freezing candles

[BULLSEYE BILL]

I have heard that freezing a candle before burning makes it last longer.

Is this a wives tale?

[Jim Fischer]

Well, it clearly would be true that a candle
fresh from the deep freeze would need to thaw
out before any wax melted, thus slowing the
initial burn rate a tiny, tiny bit... smile.gif

But let's get real - the delta between freezer
temp (let's say 30F) and room temp (70F) is
negligible (40F) as compared to the combustion
temperature of a candle flame (1500F-1600F),
so it really does not matter if the candle
starts out at 30F or 70F, except that lighting the
candle may be made slightly more difficult by
the frozen state of the wax, and the lack of any
serious "wicking" action.

One thing that CAN happen is that the candle
can freeze unevenly, and crack in the freezer.
That would be a bummer, wouldn't it?

...and don't get me started about people who
claim that they can make a better popover
by placing the batter-filled pan in a COLD
oven, rather than a pre-heated one... smile.gif

[Joel]

Jim, you know if you keep destroying our urban myths we won't have anything left to believe in! (except the truth) :D

[Michael Bush]

I don't know if it's true or not, but I know they sell long burning candles (made of parafin not beeswax) and the claim, if I remember it right, that it was something about the crystal structure of the wax in the candles that made it burn longer. Is it possible that freezing a candle causes some kind of crystalization? Certainly as comb ages it changes from very soft and mallable to very papery and brittle. What is that change from? Is it from some kind of crystalization? Is it from some kind of loss of oils in the wax? I don't know.

[Jim Fischer]

> Is it possible that freezing a candle causes
> some kind of crystalization?

Sure, but "freezing" for wax happens at just
below the melting point! If the wax melts
at 120F, than the "freezing point" would be
just slightly below 120F.

This makes sense, as something is either liquid or
solid, there really isn't a "slush" state between.

There is a "super cooled liquid" stage for many
materials, but that does not apply to the case of
wax. Glass yes, wax no, paraffin no.

Once wax or paraffin has solidified, subjecting
it to colder temperatures is not going to somehow
change the existing crystal structure formed at
solidification any more than freezing a quartz
crystal would somehow change its structure.

Old brittle comb is simply "dried out" from air
exposure. You can get the same result from
leaving wax in a solar melter for about
a month. You will notice a powdery residue
on the surface of your bricks of wax.

Now, there are "microcrystalline" paraffins, which
(no big surprise) have smaller crystals, but this
is a whole different petrochemical byproduct
than the usual paraffin. They are added to alter
the overall hardness of the paraffin end product.
I have never heard anyone claim that they made a
candle "burn longer".

Most crystal structures are really a function of
the material, not something that can be changed
by heating or cooling. You have to do some very
fancy chemistry to add the right items to steel to
get "heat-treatable steel", which is about the
closest example I can think of to a "crystal
structure" that might be modified by temperature
cycling.

Bottom line, ounce per ounce, and inch per inch,
pure beeswax candles burn longer than anything
else, and even candles with some beeswax in them
burn longer than pure paraffin candles.

And nothing the petrochemical industry can do
is going to change that. Lord only knows that
they have tried. Bees just make a superior
product. smile.gif

[Michael Bush]

>Sure, but "freezing" for wax happens at just
below the melting point! If the wax melts
at 120F, than the "freezing point" would be
just slightly below 120F.

Cooling metals when they are hot at different rates causes changes in the crystaline structure in the metal. By "freezing" I am simply refering to the original reference (the first post) to putting them in the freezer. But then I thought that was obvious.

>This makes sense, as something is either liquid or solid, there really isn't a "slush" state between.

You must have never driven in Nebraska in the winter.

>Once wax or paraffin has solidified, subjecting
it to colder temperatures is not going to somehow
change the existing crystal structure formed at
solidification any more than freezing a quartz
crystal would somehow change its structure.

I assume we are talking about rapidly cooling a candle in the freezer and this very well might change the crystaline structure.

>Old brittle comb is simply "dried out" from air
exposure. You can get the same result from
leaving wax in a solar melter for about
a month. You will notice a powdery residue
on the surface of your bricks of wax.

So what has "dried"? What has evaporated out of it? Why does it return to normal after I melt it?

>Now, there are "microcrystalline" paraffins, which
(no big surprise) have smaller crystals, but this
is a whole different petrochemical byproduct
than the usual paraffin. They are added to alter
the overall hardness of the paraffin end product.
I have never heard anyone claim that they made a
candle "burn longer".

You must not read camping catalogs.

On this site:

http://www.eliteelectrolysisnj.com/webshop/actiongear_profile.htm

You'll find:

"50-HOUR EMERGENCY CANDLES
"High melt-point microcrystalline wax makes these long burning candles a must for emergencies. Nothing is more comforting than light on dark, stormy nights."
Only $ 5.99"

I've seen many other camping catalogs with the same claim for microcrystalline wax candles.

>Most crystal structures are really a function of
the material, not something that can be changed
by heating or cooling.

Steel, sugar syrup, honey, just to name three that we are all familar with, can have dramatically different crystaline structures depending on sudden, slow or specific changes in temperatures.

> You have to do some very
fancy chemistry to add the right items to steel to
get "heat-treatable steel", which is about the
closest example I can think of to a "crystal
structure" that might be modified by temperature
cycling.

I've heat treated common nails and changed their hardness. It didn't take much chemistry. Just heating and sudden cooling. You can do it to brass too, but it works the opposite. Sudden cooling makes it soft and slow cooling makes it brittle and hard. No fancy chemistry there either.

>Bottom line, ounce per ounce, and inch per inch,
pure beeswax candles burn longer than anything
else, and even candles with some beeswax in them
burn longer than pure paraffin candles.

The above are supposed to last 50 hours. I can't vouch for the 50 hours, but there's no beeswax in them.

You are probably right that freezing a beeswax candle won't change the burning rate. But without some experimentation, I don't see how we can say for a fact that it won't.

[Jim Fischer]

Michael:

You appear to be confusing your post-production
application of heat to a specific heat-treated
steel alloy with a general case. Yes, if you
mess around with an alloy, you CAN soften or
harden it, but only because it was made to be
heat-treatable in the first place.

> Steel, sugar syrup, honey, just to name three
> that we are all familar with, can have
> dramatically different crystaline structures
> depending on sudden, slow or specific changes
> in temperatures.

The speed of the temperature change really
does not impact any of the items listed.

In steel, the "magic" is the alloys added.
In sugar, the "magic" is the highest temperature
reached during the heating ("soft-ball", "crack"
"hard crack", et al).
In honey, cystalization is driven by the amount
of glucose in the honey (assuming, of course that
you have not seeded it to deliberately make
"creamed honey).

> I've seen many other camping catalogs with the
> same claim for microcrystalline wax candles.

Well, if you'd rather believe a salesman who
wants to separate you from your money, go ahead.
While the "wax" used may in fact be "high melting
point paraffin", the microcystalline version of
the wax simply means that the candle is mechanically
harder, which while being a good feature for
being banged around in a backpack, has no effect
on the melting point. Look up "microcrystalline
wax" with google, if you'd like. You can use it
to create anything from a napalm-like "gel" to
a candle hard enough to use as a blunt instrument
in a bar fight.

Anyway, as I said before, the exact melting point
of the wax makes little difference to the effect
of the flame, which has a temperature about 10
times that of any possible wax melting point.

> But without some experimentation, I don't see
> how we can say for a fact that it won't.

I did the math in a prior post on this thread,
so experiments are not really required when
the math is so clear, but if you have the candles
and the time, go for it!

My money is on the beeswax every time, no matter
what you do to the paraffin before the test.

[BubbaBob]

Paraffin for candles comes at different melt temps, the highest for pure parrafin being in the 130-135 range somewhere. Various additives, either by the paraffin refiner or the candlemaker can raise or lower that. Sterene, or steric acid, gives you about 140 degrees, Polyboost 135 gives you (SURPRISE!) 135 degrees, and Polyboost 165 gives you 165 degrees.

BubbaBob

[Michael Bush]

Crystalline changes in solids after they have solidified:

Lead alloys (any mixture of any amount of lead, tin and antimony that I've seen from wheel weights, 50/50 solder, linotype metal etc.) gets significantly harder when cooled after casting in water rather than being allowed to cool at room temperature. (Jim, I can give you "chapter and verse" from a Lyman cast bullet manual, but when I do such things you refer to it as "nonsense" and when I don't you refer to it as "anecdotal"). Iron and its alloys when cooled rapidly (when it is a solid also) get harder and more brittle. When cooled slowly gets softer. Copper and its alloys (bronze, brass etc. which are not very exact alloys) get softer when cooled rapidly. This is the extent of the metals that I have any real working knowledge of but all of them are affected by rapid cooling.

All three of these same metals and their alloys are affected by working them. When brass is worked (stretched by firing a brass cartridge in a chamber and compressed back to size in a die) it becomes harder and more brittle. When it is heated and cooled slowly it also becomes brittle. This is true of all the copper alloys that I've ever worked with (bronze, brass, copper etc.) Iron and its alloys get softer as you work it as does lead. Resizing a cast lead bullet that has been hardened by rapid cooling changes it's hardness back to virtually what it would have been if it were not hardened by cooling. These changes are a result of the crystalline structure at a molecular level changing as a result of heating, cooling and working. Again, I can give you "chapter and verse" from a number of reloading manuals that SAY it's a result of the crystalline structure changing, but I will save that for after you have questioned this statment and just before you call it "nonsense".

Wax sheets that are made by dipping a wet board in beeswax, are much more brittle than the same wax sheets after they have been run through a mill and pressed. Something in the structure of the wax changes when it is worked and it becomes much more flexible and much less brittle. (just like two of the three above mentioned materials) I don't know the exact cause, but since wax has a crystalline structure (as evidenced by the fact that there is such a thing microcrystalline wax) it would make sense that this change is similar to other malleable solids such as lead, copper and iron alloys.

With beeswax, I see the soft wax (newly built by the bees or newly pressed by the milling machine) go back to being more brittle and less flexible over time. I don't know the exact cause, but I would suspect it is the reverse of the same change we saw when we ran it through the mill.

The camping supply places have been claiming (and, as I said in the first place, I don't know if it's true or not) that microcrystalline wax candles burn longer. They have been claiming this for decades, despite the fact that you did not notice. I read about them in REI catalogs back in the 1980's and I think as far back as the late 70's. Since they do have a higher flash point and a higher melting point than regular paraffin I have to assume it's likely they do last longer than regular paraffin.

So to recap what we know:

1) Wax is crystalline in structure (as evidenced by microcrystalline wax)
2) Materials with a crystalline structure that I have worked with, (which is admittedly a short list) are all affected by rapid or slow cooling processes and by working the material.
4) The hardness of beeswax is also affected by working it and by time.
3) Smaller crystals in the structure of paraffin wax affect melting points and flash points and have been claimed for decades to increase burning times.

So it does NOT seem impossible to me that rapid cooling of beeswax could have an effect on the burning time of a candle. So, as I said to yhou in the first place, "You are probably right that freezing a beeswax candle won't change the burning rate. But without some experimentation, I don't see how we can say for a fact that it won't."

[Jim Fischer]

Wow, there we were, just talking about beeswax,
and suddenly BULLETS started flying! smile.gif

So as to avoid getting too technical about
a side-issue for beekeepers, here's a picture
of the crystal structure of (pure) lead.
http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Pb/xtal.html

It is NOT going to change, no matter what you do.
While a material that could somehow dynamically
"shift" or change its basic crystal structure
would be waaaay cool, you aren't going to see
one anytime soon anywhere outside of science
fiction. Alloys would have different crystal
structures, also always the same for any specific
alloy.

What you speak of with "rapid cooling" versus
slow cooling of metals is similar to what happens
when forming Martensitic stainless steels, which
also need rapid cooling. This is NOT a change
to any crystal structures, but is, instead a
change to how the different metals (each with
their own crystal structure) combine.

And of course you can "work" a metal and get
a (gross characteristic) change in hardness,
but this also does not change the basic crystal
structure.

So, to recap with accurate info:

> 1) Wax is crystalline in structure (as evidenced
> by microcrystalline wax)

So far, so good.

> 2) Materials with a crystalline structure that I
> have worked with... are all affected by rapid or
> slow cooling processes and by working the
> material.

The gross physical characteristics can be
modified, but the crystal structures do not
change in the least for any one component
in the metal.

> 4) The hardness of beeswax is also affected by
> working it and by time.

I can't say if this point is true or not, but
I can say that there would not be any change
to the crystal structure as a result of "working"
the wax, or the passage of time.

> 3) Smaller crystals in the structure of paraffin
> wax affect melting points and flash points and
> have been claimed for decades to increase
> burning times.

...by charlatans smile.gif

"Melting point" might matter as a storage issue,
but as explained before, has no possible impact
on the combustion rate. Flash points are not
very different at all for any of the various
candle "waxes":

Beeswax - 490 to 535 F
Paraffin - 478 to 489 F
Microcrystaline Paraffin - 345 to 510 F

...and much much less different when compared to
the temperature of combustion (the flame).

> So it does NOT seem impossible to me that rapid
> cooling of beeswax could have an effect on the
> burning time...

So, do your experiment!

Arguing the point with me will never convince
you. The tone of your most recent post is less
than civil in your inappropriate personal
comments, so I will direct you to your good friend
Google, where you can find other, perhaps
better-presented explanations, or at least find
all the different types of candles that you can
use in your test.

Here's a picture of Mike and I as he brings up
the subject of "lead":
http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/media/nearingzero/Pb.gif

[Michael Bush]

>inappropriate personal comments

The only thing I can imagine that you have interpreted as "inappropriate personal comments" are quotes from your posts in the past directed at me and I did NOT direct them at you, I merely predicted a similar response again.

I love the cartoon. Thanks for making my day.

[Jim Fischer]

When you start a sentence with "Jim, ..." you
clearly have directed a comment at me.

Or were you addressing some other "Jim"?
There are lots of us about.

While you might offer an "anecdote" about your
attempts at predicting the future in an attempt
to dodge and weave, it would be "nonsense". smile.gif

The trick is to be hard on the problems, but
remain soft on the people.

[Michael Bush]

>When you start a sentence with "Jim, ..." you
clearly have directed a comment at me.

>>Jim, I can give you "chapter and verse" from a Lyman cast bullet manual, but when I do such things you refer to it as "nonsense" and when I don't you refer to it as "anecdotal

Yes, I directed this stentence to you. I said I would be willing to provide references. What about that was offensive? Then I quoted previous comments from you when I did provide refernces("nonsense") and when I did not ("anecdotal"). I did not say that anything you said was nonsense (despite the fact that you have often used that to describe things I have said) nor did I accuse you of offering "anectdotal" comments despite the fact that you did not back up your statements.

If you really want, I can look up all the previous times you've called what I've said nonsense, but I'd rather spend my time on more productive things.

[Jerry J]

The speed of the temperature change really
does not impact any of the items listed.

Jim, I read your post with interest most of the time as pertaining to bee keeping but this time I must agree with Michael. Only had the bees three years and always learning. Steel, different thing,Retired two years ago after working as a welder 30 years. Preheat/postheat,oil quench/air cooled, Temp Sticks to control the speed of cooling. brittle versus Machineable.
I'll keep reading about our bees and products. smile.gif

[BubbaBob]

Pissing contests usually get both people all wet and accomplish little.

An observation.

BubbaBob

[Jim Fischer]

> ...get both people all wet...

Oh no... if the candles get WET, then freezing
them will surely form cracks all over their
surface! smile.gif

> ...working as a welder 30 years.

Then you can certainly list which steel alloys
can and cannot be "worked" or "heat treated",
and you clearly understand that you are not
re-arranging the basic crystal structures when
you work or heat-treat metal. Maybe you can
re-read Michael's questions and answer them to
Michael's satisfaction in regards to crystal
structures.

I tried.

[BULLSEYE BILL]

>An observation.

Hey! Come on Bubba! It's just gettin' good. ;)

Come on guys! Don't just roll over, go for it! tongue.gif

[Michael Bush]

>Come on guys! Don't just roll over, go for it

OK.

http://www.benbest.com/cryonics/lessons.html

"When a metal plastically deforms, the manner in which it does so is by the formation and propagation of flaws (dislocations) within the crystal grains. Grain boundaries resist crystal propagation of dislocations, which is why smaller grain size increases yield strength."

"When a blacksmith pounds on a horseshoe, he or she is making the horseshoe harder by increasing the number of dislocations and reducing grain size."

"Cooling or heating a material can create stresses leading to fracture, ie, thermal shock. Thermal shock resistance typically varies directly with fracture strength & thermal conductivity while it varies inversely with stiffness & thermal expansivity."

"In metallurgy, annealling can reduced cored structure, reduce internal stress and increase grain size."

http://www.aws.org/wj/feb03/feature2.html

"We should at this time discuss grain size and its formation relative to carbon steels. Pure iron transforms from BCC to FCC at 1670°F. The grain size is at its smallest at this temperature. Carbon steels, however, start to form austenite at 1333°F (A1 line) and are completely austenitic at the A3 line. This means the grain size starts to become smaller at the A1 line and is at its smallest at the A3 line. If heated way above the A3 line, the grain size increases. We will return to this subject later."

"Look at the 0.45% C steel labeled #2. On slow cooling from the A3 line, crystals of ferrite begin forming as they did with the #1 steel. As the steel continues to slowly cool, more ferrite crystals are present."

"It is also the lowest temperature structural change point for carbon steels. At slightly above 1333°F, the steel is all austenite (FCC). On slow cooling to 1333°F, the ferrite cementite lamella formation takes place. In this case it is 100% pearlite. Pearlite contains 88% ferrite and 12% cementite. On heating the reverse occurs and at 1333°F all the pearlite transforms to austenite. Keep in mind that at this temperature or just above, the grain size is at its smallest.

Thus far, we have discussed what happens when the steel is heated or cooled very slowly. Let's see what happens when we rapidly cool a piece of 0.8% carbon steel from the fully austenitic state. When this steel is rapidly cooled, the FCC state is actually suppressed down to around 200°F. By doing this, the austenite pearlite change has been completely passed and we have a FCC structure that has to change to a BCC structure. The transformation at this temperature is a shear-type transformation. Remember that the FCC structure can take on 1.8% C and the BCC structure can take on only 0.008% C at room temperature. If the 0.8% C steel is cooled in cold water, the FCC state is suppressed down to around 200°F, where it has to immediately transform to the BCC state. Due to this shear type of transformation, the carbon in the FCC state does not have sufficient time to precipitate, resulting in a BCC structure that has more carbon than normal. In fact, the BCC structure is highly distorted. This type of structure is called a highly distorted body-centered tetragonal, more commonly known as martensite. What we have done to this 0.8% C steel is fully harden it. A fully hardened steel has little use as an engineering material; therefore, we usually temper or draw the steel to a desired hardness. Tempering is a heat treating process in which a fully hardened piece of steel is reheated between 300 and 1000°F. Tempering releases some of the trapped carbon atoms. These released carbon atoms combine with iron atoms to produce iron carbide (Fe3C) also known as cementite. The 0.8% C steel was chosen because it is one of the easiest to harden. Theoretically, a 0.1% C steel can be hardened if a fast enough cooling rate can be accomplished. A water quench, however, would not be fast enough; therefore, it is said a 0.1% C steel (mild steel) cannot be hardened. A 0.45% C steel is about the minimum carbon content steel that can be easily hardened using a water quench. It must be remembered that in order to harden steels in the 0.45Â*0.80% C range, they must be heated to just above the upper critical A3 line, then cooled in the desired cooling medium. Steels above 0.8% C can also be easily hardened. The only difference is they do not have to be heated to the Acm line and then cooled. The steel has to be heated to just above the A1 line then cooled, usually in oil. The reason is that steels above 0.8% C contain cementite as well as martensite on fast cooling. Cementite is a very hard constituent in steels."

http://www.toolingu.com/bookstore/item_info.aspx?item_ID=45
http://castcut.com/nar/outline%20overview.html


It's all about crystals, grain size and dislocations all of which are controled by either working or the speed and degree of heating and cooling. Whether it's glass or steel or lead or copper or whatever crystaline solid you want to talk about. Since wax is also a crystaline solid I would suspect it would have to follow some of the same rules.

[GaSteve]

Quick -- someone start a poll so we can vote for a gold medal winner in this urinary olympics. :D

[Jim Fischer]

OK, you finally "get it".

"Grains" are large groups of crystals, but are
really nothing more than random "hunks" of
metal. As I said, one CAN change the gross
physical properties of a material by "working"
it or heat-treating a specific heat-treatable
material, but (to repeat for the umpteenth time):

THIS DOES NOT CHANGE THE CRYSTAL STRUCTURE

So, now all you have to do is satisfy yourself
that "grains" are not crystals, but are large
assemblies of crystals, and you should be able
to have a better understanding, and get away
from making statements like "wax is also a
crystaline solid", and using it to draw any
conclusions.

But do your experiment, anyway.

I think it would make interesting reading in
either one of the bee magazines. If you sent a
copy to me, I would lobby hard to get it in the publication schedule.

[PA Pete]

Wow - interesting thread.

I have a question though... I always thought wax was a polymer - isn't it? As such, shouldn't wax's physical properties/behaviour be more similar to the behaviour of other polymers?

I'm really thinking back here, but IIRC polymer chain length had a lot to do with how a polymer behaved. Shorter chains meant a softer material, longer chains meant a stiffer material. Does aging of wax result in additional chain linking over time? This would cause it to become harder and perhaps more brittle. Since reheating causes wax to melt, I'm guessing heat also breaks the chains down into smaller "links," which "re-link" on cooling to some intermediate length which restored pliability. Just some thoughts...

Anyway...

I enjoyed the steel discussion - haven't heard anyone even mention the word "martensite" in 15 years - took me back to college days and my "Ferrous Production Metallurgy" class (among others).

Steel has another interesting trait that hasn't been mentioned here directly yet - it undergoes a ductile-to-brittle transition at low temperatures. We demonstrated this in lab using charpy bars, a charpy impact tester, and liquid nitrogen. Chilled bars broke cleanly in half, while room temperature bars usually just bent or tore part-way through. Though liquid nitrogen made the steel extremely brittle, steel can become noticeably brittle even at more "reasonably encountered" temperatures like those that might be encountered in Winter in the northern states or Canada. Thought you might find this interesting.

-Pete

[Beesuke]

MB wrote:"Pure iron transforms from BCC to FCC at 1670°F. "

From other source: Iron atoms are arranged in a body-centered cubic pattern (BCC) up to 1180 K. Above this temperature it makes a phase transition to a face-centered cubic lattice (FCC). The transition from BCC to FCC results in an 8 to 9% increase in density, causing the iron sample to shrink in size as it is heated above the transition temperature.

More here: http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~scdiroff/lds/CondensedMatter/BCCtoFCC/BCCtoFCC.html

I am sorry, Jim, but that IS a change in the crystaline structure. There are many metals (and other crystals as well) that do change their crystaline structure with temperature. Besides iron, great example is carbon (graphite and diamond). Another great example is water. Ice has at least 13 (thirteen) known phases that differ by crystalline structure, ordering and density. Besides the normal hexagonal ice structure, there are cubic and seven more structures that can be recovered at ambient pressure, by carefully chosing thermal paths and heating/cooling speeds. There are two more (metastabile) phases of ice that are possible under pressure. The last one was discoverred in 1996.

Mr.Bush's wording may not be as scientific as you pretend yours to be, but he is right. There is no fundamental scientific principle that forbids wax cooled at different rates to have different physical properties.

Vladimir Marinov
(Ph.D. in physics)

[Jim Fischer]

I thought that everyone had wandered off after
other bright shiny objects, and left this
non-issue alone.

> Iron atoms...

Of course metals can be heat treated to an
"austenite phase", and if you want to call
this a "crystal structure change" rather than
a "grain change", you would only be corrected
by a metallurgist.

> can be recovered at ambient pressure, by
> carefully chosing thermal paths and
> heating/cooling speeds.

Again, with care and equipment beyond the
resources of beekeepers.

> There is no fundamental scientific principle
> that forbids wax cooled at different rates to
> have different physical properties.

And I sure with a large enough budget and enough
time, one might be able to modify the crystal
structure of pure beeswax.

But NOT by tossing the wax into a home freezer,
which was the original question, and the focus
of the discussion.

So I'll say it again. YOU (beekeepers, including
Mr. Bush) aren't going to change the basic
crystal structure of wax, certainly not by
cooling. Mr. Marinov won't either, as I am sure
he has better things to do.

> Mr.Bush's wording may not be as scientific as
> you pretend yours to be

Please forgive me for speaking in plain English.
You will find as you gain more practical
experience that speaking simply and clearly is
difficult while still covering all possible cases.
Courtesy to a colleague is optional, but
something else that you may find helpful.

So to review:

1) Tossing a candle in a kitchen freezer will
have no significant effect at all on a candle.

2) The candle will not burn longer.

3) Arguments offered by those who like to
argue for its own sake are about things that
are not candles, things that can withstand
much higher temperatures like metals, and

4) Water IS a special case. Water is always
a special case. Water is amazing stuff.

[Beesuke]

>I thought that everyone had wandered off after
other bright shiny objects, and left this
non-issue alone.

Sorry, I hapenned to read it today for the first time, and I could not resist.

>Of course metals can be heat treated to an
"austenite phase", and if you want to call
this a "crystal structure change" rather than
a "grain change", you would only be corrected
by a metallurgist.

Change in the crystal lattice configuration and dimentions is precisely what is happening in the transitions I gave as a short list of examples in the previous posting. Such changes are much better described by the words "crystal structure change" than by "grain change".

>> can be recovered at ambient pressure, by
>> carefully chosing thermal paths and
>> heating/cooling speeds.

>Again, with care and equipment beyond the
>resources of beekeepers.

This was example that such changes ARE possible, as a couterargument to your statements that once something has frozen termal change cannot change it's crystaline structure

(quote):Once wax or paraffin has solidified, subjecting
it to colder temperatures is not going to somehow
change the existing crystal structure formed at
solidification any more than freezing a quartz
crystal would somehow change its structure.

This may be or may not be true for wax. If you can cite a study that says it is not, it will be entirely different situation. What Mr.Bush was (and now I am) trying to comunicate to you is that it follows from nowhere that it wouldn't. Since there are plenty of examples where crystaline structure is changed with the temperature, there was nothing wrong to imagine (what mr.Bush did) that wax MIGHT change its crystaline structure when cooled at a higher rate. You jumped at him saying it's impossible. I jump in to say that it is.

>And I sure with a large enough budget and enough
time, one might be able to modify the crystal
structure of pure beeswax.

It might be the case that all the budget you need is to buy a home freezer.

>But NOT by tossing the wax into a home freezer,
which was the original question, and the focus
of the discussion.

Again, that may or may not be true. You did not provide any evidence in either direction.

>So to review:

>1) Tossing a candle in a kitchen freezer will
have no significant effect at all on a candle.

How did you find out that?

>2) The candle will not burn longer.

Why not? *IF* faster cooling leads to structural change in the wax (call it grain change or whatever) that leads to higher melting point of the wax, that will bring us a candle that burns longer.

>3) Arguments offered by those who like to
argue for its own sake are about things that
are not candles, things that can withstand
much higher temperatures like metals,

That is irrelevant. I can give you examples with crystals that change their structure at ambient or low temperature. But that is also irrelevant. The question is that it is possible in principle, and if the wife tale about putting candles in the freezer has a grain of truth in it, change in the crystaline structure is not only a possible explanation, but aslo a very likely candidate.

>4) Water IS a special case. Water is always
a special case. Water is amazing stuff.

Indeed. That's why I gave it as an example.

[Jim Fischer]

> Such changes are much better described by the
> words "crystal structure change" than by "grain
> change".

You are entitled to your individual preferences
in semantics, no matter how creative. smile.gif

But wordplay won't change the crystal structure
of wax any more than a kitchen freezer, nor will
it enhance the burn time.

> If you can cite a study that says it is not,
> it will be entirely different situation.

Sadly, modern formal studies on such subjects
have not been done, for the same exact reason
that no one is still trying to make gold from lead. smile.gif

I can offer you one citation. This book
should answer your questions, and refute your
speculative argument as applied to wax.

Root, H.H. (1951)
"Beeswax: Its Properties, Testing, Production and Applications"

This book is very out of print, but it is the
only source I know of that gives a decent
non-cursory coverage of the detailed biochemistry
of beeswax.

> The question is that it is possible in
> principle, and if the wife tale about putting
> candles in the freezer has a grain of truth in
> it, change in the crystaline structure is not
> only a possible explanation, but aslo a very
> likely candidate.

Here's an idea - why not do your OWN homework,
and actually find out what is "possible in
principle", by asking someone who is an actual
wax chemist at an actual candle company? AI
Root company (H.H. Root's company) is not only
still in business, but can be asked questions
here:
http://www.rootcandles.com/contact_us/

Perhaps they will be able to enlighten you
as to some of the differences between metals
and wax. smile.gif

[Joel]

Great posts!! Incredible information and very interesting and mind expanding reading (at least for my little mind). A simple solution would seem to take 6 candles from the same batch of wax freeze 1/2 and allow to return to room temperature. Now light all as well as a couple of additional candles from a different batch as a control group. Lets see if in fact the frozen candles burn longer and if so is the extra time enough to be of any value. At this point lets work backwards listing all the possible explanations and then by the process of elimination narrow the field until we reach a solution. If the frozen candles don't burn longer then the rest is academic. Or we could just contact Root and see what they say!

[Beesuke]

>I can offer you one citation. This book
should answer your questions, and refute your
speculative argument as applied to wax.

>Root, H.H. (1951)
"Beeswax: Its Properties, Testing, Production and Applications"

Have you read it? Do you own it? If so, can you cite here text that supports your claim that wax does not change it's crystaline structure with temperature.

Here's an idea - why not do your OWN homework,
and actually find out what is "possible in
principle", by asking someone who is an actual
wax chemist at an actual candle company?

Sir, I did not make any claims that need to be supported, so it is not me that needs to do homework. You say with certainity that something DOES NOT happen, so it is you that have to support your claims in order they to be beleived. On the other hand, neither me nor Mr.Bush claimed that wax DOES change its crystaline structure. (In fact Mr.Bush said several times that he rather beleives it doesn't). We simply state that it MIGHT, as so many other substances do.

[Jim Fischer]

> Have you read it?

Yes.

> Do you own it?

Sadly no, it was a borrowed copy.

> If so, can you cite here text that supports
> your claim...

You wanted a citation, you have it.
Now you also want quotes?
Next, you'll want me to buy you a copy of the book! smile.gif

> Sir, I did not make any claims that need to
> be supported

Yes you did. You misapplied the properties of
metals to beeswax.

> We simply state that it MIGHT...

Glad to see that you are emphasizing "might".
In this case, the term "might" should be
read as similar to "we might travel faster
than light by 2020". smile.gif

On the other hand, Mike can speak very well
for himself, so you should not presume to
represent his position, as he offered slightly
different speculation from yours. You should
replace your "We" with "I".

If you don't want to bother to find a copy
of an out-of-print book, why don't you ask a
candle company?
Any large candle manufacturer will do.
They are all sure to have addressed this
old wives tale many times.

Another book that might be of help in your
studies would be Hepburn, H.R., "Honeybees and
Wax" (1986) but it is published by the very
expensive Springer-Verlag company. Something
like $400.00 for less than 200 pages. Not as
complete as the Root book, but more recent.
(Yes, I've read it, no I don't have a copy here.)

[Michael Bush]

Dr Marinov said: We simply state that it MIGHT...

Dr Fischer said: Glad to see that you are emphasizing "might".

"MIGHT" is not new to this discussion.
--------------------------------------
Things *I* said (emphasis added):

Is it POSSIBLE that freezing a candle causes some kind of crystalization?

I assume we are talking about rapidly cooling a candle in the freezer and this very well MIGHT change the crystaline structure.

You are PROBABLY right that freezing a beeswax candle won't change the burning rate. But without some experimentation, I don't see how we can say for a fact that it won't.

So it does NOT seem impossible to me that rapid cooling of beeswax could have an effect on the burning time of a candle. So, as I said to you in the first place, "You are probably right that freezing a beeswax candle won't change the burning rate. But without some experimentation, I don't see how we can say for a fact that it won't."

Since wax is also a crystaline solid I would SUSPECT it would have to follow some of the same rules.
----------------------------------
Things Dr. Marinov said (emphasis added):

There is no fundamental scientific principle that FORBIDS wax cooled at different rates to have different physical properties.

This was example that such changes ARE POSSIBLE..

This MAY be or may not be true for wax.

...wax MIGHT change its crystaline structure when cooled at a higher rate

*IF* faster cooling leads to structural change in the wax (call it grain change or whatever) that leads to higher melting point of the wax, that will bring us a candle that burns longer.

We simply state that it MIGHT, as so many other substances do.
------------------------------------


Might has been precisely what this entire discussion has been about. It was not a recently introduced idea.


Dr Fischer said: On the other hand, Mike can speak very well
for himself

As can Dr Marinov.

Dr Fischer said: ...so you should not presume to
represent his position, as he offered slightly
different speculation from yours. You should
replace your "We" with "I".

I thought he was representing EXACTLY what I'd been saying. I got the impression he read what both of us said quite carefully.

[BULLSEYE BILL]

DING!
You going to take that Dr. Jim?
Time for round three!
DING!
:D

[Jim Fischer]

Sorry Bill, you'll have to seek entertainment elsewhere.

I've said what I have to say on this, take it or leave it.
Folks can either fact-check, or do their own experiments.

[BULLSEYE BILL]

Waahh!

Well it was fun while it lasted.

The winner of this contest with a come from behind knock out, wearing the white trunks and Rising Sun, The Oriental Atom Bomb, Buuuusuuuukeeee!

[Dick Allen]

I wish I could try some candle experiments in my freezer, but it's full of food.

[BULLSEYE BILL]

You live in Alaska, just set them outside. ;)

[Dick Allen]

That's right Bill, what the hell do I need a freezer up here for.

[Joel]

Dick, I would suggest you could buy one to do candle experments in thus settling the orginal question in this post, does freezing candles make them burn longer? I'm afraid to add that it is also alleged they drip less. How could that be?

[Jim Fischer]

I make no claims at all about this brand of candle:
http://candles.genwax.com/candles/___0___P0779455.htm

Clearly, the usual rules would not apply. smile.gif

[Dick Allen]

>....do candle experments in thus settling the orginal question in this post.....

Joel, it wouldn't settle a thing. There'd be something not quite right to be nit-picked over just the same. You know that as well as the rest of us do. ;)

[JHayles]

I thought, for a minute or two, that I had stumbled on a "bee" forum......I guess I'll go back to the blacksmith shop.
Just have fun, if you're not working.
Take care,,, Joe in S. AL

[Darrel Wright]

This thread was astounding. I can't believe there was this much talk and no one ever put a candle in the freezer or out on the tundra.

[Dick Allen]

>I can't believe there was this much talk and no one ever...

Doesn't a lot of that happen on all these forums?

[BULLSEYE BILL]

>and no one ever put a candle in the freezer

I was going to go buy some birthday cake candles and put one in the freezer and one on the table and time how long they burn. Then I realized, how would I know when the candle in the feezer stopped burning? :rolleyes:

[BULLSEYE BILL]

>Buuuusuuuukeeee!

Now isn't that a fun word? smile.gif

[Dick Allen]

Bill, you just aren't going to let this die are you? :rolleyes: :D

[BULLSEYE BILL]

Now, you posted three times since my last one....in April. ;)

[jalal]

Jim is my hero

[Joel]

Bill, everyone knows birthday candles are parafin and don't count so stop trying to stir up trouble. Besides the candles would run out of air in the Freezer and your experiment would be void. Don't make Dick and I have to come to your house and pull the cord on you CPU. There comes a time when every good thread must come to an end. That was many post ago for this one!

[Dick Allen]

Maybe there's a market for beeswax birthday candles.

[Jim Fischer]

> Maybe there's a market for beeswax birthday candles.

Actually, there is a market of sorts.

When I was a small boy, my parents would put
"trick candles" on my birthday cakes.
They could be blown out, but would re-light
themselves and need to be blown out again.
And again, and again... (It may sound like
a cruel way to frustrate birthday wishes, but
I assure you that it was great fun for all.
Times were simpler then, and we were highly
entertained by such simple shenanigans.)

Modern versions of these candles just don't
work as well as the old-style candles, so
I've made my own from time to time, using
the proper magic ingredient, magnesium.
You have to fiddle with it, but you can
get a candle that relights itself after a
few seconds of being "out" without much
trouble if you measure with care and keep
a notebook.

(The trick is to soak the wick in a magnesium
solution. NEVER add magnesium to the wax
unless you want flares suitable for military
assaults or search and rescue work!)

My pseudo-nieces and pseudo-nephews all love 'em.

Now, the reason that I mention this is that
I also use magnesium in church tapers for
a few drafty churches who request them. No one
likes to see a candle go out in the middle
of a church service, do they? Some might think
it a very very bad omen. Such candles are
"bulletproof", in that they simply cannot be
blown out by even a strong breeze for more
than a few moments. And if someone sees a
candle go out, and then relight itself, just
what might they think? ;)

The only hack required is to glue small sponges
to the inside tops of the bell-shaped snuffers
used by ushers/altar boys to snuff out the candles
at the end of the service, and instruct them to
wet the sponges before snuffing the candles.

...and of course I use pure beeswax - did
you think I would go out and buy paraffin?

[jalal]

awesome, i'll be happy to hear the results myself!

[Dick Allen]

Your statistics are quite impressive. You did not include, however, the number of smart-alec wisecracks from the sidelines. How many of those were there?

[BULLSEYE BILL]

Dick, I SWEAR I did not put him up to this.

I am, however, waiting in bated anticipation.

[Jim Fischer]

I'd offer to help, but I've been burning the
candle at both ends during a few days of good
apiary-work weather, and need a rest.

[Jim Fischer]

> Let the debates begin.

The basic act of lighting a candle has
been a subject of divergent views for
quite some time.

Psalm 18:28
"For thou wilt light my candle: the Lord my
God will enlighten my darkness."

Job 18:6
"The light shall be dark in his tabernacle,
and his candle shall be put out with him."

Revelation 22:5
"...and they need no candle, neither light of the
sun; for the Lord God giveth them light..."

But it is better to light a candle than to
curse the debate.

[Joel]

Bullseye your some dead meat mister!!! Searcher, of course you weighed the candles and also burned a control group seperately, didn't you!? If not scientific methodolgy wasn't used and you should start over again. No cheap outs on this thread! I would suggest instead of the using the freezer, which may not necessarily have the same atmospheric conditions from 1 space to another due to ice build up, other items in the freezer, and the effect of opening the door to get brocolli for supper, and drive the candles to Dicks house in say, December. I here the AlCan is nice that time of year. After keeping them outside for a week, bring them in, weigh them, develop a formula to account for weight difference defference, and then report the results. Then and only the will we know!

[BULLSEYE BILL]

Searcher, I am in staring disbelief. :cool:
I am in awe of you enthusiasm.
Your act of dedication will go down in the annals of the Tailgater Forum.

You even made me get out the dictionary. tongue.gif

We need a ballad deplicting your noble persuit of knowledge! ;)

So. I understand that a candle kept in a frozen environment will burn longer than one that is at room temperature?

[Jim Fischer]

> ...burned a control group seperately, didn't you!?

Yes he did. He had a frozen candle, and a
non-frozen candle as his control. He was testing
for one variable, the freezing of the candle.

A perfectly valid methodology, although a very
limited data set, to be sure.

> ...drive the candles to Dicks house...

That would only complicate things. Latitude
change, minor quantum space-time effects, and
worst of all, getting the candle in one piece
over that so-called "highway" they have up there.

[Dick Allen]

"The Alaska Highway
winding in and winding out
fills my mind with serious doubt
as to whether "the lout"
who planned this route
was going to hell or coming out!"

- Retired Sergeant Troy Hise

(written while he was stationed at Summit Lake, Historical Mile 392)

The last time I drove that highway was in ‘73. Back then most of it was gravel, except for a few miles on either side of Whitehorse. Since then it’s been paved and from what I hear it’s pretty decent to drive.

Bring those candles on up here.

[Dick Allen]

Searcher sent me a private email a couple of weeks back telling me some travelers would be headed North To Alaska and asked me where the candles should be delivered. I replied back giving him my street address if they make it this way.

Bullseye Bill in some of his smart-ass remarks about conducting candle experiments here in Alaska may have given some the impression that Alaska is a vast sheet of ice. That isn't the case. We have four seasons here just the same as the rest of you folks down there in 'America' do. You have fall, winter, spring, summer. We have Almost Winter, Winter, Still Winter, Construction Season. Right now we are in Construction Season. So it will be a while before I can get to the candle experiment up here, but if they show up, I promise to freeze 'em and burn 'em and post the results.

[BULLSEYE BILL]

>Bullseye Bill in some of his smart-ass remarks...

Hey! I resemble that remark! :D

>We have four seasons here just the same as the rest of you folks down there in 'America' do.

I would dearly love to see that for myself, so I could remove that illusion of a vast frozen wastland. Someday I'll get to see those mosquitos that are as large as a hummingbirds.

[TX Ashurst]

To diverge only slightly and at the risk of inflaming a conflagration, may I propose this answer to a different aspect of the candle question:
Can a higher melting point affect how long a candle burns?
When the candle is burned, the wax goes through 3 phases. Solid to liquid to gas. The flame comes from the wax in its gaseous state. But the melting point pertains to the solid to liquid phase change. That phase change happens because the flame radiates heat down to the surface of the candle. The melting point is a factor because the higher the melting point, the smaller the pool of melted wax that is available to be drawn into the wick. A smaller pool of liquid wax means that the edges of candle don't melt as quickly and the bowl will be deeper, AND that the flame will be smaller. That's why a higher melting point wax makes a candle that burns longer - all other factors being equal.

[Jim Fischer]

> Can a higher melting point affect how long a
> candle burns?

To a tiny and insignificant extent,
and only at the beginning of the process.

What's the temperature of a typical
candle flame? 1400, maybe 1500 F

What's the melting point of wax?
Somewhere around 120 - 140 F.

Go ahead and freeze the candle in
liquid nitrogen, modify the wax itself,
add stuff, whatever. You aren't
going to make it any more difficult
for that 1500 degree flame to melt
the wax, and burn the wax.

The liquid nitrogen freeze (-320 F or
so) might make the candle hard to light,
but even then, once you get the wick lit,
the flame WILL melt the wax, and will
melt wax much faster than it burns wax.

Ain't physics fun? smile.gif

[TX Ashurst]

Yes, physics IS fun. A candle flame might be 1400-1500 degrees at the tip of the flame, but it's certainly not at the base of the flame. And the temp is even less below the flame where the solid-liquid interface (melting point of 143-148 degrees) is located. If the flame were that hot throughout, the candle would quickly melt completely and would be an oil lamp instead of a candle. There is an amazing temperature gradient within any flame. In point of fact, the unburned wick inside the flame is at the temperature where beeswax changes from liquid to gas - appx. 300 degrees. You can readily test this by bending a glass tube. Light a candle and hold the glass at the base of the flame. It will be hard to bend the glass because you can't get it hot enough. In fact, it will get covered with soot. But hold it at the tip of the flame and the glass quickly becomes red hot and then soft.
Anyway, the point is that the temperature quoted is not too relevant to the solid-liquid phase change because it is above it an inch or more and moving away (heat rises). The whole process is an amazing balancing act.
Besides melting temp. you can affect burning time of a candle by varying the wick size. A larger wick holds a larger flame, which melts the wax faster, makes a larger puddle of melted wax, which supports the larger flame. The tip of the flame on this candle will also be many times higher than the liquid-gas point of beeswax, and somewhat higher than the smaller flame of a similar candle with a smaller wick.
So, back to melting point of the wax affecting burn time. Parrafin candles have a melting point varying from 104 to 160 degrees depending on how much stearin is added. To quote from a candle-making source: http://www.candlewhiz.com/introduction/wax.php
"Stearin increases the melting point temperature of wax. This in turn is the reason why stearin helps paraffin wax burn slower."
So, I'm not familiar with whether you can change the melting temp. of beeswax, but if you did, THEN it follows that a candle made from it would certainly burn longer than an equivalent candle made with regular melting point beeswax. And that's all I was trying to say.

[Jim Fischer]

> that's all I was trying to say.

Sorry, thought you were asking a question
because you wanted an answer, not to try
to "make a point".

Yes, the INITIAL melting would be slower,
so lighting the candle might be difficult,
but there is little difficulty posed by
slightly different melting points given
that the candle won't burn at all until
you have at least some liquid wax to
be wicked up the wick, and liquid wax tends
to melt the solid wax around it, "helping"
the process along once liquid wax is present.

> "Stearin increases the melting point temperature
> of wax. This in turn is the reason why stearin
> helps paraffin wax burn slower."

They forgot to add the key word "insignificantly". smile.gif

> So, I'm not familiar with whether you can
> change the melting temp. of beeswax, but if you
> did, THEN it follows that a candle made from it
> would certainly burn longer

OK, do the math yourself, and see:

You can estimate temperature (T) at a distance
(r) from the flame, where T(r) follows a
simplified heat equation in 3D (polar)
coordinates:

(1/r^2) D/Dr( K r^2 DT/Dr ) = 0

Where:

1) D/Dr is the partial derivative with r

2) K is the thermal conductivity of air (in meters^2/second).

3) T(r=0) is flame temp

4) T at a large r is simply room temperature (25 C or so).

Integrate twice on r and apply the boundary conditions to solve for T(r).

The above equation is likely in just about
every textbook you could find.

To measure the actual temperature at various
points on a flame, just point a spectrograph
at the flame itself through a spotting scope.

What swamps out what?

Physics is much less fun when there's
boring math to do.

[Joel]

Ha, almost 3 weeks to the day, I knew you guys couldn't let this post die a forgotten death! :D

I'm getting my next batch out of the freezer right now!

[BULLSEYE BILL]

I miss Searcher :( I thought he was onto something.

I have enough saved up for one snowshoe.

[TX Ashurst]

Jim, why are you being so scratchy to me? I didn't ask a question and I didn't try to "make a point". I proposed an answer to a part of the question, then I tried to clarify it. I only agreed physics is fun after you said it and I never said math was boring. The formula you listed is fine, but not overwhelming. It basically says that heat radiates in a predictable way based on temperature and distance. No question. There isn't a lot of heat involved in a candle flame, though. We're not talking about a roaring fire, here. We're talking about a very small flame radiating only slightly more heat than the mass of the candle can absorb. In those conditions, melting point is not insignificant. Here is another illustration. If you made a candle from a solid with a melting point near room temperature ( say Crisco), you only have a melting point delta of about 50 degrees. Do you think it would behave like a beeswax candle? If you made a candle from a solid with a melting point 50-100 degrees higher than beeswax (say soft plastic), do you think it would behave like a beeswax candle?

I'd hope there isn't a need to be scratchy about this. It's a pretty low priority question after all.

[Dick Allen]

Thanks for the lucid explanations, TX Ashurst. It is quite refreshing (and, unfortunately, uncommon) to read remarks that are straight forward and to the point. Even I could understand what you were saying. Just my opinion, of course, but often these "debates" are little more than attempts to "win" by offering "scientific thought" which in reality is little more than a mocking attempt to "baffle with bull [feces]". Keep up the good work.

Note to Bill: I googled 'prednisone'. One of its side effects is increased hair growth. FWIW

[Jim Fischer]

TX: Your example of a substance with a much
lower melting point is good, but I guess what
I can't make clear is the negligible nature of
variations of less than 100 degrees when compared
to a flame well over 10 times the melting
point, no matter how much you want to de-rate it.

As you mentioned, different wick sizes would
make a difference, more difference than the
minor variations in melting points and ignition
temperatures. The wick would control the
amount of fuel fed, and thereby make a larger
flame, burning more wax.

If you don't want to do the math, that's OK,
but please don't think that a minor change
in just the melting point is going to make
the candle burn longer, given the very
large delta between any possible melting point
and the minimum possible flame temp.

Melting is going to happen "for free", and
the rate of consumption is going to be
a property of the basic material, not subject
to much modification, as ignition temperatures
of anything that can be burned will be,
by definition, slightly less than the usual
temperature of the flame. (I'm ignoring
purely chemical reactions like magnesium flares
here, as discussion of super-high temperature
combustion won't help us to better understand
candles.)

Scratchy? No way. Just trying to point out
that the heat required to create the
"liquid/solid interface is much higher than
the resulting temperature of the interface
itself. Also, if the flame generated only
slightly more heat than the mass of the candle
could absorb, then one would be unable to burn
one's finger by placing it in the air near
the base of the flame. If you try it, you
quickly find that there is lots of excess
heat not being absorbed by the mass of the
candle available to give you a 3rd degree
burn.

Dick is strongly advised to not try the above,
as he would ignore the evidence of the painful
burn as mere "scientific thought", and would
continue to hold his finger there until he
required medical treatment, which he would
reject as even more "scientific thought", but
he'd be unable to dial 911 or drive himself
to the emergency room due to the rejection of
the "scientific thought" that went into both
the internal combustion engine, and the
telephone system. smile.gif

[BubbaBob]

"Baffle them with BS"

Now we are mixing physics, math, AND legaleese?

BubbaBob

[BULLSEYE BILL]

>Note to Bill: I googled 'prednisone'. One of its side effects is increased hair growth. FWIW

Good. I'll need the extra fur for my trip into the tundra :D

>Jim, why are you being so scratchy to me?

Don't take it to heart, he gets a feather in his hat for everyone he 'shuts up' or chases off the board. By now he looks like a cockatoo.

[Dick Allen]

>I'll need the extra fur for my trip into the tundra

Maybe you could bring some candles with you, too. (and a slide rule to do Jim's calculus.)

Jim, that last paragraph of yours truly had some humor in it. Honest.

[Dick Allen]

I can't make clear is the negligible nature of
variations of less than 100 degrees when compared
to a flame well over 10 times the melting
point, no matter how much you want to de-rate it.:rolleyes:

http://www.duess.com/publish/archives/2004/09/kill_your_darli.php

[TX Ashurst]

Dick, I've read King's book on writing and it was good on several levels. You make a good, subtle point above.

Thanks.

[ikeepbees]

TX Ashurst,

Thanks for the info - easy to read and understand.

Things will only remain scratchy so long as you disagree with HIM...

I once admitted that I enjoyed ABJ more than Bee Culture magazine in response to a query by a forum member (HE writes for Bee Culture). Oops! Scratchy, scratchy! Apparently that type of discourse is not permitted here, but HE promptly pointed out how stupid I was and the situation was rectified.

[Dick Allen]

Bill, sometimes your wisecracks are very insightful, and I'm not speaking about wearing fur on the tundra.

[Dick Allen]

Double, double toil and trouble; / Fire burn, and cauldron bubble

Out, out, brief candle!

[BULLSEYE BILL]

Perhaps the exorcism worked? Is this a calm peace I feel? Can it last? We'll see. :D

[TX Ashurst]

Blessed is the peacemaker.

[Jim Fischer]

> Blessed is the peacemaker.

I dunno, while the peacemaker was Colt's most
popular revolver, I think that just about any
9mm automatic would be more likely to be
"blessed", in the "held in veneration" sense. smile.gif

[BULLSEYE BILL]

> Blessed is the peacemaker.

For they shall inherit the kingdom of Alaska and live in the igloo on the tundra forever. :D

I knew it wouldn't last.

Did you know that a cartridge fired at a low temperature has less chamber pressure and therefore less velocity than one fired at a higher temperature?

[MichaelW]

Where did searcher's research go? I didn't get a chance to peer review it.

I bought some of those "long burning" camping candles found in camping supply catalogs some time back. They burn just like regular candles, there is nothing special about them. I say the only significant affect on burn time would be the size of the wick and wether or not the wax puddles up and prevents it from burning very well. Some crappy candles will burn semingly forever as a tiny, useless flame in a puddle of wax. The best candle I have for camping is a large beeswax candle with an oversized wick. It burns very bright and you can read by it. You have to trim the wick occasionally because it is oversized. This could be a fire hazard if left unattended. I take candles on car camping trips, never backpacking trips, as candles certainly fall in the category of unnecessary weight in a backpack. The camping stores will load you down with crap while lightening your wallet.

[TX Ashurst]

Those "long burning" camp candles are designed to blind campers so they will lay down some cash. They're sort of like those fancy fishing lures that are designed to catch fishermen.

Beeswax candles burn cleaner, longer, and brighter than parrafin candles. And they give off a pleasant hint of honey odor, which may not be all that great an idea in bear country. :eek: Perhaps the meek should use parrafin after all, if they're going to inherit Alaskan tundra.

Thanks guys, for making my day. smile.gif

[BULLSEYE BILL]

>Where did searcher's research go?

He decided to delete his messages I'm sorry to say. He had some insightful things to say.

Guess he turned into another feather. :(