/diy/ - Do It Yourself

Cool it slowly like you would to anneal steel.

like, get a heater and steel can. Fill the can with concrete and flip it upside down so you can use the steel top as a base, set it next to the heater, put the candle next to the heater on the can and wait. Once melted you turn off the heater, the whole thing slowly cools down and it should be level.

It worked for me, it may be the wax you're using.

>>196847

And by anneal I mean gradual cool down of the whole thing.

>>196848

He already tried that.
I understood that his problem is the rather large thermal expansion coefficient of wax.

Unfortunately I have no good suggestions.

Why have we not invented reverse microwaves?

>>196858

Oh I read it wrong.

Is the dip all the way to the wick?

What wax are you using?

>>196862
>Is the dip all the way to the wick?
I don't know what that means, because I am retarded.

>What wax are you using?
Candle wax.

>>196858
>I understood that his problem is the rather large thermal expansion coefficient of wax.
Pretty much this, with a combination of the wax sticking to the sides of the candle holder while the top gets sucked down. If the whole surface dropped as it cooled, it wouldn't be an issue.

I'm wondering if it isn't an issue with the shape of the candle holder, but then that makes me question how it was originally filled properly...

use more wax

>>196866
the wax was about 0.5cm away from the top of the rim. I couldn't have used any more wax at the time.

There is always the idea of letting it cool, then adding more wax, letting that cool, etc, but I'm not interested in pouring hot wax for the sake of not spilling shit errywhere, on top of the fact that there HAS to be a way to do it right the first time.

wait, so you're not pouring liquid wax into the candle holder? Just melt it in a pan and pour it in until it gets to the top.

>>196869
add solid wax and use a hairdryer to melt it in place?

>>196871
How is that any different than what I've already been doing?

>>196874
well, its not ass-backwards for a start

>>196876
The method I employ doesn't involve me transferring liquid wax from one container to another, therefore making it less likely to result in a spill.

Furthermore, it was in a previous candle-making thread that I was warned against melting wax in a pan, but rather putting the wax inside a container, then placing that in a pot with water to more evenly distribute the heat. You're suggesting the very thing that I was warned against.

I think I'd rather be "ass backwards".

>>196879
do you have parkinsons or something where you cant pour liquid from one container into another without mysteriously spilling it everywhere? How do you manage to pour yourself a drink?

http://voices.yahoo.com/candle-crafting-pour-container-candles-116086.html?cat=24

>>196883
You can insult me if you want, but that doesn't remove the fact that your method has more steps, more possibility of spill, and comes to the exact same result.

On top of that, in order to follow your suggestion at this point, I would have to liquify the wax that's in the candle holder, pour it out into something else, then pour it back in.

>>196884
>hey /diy/ I'm trying to do something and my method is not working
your doing it wrong try a different method
>hurr durr nope my way iz bettur evn tho it dozent wurk
good luck in your life anon. you'll need it.

>>196887
You're still ignoring the fact that your method reaches identical results. I don't even need to attempt it to know that.

Both my original method, and your method, will end in liquid wax inside the candle holder, which will cool, forming a solid surface that clings to the rim of the holder, then dips down as the deeper wax solidifies.

Why, exactly, do you believe your method is so decidedly superior and will have a different outcome?

>>196890
I've done it. It worked. You havent even tried it, but you are the expert. Ignore people who know what the fuck they're talking about, thats a sure way to learn how to do things.

>>196891
Okay, if you're experienced in the subject, please explain to me how the liquid wax will cool differently, simply because it's poured in.

So far, all you've offered is a convoluted method to the same result, and insults because I won't automatically agree with you.

>>196894
I posted a link that explains the method simply but you're so self-righteous you probably didnt even read it. Whatever, I'm out.

>>196895
>can't give an answer, issues another insult, and leaves.

http://voices.yahoo.com/candle-crafting-pour-container-candles-116086.html?cat=24
>After the candle has set, re-melt the reserved wax and use it to top off the candle. Refill the well left from the cooling process, pouring wax only to the top of the well. Try to avoid pouring any higher, as a line will set in the candle. This will not affect the burning function of the candle, but is somewhat unsightly. Depending on your wax and the amount it contracts as it hardens, you may need to repeat the topping-off process again.


4/10 I replied.

Ignoring the bitchiness this thread seems to have descended into...

Layer your wax- 3-4 layers of either identical or contrasting colours/scents. let each one set fully before adding the next. I'm afraid it's a pouring method though OP.

>>196900
So pouring it in doesn't change anything.

If you wanted to say "let it cool, then top it off until it's even," you could have, and that would have actually been something. Your original, and repeatedly insisted upon, suggestion still would not change anything.

>>196907
You have to POUR the topping off wax. You can't magic it in there.As in you have to MELT it first.Pouring liquid wax, that thing that you cant do without turning into a catastrophic fountain of calamity.

>>196910
That's still not what you said originally.

You said to pour the wax in, and that'll do it. It won't. It will result in an identical outcome. What you're now adding to your suggestion is that multiple pours will be needed to eventually top it off evenly.

It's also amazing how you get angrier with each post.

>>196914

>use more wax
>Just melt it in a pan and pour it in until it gets to the top.
at no point did I say re-melt and re-pour the original wax.


successful troll is successful. I refuse to believe anyone is that dumb and willfully obtuse in real life.

good day.

>>196919
>I refuse to believe someone couldn't just read into what I said and take things out of it that I didn't say.

>issues more insults and says he's leaving again.

So not only do you have an anger issue, but you also have a hard time saying what you mean.

And you wished me luck in life...

OP is a retard. And as usual, a faggot.

Seriously, how stupid do you have to be to not realize you have to melt a small bit of additional wax in a separate container and pour it in to full the concavity left by the contracting of the cooled wax?

>>196988
It's still not a solution to the problem.

What I'm looking for is the method by which the original candle maker was able to fill the holder without having to keep topping it off.

The article that was linked by the anon with aggression issues states that repeatedly topping off the candle until it's even will look unsightly, but will work. That's obviously not the original manner by which the candle was made.

The question presented in the OP was how to prevent that.

The fact that you, if you're actually a different anon, are seconding something that doesn't actually address the original question doesn't make me retarded, stupid, or a faggot.

This has been a noticeable trend on /diy/, not only in threads I've made, but in multiple other threads that I see daily. People don't read the OP in its entirety, throw out some suggestion that doesn't address the issue, and then become aggressive if their suggestion is questioned in any manner.

The logical conclusion is that summer is already starting.

>>197305
Do you have Aspergers, OP? I'm not trying to insult you, but your general arrogance and lack of coordination judging by the fact that you don't even want to attempt pouring hot wax as suggested/commonly used is pretty glaring.

And I don't recall you ever mentioning the aesthetics of the candle or getting your refill to even remotely resemble "the original manner by which the candle was made." I'd be incredibly frustrated if I was that guy trying to help you out too, because you're not even trying to listen to his advice. Be more receptive and try new things. Wear gloves or some shit if you're really that spooked you'll burn yourself.

>>197330
>I'm not trying to insult you like I just did, but here I go!

I do enjoy the same implication that I am apparently so incapable of pouring something that I will dump it all over myself. I never said that was an issue. The point that I repeatedly made is that it invites the possibility of spill, which can be avoided. If something can be avoided, you avoid it to prevent possible future problems. You're suggesting that, despite a recognized potential for unneeded mess, I do it anyway, and that I'm some sort of fool for thinking any other way.

The first post in the thread explains that, currently, I'm having an issue with the surface of the candle bowing down as it cools, and then ask how to prevent this. Not how to resolve it after the fact, but how to prevent it. It is right here: >>196843

And, much in the same way of the previous anon, the insistence that I try a new thing that I know won't resolve the issue is illogical. There is no purpose in doing something when you know before even starting that it will not end in the results that you're trying for.

>>197357
You're a dumbass, and judging by your lack of logic and the ability to listen, you must be a woman. You're dealing with melted wax. You can never expect to have zero spills. Put down a trash bag before you poor. If you refuse to settle with the advice you're given on a board mainly occupied by men that don't make candles, then look elsewhere for advice. This link is the first result when I typed "candle making forum" in google. Surely there are several more available.

http://www.candletech.com/cgi-local/yabb/YaBB.cgi

>>197364
see
>>197305
>This has been a noticeable trend on /diy/, not only in threads I've made, but in multiple other threads that I see daily. People don't read the OP in its entirety, throw out some suggestion that doesn't address the issue, and then become aggressive if their suggestion is questioned in any manner.

>The logical conclusion is that summer is already starting.

I've pointed out logical reasons, time and time again, why the method suggested to me won't work and is undesirable. Repeatedly, the same method is suggested along side jeers and assumptions as to why I won't use that method which ignore everything I've said. Yet, somehow, I'm the one with listening issues.

I'm sure there are a lot of things that the majority of people on this board don't do, but a handful may, which warrants any question to be asked. The first line in my post addresses candle makers directly. If you are not one, then there is no need to respond, and you only have yourself to blame if you do so.

Also, pointing to an entire forum for the answer is like telling someone that it's just as easy as reading an encyclopedia set. Anyone can do that, and it is not an answer at all.

As I have received good advice from this board in the past, I figured it'd be worth it to shoot for some advice again to see if someone would have a quick response. But again, apparently summer is starting.

>>197376
>I'm the one with listening issues.
You have excpectancy issues.
noone here actually gives a flying fuck about you, your an asshole that expects everything. this is some retarted shit that can easly be googled.

Stop making threads on /diy/ your fucking it up.

>>197376
Wow, you have got to piss a lot of people off everyday IRL. That is a forum, just like this one, that you can go to and ask your question to people that make fucking candles. This may be a surprise, but 4chan is not the only forum site on the internets. I assure you, someone that is so much smarter than everyone else will be able to figure out how to start a thread on that site and annoy the shit outta those people too.

>>197390
By that logic, anyone who starts a thread has expectancy issues. If nobody had posted a response, I would have moved on to searching out the answer on my own. I never demanded that anyone give me an answer or else.

Anything falls into the realm of "some retarted shit that can easly be googled," up to and including how to spell "easily". By that logic, anything that can be googled doesn't belong on /diy/.

So, if people with expectancy issues (anyone who make a thread) asking about retarded shit that can be easily googled (anything) shouldn't post on /diy/, then nobody is allowed to post on /diy/.

I also enjoy that you're telling me that I'm ruining the board when your last post was completely off-topic, being nothing but incorrect assumptions and frantic, angry insults.

>>197399
>implying that I treat everyone like this.

Nope, this is just for you.