✓ Stated wick and wax information quoted as published✓ No melt-pool depth threshold is published anywhere & none is invented here✓ Bulk pricing & GST invoicing on WhatsApp
Candle Performance Guides · Melt Pool
Partly — a deeper pool really does hold more molten fuel around the wick. But the causality runs the other way from the one the question implies, and that matters for what you change next. Depth is the readout, not the dial.
28 cm³ / cm
how much molten wax each centimetre of pool depth holds in a 6 cm jar — so a pool twice as deep is twice the reservoir standing around the wick · wicks from ₹5.90 each, CSI live pricing, September 2026
Quick answers — read this first
Does a deep pool increase fuel delivery? A deeper pool is a larger body of molten wax held at temperature around the wick, so yes, there is more fuel immediately available and more heat stored in the jar. In a 6 cm jar each centimetre of depth is about 28 cm³ of liquid wax; two centimetres is roughly 57 cm³. More reservoir and a shorter life do travel together.
So should I reduce the depth? You cannot. Depth is not a setting. It is the result of wick power acting on your jar diameter and your wax. The dials you actually have are wick type, wick count, jar and wax — change one of those and the depth follows. Nobody can "set" a pool depth, and there is no published depth that is correct or excessive.
What should I measure instead?Grams per hour. Depth is awkward to measure — there is no datum, the figure changes as the candle descends, and probing hot wax is a poor idea. A weigh-pair over a timed session gives you a number you can act on.
What is the fix worth? In the paired test below, a lower-power version measured 8.6 g/h against 11.5 g/h — on 139 g of usable wax that is 16.2 hours instead of 12.1, a 34% longer candle from the identical fill, provided the lower-power version still reaches the glass and still throws.
The short answer
A deep pool is a symptom, read it as one: it is telling you that your wick is delivering more power than this jar and this wax need to maintain a pool. That is useful information and a poor target.
Measure grams per hour, not millimetres: depth has no datum and no published threshold. A weigh-pair has both a method and a unit.
Change one thing — the wick, not the depth: a different type or one fewer wick, three units, same wax, same jar, same load, then re-measure.
Pool volume is just area times depth, so in a 6 cm jar every extra centimetre of depth adds another 28 cm³ of molten wax standing around the wick. Note which column is the cause: the wick was changed, and the depth and the rate both moved as a result.
Is excessive melt-pool depth increasing fuel delivery to the wick?
A deeper pool is a bigger reservoir of molten, heated wax surrounding the wick, so there genuinely is more fuel immediately available and more heat stored in the glass — in a 6 cm jar the pool holds about 28 cm³ of liquid wax per centimetre of depth, so a 2 cm pool is roughly 57 cm³ against 28 cm³ for a 1 cm pool. But the question has the arrow pointing the wrong way, and that is why it leads nowhere. You never set a pool depth. Depth is what emerges when a given wick's power meets a given jar diameter and a given wax, and it keeps changing as the candle descends. So "reduce the depth" is not an action you can take; the actions available are a different wick type, one wick fewer, a different jar, or a different wax — and when you take one of them, the depth and the rate both move together as consequences. There is also no published depth that counts as correct or excessive: not on a CSI page, not anywhere this guide will pretend to know, and this page will not invent one. What you can do today is stop measuring the symptom and measure the thing with a method behind it. Weigh the whole candle before and after a timed session and work in grams per hour: in the paired test below, swapping to a lower-power wick took one maker from 11.5 g/h to 8.6 g/h, which on 139 g of usable wax is 12.1 hours becoming 16.2 — 34% more candle from the same fill. That only counts as a win if the quieter version still reaches the glass in a reasonable session and still throws, because a long life bought by under-wicking is not a longer candle. Start with the weigh-pair method.
One line: the deep pool and the short life have the same cause rather than causing each other — so measure grams per hour, change the wick, and let the depth do what it likes.
Bracketing a lower-power candidate costs very little: Eco Candle Wicks Thin (C1) 10 for ₹59, Performance Wooden Wicks 10 for ₹590 and Cotton Braided Wicks 10 for ₹120 give you three families to test in the same jar and the same wax.
What a deep pool actually is: the reservoir arithmetic
A melt pool is a bathtub of fuel kept warm at your customer's expense. Its size is worth knowing; its depth is not worth chasing.
Start with the geometry, because it is the one part of this problem that is exact. A pool is a cylinder: volume = π × (diameter ÷ 2)² × depth. Nothing about wax or wicks is involved. So for any jar you can say precisely how much molten wax a given depth represents, and the numbers are larger than most makers expect.
Molten reservoir in cm³ · pool diameter × depth
How much liquid wax is standing around the wick at each depth
Pool diameter
Pool area
0.5 cm deep
1 cm deep
1.5 cm deep
2 cm deep
6 cm — e.g. the stated diameter of the Amber Shiny jar
28.27 cm²
14.1 cm³
28.3 cm³
42.4 cm³
56.5 cm³
7 cm — the stated outer rim of the 150 gram jars
38.48 cm²
19.2 cm³
38.5 cm³
57.7 cm³
77.0 cm³
7.5 cm
44.18 cm²
22.1 cm³
44.2 cm³
66.3 cm³
88.4 cm³
10 cm — the stated diameter of the Apothecary jar
78.54 cm²
39.3 cm³
78.5 cm³
117.8 cm³
157.1 cm³
Worked out above: area = π(d/2)² gives 28.27, 38.48, 44.18 and 78.54 cm²; volume = area × depth. The dimensions named are the figures the product pages state — an outer or overall measurement, so your pool is narrower and must be measured. These are volumes, not weights: converting cm³ to grams would need a density figure, and no CSI wax page states one, so this page does not convert. No depth in this table is recommended, endorsed or described as correct.
Two things fall out of it. First, depth scales the reservoir linearly and diameter scales it as a square, which is why a wide jar is the harder design problem: at 1 cm of depth the 10 cm pool holds nearly three times the molten wax of the 6 cm one. Second — and this is the part worth holding onto — a larger reservoir means more wax held at temperature, which is more wax available to be drawn up and more heat retained in the glass between sittings. That is a fair, general statement about what a pool is. It is not a mechanism you can dial, and it is not a number you can compare against anybody's standard.
The honest limit of this arithmetic
The reservoir figure tells you the scale of what you are looking at, and that is genuinely useful when you are deciding whether a symptom is worth chasing. What it cannot do is predict a consumption rate — the pool's size does not determine how fast the wick draws from it, because that depends on the wick, the wax, the load and the air around the flame. Anyone offering you grams per hour as a function of pool depth is guessing. The reservoir is context; the weigh-pair is evidence.
Which way the causality runs
Here is the reframe that makes the problem solvable. Your candle has two symptoms — a deep pool and a short life — and it is tempting to make one the cause of the other. They are far more usefully read as two readouts of the same underlying setting: how much power the wick is putting into this jar of this wax.
Cause and consequence
What you can change, and what merely reports back
Thing
Can you set it?
What it is
What to do with it
Wick type
Yes — you buy it
A primary input
Bracket candidates across families and test
Wick count
Yes — you place them
A primary input, and often the only available step
Try one fewer before trying a nominally smaller wick
Jar diameter
Yes — you choose the vessel
A primary input, and the one that squares
A narrower jar is a smaller pool to maintain
Wax and fragrance load
Yes
Primary inputs
Change one at a time; never alongside a wick change
Pool depth
No
A consequence that changes as the candle descends
Observe and note it; never target it
Grams per hour
No
A consequence — but a measurable one with a unit
This is your measurement and your comparison
Total hours
No
Usable wax ÷ rate
Convert at the end, from a measured rate
The practical consequence is that the question "how do I reduce my pool depth?" has no answer, while "which wick candidate gives me an acceptable candle at the lowest consumption rate?" has a clear one: bracket them and measure. CSI's range makes the bracket concrete rather than theoretical — two Eco cotton sizes, cotton braided wicks stated for candles exceeding 8 cm, a loose Eco wick stated for 2 inch diameters, and imported wooden wicks. Only those two pages state any diameter at all, so there is no graded ladder to step down; what you have is a set of families to try. The full version of that constraint is in finding the lowest wick power that still performs.
The mistake: judging wick power on the first burn's pool. A candle that reaches the glass fast on cycle one, with an impressive deep pool and a strong throw, feels like a success — and it is the single most common route to an over-wicked product. The first burn is on a completely full, cold jar with a fresh wick, which makes it the least representative cycle the candle has. If your wick was chosen on how good cycle one looked, that decision is worth revisiting before anything else: chasing an edge-to-edge melt pool on the first burn is how over-wicking happens on purpose.
Why pool depth is a bad thing to measure
Even setting causality aside, depth is a poor instrument. Four reasons, all of which disappear the moment you switch to weighing.
Depth versus grams per hour, as measurements
Why one of these can be put in a specification and the other cannot
Property
Pool depth
Grams per hour
Is there a datum to measure from?
No — the wax surface is falling, so "depth" is measured from a moving reference
Yes — the whole candle on a scale, twice
Is it stable within a session?
No, it grows for hours and may never settle
It is an average over a stated session, by definition
Is it stable down the jar?
No, and the shape of the glass changes it
It drifts too — but you can log it per cycle and see the drift
Can it be measured safely?
Not easily; probing hot liquid wax is a poor idea
Yes, on a cold candle, after the pool has set
Is there a published standard?
No — no CSI page states a depth, and this guide invents none
No — but you can compare against your own measured SKUs
Can two makers compare notes?
Barely
Yes, if both state session length and stage of jar
What depth is good for is as a note in your log beside the weights — "pool to the glass by 1:50, roughly 1 cm deep at the three-hour mark" — because it helps you remember what the candle was doing when you read the row back. Treat it as a description, the way you would treat flame height or a soot observation, and keep the arithmetic in grams.
Do not put a melt-pool depth figure into a specification. It cannot be inspected reliably, it has no published benchmark, and it will be interpreted differently by whoever reads it next. If you want a number in your written specification that production can actually check, use a grams-per-hour range measured on a sample — which is a measurement someone can repeat without burning the whole batch. That exact problem is covered in setting a burn-rate QC range production can measure.
The paired test that settles it
One variable, three units each side, same everything else. This is the only test that can tell you whether your wick is the reason the candle is short, and it takes one evening of burning per cycle.
1
Freeze everything except the wickSame wax from the same bag, same fragrance oil at the same load, same dye at the same dose, same jar, same pour temperature, same pouring session. Write the recipe down once and pour six units from it: three with your current wick, three with the lower-power candidate. If you change the wax at the same time, the test answers nothing.
2
Weigh every filled jar and cure them togetherCold weight of each filled jar, written on its label — that is the fill figure the whole calculation rests on. Then cure all six side by side: soy containers are conventionally cured 14 to 21 days, and the Luxury Soy Wax Chunks page asks for a minimum of 48 hours and ideally one to two weeks before burn testing. Both arms must get the identical cure or the comparison is contaminated.
3
Burn all six in the same sittingsSame room, same evening, same three- to four-hour window, wicks trimmed before each weigh-in, weights at both ends of every cycle. Running them together is what removes the room, the draught and the day as variables. Note the pool — reached the glass or not, and roughly how deep — as a description beside the weights.
4
Apply the safety screen to the current wick, honestlyA flame that climbs over the session, a glass too hot to hold, soot on the inside of the jar: any of those means the current version fails outright and the question stops being about hours. And be alert to the harder case — a wick can be too large while the flame still looks fine.
5
Burn both arms to extinction and weigh the residueThis is where the lower-power arm either wins or exposes itself. Scrape and weigh one finished jar from each side. If the quieter wick left noticeably more wax on the glass, its extra hours were partly bought with wax the customer paid for — which is a different product, not a better one.
6
Compare on four axes, not oneGrams per hour, usable hours, residue, and throw you would actually sell. A candidate that wins on rate and loses on two of the other three is not the answer. Hot-throw scoring has its own method in how to test hot throw before launching a candle fragrance.
The CSI principle
You cannot adjust a melt pool. You can only adjust the thing that makes one, and then weigh what happens.
Pool depth is the most visible number in candle making and the least actionable. Every hour spent trying to control it directly is an hour not spent on the two dials that work — which wick, and how many. We publish what our wick pages state, which is very little about size, precisely because the answer lives in your jar and not in our catalogue.
What the lower-power version is worth
Suppose the paired test comes out in favour of the quieter wick and it passes on residue and throw. Here is the arithmetic on what you gained, using one maker's measured figures against a 150 g fill that left 11 g behind.
One paired test, worked through · 150 g fill, 139 g usable
Rate, hours and what the change is worth per candle
Measure
Current wick
Lower-power candidate
Difference
Measured full-life rate
11.5 g/h
8.6 g/h
−2.9 g/h, −25%
Usable wax
139 g
139 g
unchanged — same fill, same residue
Usable hours
12.1 h
16.2 h
+4.1 h, +34%
Pool observed at 3 h
deep, reached glass by 1:10
shallower, reached glass by 2:05
A description, not a target
Wick cost per candle, C1 to C1
₹5.90
₹5.90
₹0 — Eco wick pricing is flat
Wick cost per candle, C1 to one wooden
₹5.90
₹41.30 at the 100-pack
+₹35.40 — a real cost to weigh against the hours
Worked out above: usable wax = 150 g fill − 11 g residue = 139 g. Hours = 139 ÷ 11.5 = 12.1 and 139 ÷ 8.6 = 16.2. Gain = 4.1 h, and 16.2 ÷ 12.1 = 1.34, so 34%. Rate change = (11.5 − 8.6) ÷ 11.5 = 25%. Wick prices: Eco Candle Wicks Thin (C1) flat at ₹5.90 each from 10 to 1,000 pieces; Performance Wooden Wicks ₹59 each at the 10-pack, ₹47.20 at 50 and ₹41.30 at 100. The 11.5 and 8.6 g/h are one reader's measurements from a paired test, not figures CSI publishes for any wick, wax or jar.
Notice the last two rows, because they are the part that decides whether the change is commercially sensible. Moving between Eco C1 and C2 costs nothing per candle to trial — pricing is flat at ₹5.90 and ₹9.44 respectively at every pack size from ten pieces to a thousand — so a cotton-to-cotton change is close to free. Moving to a wooden wick is a genuine cost of ₹35.40 or more per candle against C1, and four extra hours has to be worth that at your price point. The economics of exactly this swap get worked properly in can optimising wick size lower your cost per hour.
Once a candidate wins the paired test, the pack ladder matters: Performance Wooden Wicks step from ₹59 each at 10 to ₹47.20 at 50 and ₹41.30 at 100, while Eco wicks stay flat at ₹5.90 (C1) and ₹9.44 (C2) right up to 1,000. For larger or recurring quantities, bulk pricing and GST invoicing are handled on WhatsApp.
Before you commit to a wick change, rule out four other explanations for a short life. Each is tested the same way — one variable, paired, measured — and each has its own guide in this series.
The fill is lower than you think. The simplest explanation for a candle that dies early is that less wax went in than the jar's stated capacity, or than the previous batch received. Weigh three filled jars before you blame the wick. A jar stating its capacity in millilitres rather than grams makes this error very easy to make.
The fragrance or the dye is doing something. Two candles identical but for the oil can differ in hours, and heavy loading or heavy dye can change how a wick performs. Those are real effects and this series tests them with paired comparisons rather than rankings — never a claim about which oil or colour does what. See whether a load change from 8% to 10% needs new burn testing.
The jar is wider than the wick was chosen for. If you moved the recipe into a bigger vessel, the pool area grew as the square of the diameter while your wick stayed the same — and the answer there is usually count or type rather than a "bigger" single wick. Normalising the rate by pool area is the diagnostic: see judging your rate against jar diameter and wick configuration.
It is being burned differently. Session length, trimming and draught all move a measured rate, and a candle tested in long sittings beside an open window is not the candle you specified. Hold those constant in testing and explain them in your care instructions — the user-behaviour side is covered in whether trimming before every burn increases candle life.
Wick and wax candidates to bracket
Three purchases that let you run the paired test properly: a wick family genuinely different from the one you are on, a wax with stated handling instructions so the pour is repeatable, and a trimmer so that "trimmed before weighing" means the same thing every cycle.
1
A different wick family · imported
Performance Wooden Wicks | Imported
The strongest bracket against a cotton wick, because it is not a smaller version of the same thing — it is a different mechanism, with its own flame shape and its own relationship to the pool. The page states that "One Pack contains 10 wicks and wick tabs" and states no diameter or jar size, so treat it as a candidate to test rather than a specification to follow. It is one of the few CSI wick lines whose price genuinely steps down with volume: ₹59 each at 10, ₹47.20 at 50 and ₹41.30 at 100. Budget for that cost honestly — against a ₹5.90 Eco C1 it is a real per-candle expense that the extra hours have to justify. Being imported, it is stocked in India and ships nationwide rather than made here. CSI's own write-up is in the wooden wick guide, and the cotton-versus-wooden comparison in cotton wick vs wooden wick.
The wax to pour six identical units from at ₹399 a kilo, the lowest listed per-kilo price in the CSI soy range. What makes it suitable for a paired test is the handling instruction its page actually states: add fragrance at 80–90°C (85°C) and stir for two minutes before pouring directly, and it recommends Eco Wicks — which is convenient when your bracket is a cotton-to-cotton swap. It does not state a maximum fragrance load, so hold your test at 8% on both arms and do not push it until a cured jar has been burned to the bottom. Listed in 1 kg and 5 kg only, so 10 kg would be two 5 kg packs; above that, ask on WhatsApp. One CSI customer, Arminder Kaur, records it simply as "Good quality wax".
A small purchase that removes a real source of noise from a paired test. Flame height follows wick length, and wick length follows how you trimmed it — so a test in which one arm was trimmed with scissors by eye and the other with a cutter is a test with two variables in it. Trim both arms the same way, to the same length, before each weigh-in, and bin the trimmings away from the bench so they do not land in a reading. CSI lists wick cutters and trimmers at several price points; this listing is ₹177 for a single unit. The flame-height symptom on its own, and what it does and does not tell you, is in candle flame too high: how to fix it.
Priced above: Performance Wooden Wicks ₹590 for 10 (₹59 each), ₹2,360 for 50 (₹47.20 each), ₹4,130 for 100 (₹41.30 each). Eco Soy CSI 400 1 kg ₹399, 5 kg ₹1,996 (₹399.20/kg). Candle Wick Cutter / Candle Wick Trimmer ₹177. Eco Candle Wicks Thin (C1) ₹5.90 each and Thick (C2) ₹9.44 each, flat at every pack. Cotton Braided Wicks Ready Made ₹12 each, flat. Wax in a 150 g candle at an 8% load = 138 g × ₹0.399/g = ₹55.06. A six-unit paired test consumes 828 g of wax, 72 g of fragrance oil, six wicks and six jars. CSI live pricing, September 2026.
The pool is where the evidence shows up. The wick is where the decision lives.
— CandleMakingSuppliesIndia
Why trust this guide
CANDLEMAKINGSUPPLIESINDIA supplies raw materials, not finished candles. The easy page to write here would name a melt-pool depth in millimetres, call anything above it excessive, and sell you a wick to fix it. We have not, because no such threshold is published anywhere we can point to — and a number invented by a supplier is the worst possible basis for changing a formulation that is already selling.
Every price and specification here comes from live CSI stock in September 2026 and links to the product page, where current pricing always takes precedence. The reservoir table is pure geometry — area × depth — and deliberately stops at volume, because converting cm³ to grams would require a wax density that no CSI page states. Wick information is quoted as published: Performance Wooden Wicks state ten wicks and tabs per pack and no diameter; Eco Candle Wicks state no diameter; Cotton Braided Wicks state "engineered for large-diameter candles exceeding 8 cm"; Eco Candle Wicks Loose state "designed specifically for 2 inch diameters". Eco Soy CSI 400's add temperature and stirring time are its own page's. The 11.5 and 8.6 g/h figures are one reader's paired-test measurements — no CSI wax, wick or jar page publishes a burn time, a burn rate, hours per gram or a melt-pool depth, and none is stated or implied for any CSI product here.
For bulk pricing, GST invoicing, MSDS or IFRA documentation, message us on WhatsApp at +91 7397976926.
Frequently asked questions
How deep should a candle's melt pool be?
There is no published figure, and this guide will not invent one — no CSI page states a melt-pool depth, correct or excessive. More usefully, depth is not something you set: it is what emerges from your wick's power acting on your jar and your wax, and it changes continuously as the candle descends. The question that can be answered is whether the candle reaches the glass in a reasonable session, passes the safety screen, leaves a residue you find acceptable, and delivers the hours you intend. Measure grams per hour and judge on those four things.
Does a deeper melt pool make a candle burn faster?
A deeper pool holds more molten fuel around the wick and more heat in the glass, so a deep pool and a fast rate usually appear together. But they are best read as two symptoms of the same cause — wick power relative to the jar and the wax — rather than one causing the other. That distinction is practical: you cannot act on depth, and you can act on wick type, wick count, jar and wax. Change one of those, measure the rate again, and the depth will have moved too.
How much molten wax is in my melt pool?
Volume = π × (pool diameter ÷ 2)² × depth. In a 6 cm pool each centimetre of depth is 28.3 cm³; in a 7 cm pool it is 38.5 cm³, and in a 10 cm pool 78.5 cm³. Note those are volumes, not weights: turning cm³ into grams needs a density figure that no CSI wax page states, so this guide stays in volume. Use the figure for context on the scale of what you are looking at, not as a predictor of consumption rate.
Should I wick down to get a shallower pool and a longer candle?
Only if the quieter version still makes the candle you intended. Wicking down is the cheapest way to lower a rate and it has a well-known failure mode: a pool that never reaches the glass, a weak throw, and a wall of wax the customer paid for and cannot use. Run it as a paired test — three units each side, one variable, both arms burned to extinction and the residue weighed — and compare on rate, usable hours, residue and throw together. A candidate that wins on rate alone has not won.
My pool is deep but my flame looks completely normal. Is anything wrong?
Possibly, and this is the case most makers miss. A wick can be delivering more power than the design needs well before the flame looks alarming — the candle presents beautifully, reaches the glass quickly, throws strongly, and quietly spends the customer's hours. The only way to see it is in grams per hour against your own other SKUs and against the hours you intend to claim. A clean burn is a necessary condition, not evidence that the wick is right.
Can I put a melt-pool depth in my production specification?
It is a poor choice. Depth has no datum to measure from, no stable value within a session or down the jar, no published benchmark, and it cannot be checked safely on a burning candle. A specification line that production cannot inspect reliably is worse than no line at all. Use a grams-per-hour range measured on a retained sample instead — it is repeatable, it has a unit, and it can be checked without burning the batch you are about to ship.
Stop measuring the symptom
Change the wick, weigh the candle, and let the pool be as deep as it wants to be.
Performance Wooden Wicks from ₹41.30 each at the 100-pack, Eco Candle Wicks at ₹5.90 (C1) and ₹9.44 (C2) each flat at every pack, Cotton Braided Wicks at ₹12 each stated for candles exceeding 8 cm, Eco Soy CSI 400 at ₹399 a kilo with a stated 80–90°C add temperature, and a wick trimmer at ₹177. Message us for bulk pricing, GST invoicing and documentation.
About this guide: Written by the CANDLEMAKINGSUPPLIESINDIA team. Product recommendations reflect the CSI range; the reservoir geometry, the cause-and-consequence table and the paired-test procedure apply to any supplier's materials.
Customer reviews: The five reviews at the top of this page are genuine, published Judge.me reviews left by CSI customers on their product pages. Names, star ratings, dates and products are as recorded by Judge.me; wording is unedited.
Figures verified September 2026: Performance Wooden Wicks | Imported — Pack of 10 ₹590, Pack of 50 ₹2,360, Pack of 100 ₹4,130, giving ₹59, ₹47.20 and ₹41.30 per wick; page states "One Pack contains 10 wicks and wick tabs" and states no diameter or jar size. Eco Candle Wicks Thin (C1) ₹59 for 10 to ₹5,900 for 1,000 at a flat ₹5.90 each; Thick (C2) ₹188.80 for 20 to ₹9,440 for 1,000 at a flat ₹9.44 each, with the 10-piece C2 variant sold out; page states no diameter. Cotton Braided Wicks Ready Made ₹120 for 10 to ₹12,000 for 1,000 at ₹12 each — page states "engineered for large-diameter candles exceeding 8 cm" and a wick height of 10.16 cm. Eco Candle Wicks Loose page states "designed specifically for 2 inch diameters". Eco Soy CSI 400 1 kg ₹399, 5 kg ₹1,996 — page states fragrance added at 80–90°C (85°C) with two minutes of stirring, recommends Eco Wicks, and states no maximum fragrance load; 5 kg is the largest listed pack. Candle Wick Cutter | Candle Wick Trimmer ₹177. Luxury Soy Wax Chunks page states cure a minimum of 48 hours, ideally 1–2 weeks, before performing burn tests. Stated jar dimensions referenced: Amber Shiny Glass Jar 6 cm diameter and 120 gm capacity; Clear Glass Jar with Golden Lid outer rim approx 7 cm and ~150 gm fill; Apothecary Glass Candle Jar outer rim approx 10 cm and ~500 g to 700 g fill. Geometry: pool volume = π(d/2)² × depth, giving 28.27, 38.48, 44.18 and 78.54 cm² of area and 14.1/28.3/42.4/56.5 cm³ at 0.5/1/1.5/2 cm in a 6 cm pool. Volumes are not converted to grams because no CSI wax page states a density. Paired-test arithmetic: 150 g fill − 11 g residue = 139 g usable; 139 ÷ 11.5 = 12.1 h and 139 ÷ 8.6 = 16.2 h, a gain of 4.1 h or 34%; rate reduction (11.5 − 8.6) ÷ 11.5 = 25%; wick cost difference ₹41.30 − ₹5.90 = ₹35.40 per candle. Wax in a 150 g candle at 8% = 138 g × ₹0.399/g = ₹55.06; a six-unit paired test consumes 828 g of wax and 72 g of oil. No CSI wax, wick or jar page publishes a burn time, a burn rate, hours per gram or a melt-pool depth; every rate and depth on this page is either geometry or the reader's own measurement. Prices and availability change — the linked product pages are always authoritative.
