pan wick test was with unscented wax. Horsescents I use FO at 1 oz./lb. in 98% of my oils. I have a few that I use 1.25 oz/lb and don't have to change my wicking for my jars. I may get a full MP on the 3rd burn for most of my jars and the higher % FO may get a full melt pool on the 4th burn. You should test a jar with both % of FO side by side and see what your difference, if any, there is. Of course, this totally rules out any FO's that are known wick stinkers like amber and patchouli! Let me know how your test comes out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SliverOfWax Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 I agree the baking pan is a total waste of time and product. I'm an advocate of testing the exact product you will be making/selling in the exact same proportions; i.e., if you're going to end up with an 8 oz mason poured to 6 ounces, that's what you should test.Too much FO can cause the wick to fizzle. It can also create pockets of oil or weeping within the wax. 7% certainly shouldn't do that, though. In fact, the difference in 6% and 7% should be minimal. It's when you get close to the maximum FO the wax will hold (or more) that you run into real trouble.If you're seeing a smaller mp with higher FO load, just increase the wick size and see if that takes care of it. You might have to switch back and forth between not just wick sizes but wick types, too. For example, if an HTP 52 doesn't give you what you want, try a CD 6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JanetsCandles Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 I can't say that the baking pan thing is a total waste of time and product. I do make quite a few unscented candles, and when I recently switched to different wicks, I needed a way to gauge how they would perform in my particular blend of unscented wax. So I used them in that method as a "starting point" test. It gave me a guideline of where to start out testing the actual product. The container shapes do have an effect, but I was able to get closer and not waste so many wicks/wax trying to figure out how things would work in my own system. However, if you're using it to test with any sort of FO load, yeah, it wouldn't work so well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HorseScentS Posted June 17, 2012 Author Share Posted June 17, 2012 Thanks, everyone! This is very interesting information. I'm testing a candle with 1.3 oz FO in 14.7 oz of wax, which according to Alan's chart is aprox 8%, although I know people have different opinions on that. So, I'm wondering if cutting back to 1.25 oz in 14.75 oz of wax will help me get an FMP, or if I'd have to cut back even more to 1.2 oz FO in 14.8 oz of wax to notice a difference. I've already wicked up on this candle and will wick up again, but I'm also going to pour one with a lower FO load and see if that helps. It's Peak's Creme Brulee, in case that tells you anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HorseScentS Posted June 19, 2012 Author Share Posted June 19, 2012 P.S. My scale from Walmart doesn't weigh 1.25, only 1.2 or 1.3, etc, so I guess I should buy a different scale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricofAZ Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Interesting question. Seems to me that the more FO added, the lower the melt point (slightly) and therefore the wider the melt pool. I made a spreadsheet that would calculate melt point based on what was added. Going from 6 to 12 percent FO in one of my wax choices (124 degree) the consistency changed a bit. Adding one ounce dropped the melt point to 117 and two ounces to 111 degrees. Now all that is just math, not real world. You've read tons of threads about wicking up or down for different FO's and like Robert's experience in dye changing MP, we all just have to go back to build, test, rinse, repeat.If the wick flame height changes with the addition of this or that, then the MP will surely change. If the FO or dye or vybar change the flame diameter/height then you're off to the testing lab again.I don't have much in the way of notes, but observing how the flame works with different formulas seems to be worth while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HorseScentS Posted June 19, 2012 Author Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) Interesting question. Seems to me that the more FO added, the lower the melt point (slightly) and therefore the wider the melt pool. I made a spreadsheet that would calculate melt point based on what was added. Going from 6 to 12 percent FO in one of my wax choices (124 degree) the consistency changed a bit. Adding one ounce dropped the melt point to 117 and two ounces to 111 degrees. Now all that is just math, not real world. You've read tons of threads about wicking up or down for different FO's and like Robert's experience in dye changing MP, we all just have to go back to build, test, rinse, repeat.If the wick flame height changes with the addition of this or that, then the MP will surely change. If the FO or dye or vybar change the flame diameter/height then you're off to the testing lab again.I don't have much in the way of notes, but observing how the flame works with different formulas seems to be worth while.That's very interesting, Eric! Thank you so much. I'm not using any vybar, dye, or other additives right now. `You're right about watching how the flame works. In fact, I just realized that my flame is a nice, good size of 3/4" to 1" high, or lately 1" high, and it's not drowning or dying out due to lack of oxygen even though my candle has burned half-way down from the fill line in a regular mouth Quart mason, so I wouldn't want my flame any bigger in that jar because it could overheat. If reducing my FO by 1% is going to make a bigger flame, maybe it's not a good idea. I'll probably try it anyway, just thinking it through.And, yes, there are tons of threads about wicking up for heavier FO's, but I'm under the impression that one could also just lower the FO load instead of wicking up, right? Experimentation would show whether lowering the FO load or keeping it the same and wicking up would give the best HT, I think. Correct me if I'm wrong about that. lol Edited June 19, 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.