FiReSpRiTe
member
Location: Hudson, FL, US
Member Since: 7th May 2001
Total posts: 23
Posted:hey all
Non-Https Image Link
well i just talked my mom into ordering me some poi, and ive been putting a lot of thought into which ones i want. question.. what are the differences between the regular heads and the cathedral heads? (besides the obvious shape) and if youve tried both, which do you prefer?thanks bunches :P------------------What we call human nature, is actually human habit.


Its hard not to play when theres so many toys.

Delete Topic

Cassandra
Cassandra

Froggie ... Ribbit !!!
Location: Back in Paris... for now !
Member Since: 8th Jun 2001
Total posts: 4224
Posted:Allow me this one silly question : What on earth is this cathedral thing and where can I take a look at it ? could not find it on the HOP website, or am I allready drunk at 10:06 in the morning and at work ????
Non-Https Image Link
Looking forward to an explanation / descriptionShine onCassandra


"I want brown bread... no, that is diesel oil..."
"So I was raised in Europe, where History comes from ..."
"NON !!! La Plume de mon oncle n est pas Bingibangibungi !!!"

Delete

Pele
Pele

the henna lady
Location: WNY, USA
Member Since: 15th Dec 2000
Total posts: 6193
Posted:Let me have a stab at this, someone correct me if I am wrong...."Regular" poi heads are kevlar wicking that are wrapped around and bolted to a metal tube in the center. This has good air flow for a bright flame, is a bit lighter (I think) and is really quick to soak/re-soak."Cathedral" poi heads are the ones that have the kevlar wicking folded (also known as "layered" and "Interweave"). It has a bolt that runs down the center of it which holds it together. When spun the layers give a little creating a large bright flame. And I personally think they also burn longer.But i think I am biased as they are a personal preference for me.
Non-Https Image Link
I know I missed bunches so I will make way for others to add in.
Non-Https Image Link
------------------Pele Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir...


Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK

Delete

Cassandra
Cassandra

Froggie ... Ribbit !!!
Location: Back in Paris... for now !
Member Since: 8th Jun 2001
Total posts: 4224
Posted:Thanks Pele !Anyone confirms that this is their preference ? I happened to think they would not hold as long as the "regular" ones I use and that the flames would not be as strong ?Shine onCassandra

"I want brown bread... no, that is diesel oil..."
"So I was raised in Europe, where History comes from ..."
"NON !!! La Plume de mon oncle n est pas Bingibangibungi !!!"

Delete

adamrice
adamrice

poo-bah
Location: Austin TX USA
Member Since: 19th Dec 2000
Total posts: 1015
Posted:I have made and used both tube-core and interleave (cathedral) wicks. I've done side-by-side tests on duration, and interleave wicks clearly burn longer. There's no real difference in terms of flame size/brightness. Interleave wicks are also easier to make.Check out: http://www.fire-gear.com/testing.html(I
hope to do some more tests with different kinds of fuel)With my interleave wicks, I use a slightly different construction technique that doesn't involve an eyelet bolt.


Laugh while you can, monkey-boy

Delete

Cassandra
Cassandra

Froggie ... Ribbit !!!
Location: Back in Paris... for now !
Member Since: 8th Jun 2001
Total posts: 4224
Posted:thanks a lot !you convinced me ! I'll give it a trycheers !cassandra

"I want brown bread... no, that is diesel oil..."
"So I was raised in Europe, where History comes from ..."
"NON !!! La Plume de mon oncle n est pas Bingibangibungi !!!"

Delete

Twist
member

Member Since: 4th Apr 2001
Total posts: 160
Posted:adam, did you ever try out the "box wicks" we were discussing?*looks sheepish at being too lazy to try it himself*

Delete

adamrice
adamrice

poo-bah
Location: Austin TX USA
Member Since: 19th Dec 2000
Total posts: 1015
Posted:Twist--Haven't gotten around to it. I need to do some regular wick production anyhow--I'll try to squeeze that in. I was just doing some math, and the thing about those box wicks is that they add *a lot* of wicking. My normal wicks consist of 96 square inches of wicking. Wrapping "boxes" around those would be an additional 58 square inches of wicking, by my calculations. So I'd have to make a normal wick with an equal amount of wicking for a fair test.I actually just made a set of interleave wicks for a friend using 3"-wide wicking. They're huge! They weigh twice as much as my regular wicks. She's going to spin them tonight, and I'm eager to see how they perform.* * * later * * *Okay, I saw how they performed. They are scary big, scary heavy. Amazingly bright. Although the woman twirling them is one of the strongest I know, she put them out long before the flames died down because she's just not accustomed to the weight--about 20 oz (570 g) each. So I really don't have any reading on their duration so far. Her reaction was something like "These are perfect. I'm going to have to practice a lot to be able to use them though." I've got some pictures, which I'll post soon.[This message has been edited by adamrice (edited 15 June 2001).]

Laugh while you can, monkey-boy

Delete

pj
member
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Member Since: 8th May 2001
Total posts: 277
Posted:When I first started researching wick construction, everything I read pointed to tube core wicks as the way to go. As a result, the first three sets of wicks I made were all of a tube core design.Then, just for yuks, I built a few sets of accordian fold (a/k/a cathedral fold) wicks. Accordian fold wicks are *far* easier to construct, require fewer parts and are lighter in weight than tube core wicks.There are only two operational difference I have noticed so far:1. Accordians seem to burn brightly at the start and fade at a constant rate whereas tube core wicks seem to burn more consistently and then go dim then out more suddenly towards the end of the burn.2. Increasing the amount of wick on a tube core increases burn time but does not substantially increase brightness. Increasing the amount of wick on an accordian fold increases brightness much more than it increases burn time.My more recent construction efforts have all involved multiple wicks designs based arround both tube core and accordian fold styles. Due to the differing linear velocities of multiple wicks and the corresponding difference in air flow, the ability to control burn rate with tube core designs has a distinct advantage despite the weight and construction difficulties.But for simple, beginner poi, I think a set of accordian fold wicks is definitely the way to go.-p.

Delete

Ade
Are we there yet?
Location: australia
Member Since: 14th Mar 2001
Total posts: 1897
Posted:Just wanted to give some feedback on some burns from last night.We used ultra pure lamp oil and compared the burn time and brightness of tube core wicks and cathedrals. My cathedrals burnt for longer and were far brighter for far longer than my regular tube core wicks. The trails they left were also longer than the regular tube core.The ultra pure lamp oil was great in terms of not being smoky or smelly. Still the residual taste of it in your mouth and nose for a little while afterwards (cured by a few big glasses of water).I'm a new fan of lamp oil and cathedrals - now just gotta find me some of those gargoyles to burn
Non-Https Image Link
[This message has been edited by Ade (edited 21 September 2001).]


Delete

NYC
NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Member Since: 26th Aug 2001
Total posts: 9232
Posted:My main reason for my love of cathedral is the padding. I can hit myself HARD with the wicks and won't really feel it. Much less than even glowsticks. Those of you with solid-core wicks are just askin' for bruses.But I know that some of you enjoy that kind of pain...
Non-Https Image Link


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

Charles
Charles

Corporate Circus Arts Entertainer
Location: Auckland
Member Since: 27th Jun 2001
Total posts: 3989
Posted:Ade - That's an interesting observation on the Cathedral's (I like this term and would like to vote for putting it into the glossary).Could we have some more info on how much actual wick there was on the cathedrals as compared to the tube core? If one uses significantly less wick then it gives us a better idea of the performance differences. And also how loose/tight the cathedrals are in comparison. Thinking about it, the looser they are, the bigger the flames? Dunno, but would love to find out...I'm all for different types of fire gear, but especially if they can use less wick for the same effect.Also, I've yet to see any cathedral wicks on staffs, is this because they wear out quickly if striking the ground? Or simply because the tubing is already there (ie the staff itself)...?CheersAny info from anyone would be great.Cheers------------------Charles (INFERNO)newdolbel@hotmail.comhttp://juggling.co.nz[This message has been edited by Charles (edited 21 September 2001).]

HoP Posting Guidelines
* Is it the Truth?
* Is it Fair to all concerned?
* Will it build Goodwill and Better Friendships?
* Will it be Beneficial to all concerned?

Delete

adamrice
adamrice

poo-bah
Location: Austin TX USA
Member Since: 19th Dec 2000
Total posts: 1015
Posted:Charles--FWIW, the testing I did on cathedrals vs tube-core wicks used exactly the same amount and type of wicking material for both. The tube-core wicks that I made were not obsessively tight.I've never seen a staff with cathedral wicks on the ends, either. But I've been thinking about trying it out. The wicking would get abraded more from drops, but it would also act as an effective bumper for the staff itself.

Laugh while you can, monkey-boy

Delete

Ade
Are we there yet?
Location: australia
Member Since: 14th Mar 2001
Total posts: 1897
Posted:Good question Charles about the looseness of the wicking. I made my cathedrals out of kevlar that I'd used before (on some staves), so the age would have been roughly the same as the tube core. The cathedrals used slightly more kevlar (about 10cm more), so not a huge amount of difference. The head size is roughly the same (though obviously one's a cylinder and one's a box).I am inclined to think that the cathedrals were looser than the tube core - but this is inherent in the design in my opinion. I'm thinking it's a surface area thing, as the cathedrals certanly have more exposed surface area than the regular tube cores. It might be that that gives the brighter burn. But I also think it's related to the lamp oil - a combo thing.Cathedrals on a staff? I'd be curious to see how you shook out the excess, as I think you'd get a bit of fuel running down the shaft....pondering......

Delete

Blackbird
member
Location: London UK
Member Since: 23rd Jul 2001
Total posts: 337
Posted:monkey fist with kevlar rope, anyone?

x X x Ĉ К я x X x

Delete

Maelstrom
Maelstrom

member
Location: Akron, Ohio
Member Since: 12th Sep 2001
Total posts: 135
Posted:I just recently started to make cathedral wicking myself. That "How tight" quiestion is a good one. On one hand too tight and it takes a long time for the fuel to penitrate the wick and it dosn't burn real bright, but dose burn longer. On the other hand too loose and you get a realy bright flame that only lasts a sort while, granted they don't need to soak as long. One problem with loose for me is that the nut holding it all together comes loose. I kept playing with the things until I got a decent burn time to flame brightness, and tried locktight to make the nut stay in place. Any one have a better suggestion? By the way I used 4' of 2" wicking threaded onto a 3" quarter inch eyelet bolt pinched between two nuts, and two one and a quarter inch fender washers. they are the steel ones. Anything else and I was afraid of toxic fumes burning off when they got hot.

Nothing good ever comes from hanging out with normal people.

Delete

Posted:erm - the only thing that puts me off the idea of Cathedrals (and BTW - WTF are they called that??) is the shape...I do a lot of wraps and while I dont think the shape would greatly effect the exit trajectory of a thigh wrap, I think it might cause a tangle on wrist wraps (which is bad)can anyone give any advice on this?Josh

Delete

adamrice
adamrice

poo-bah
Location: Austin TX USA
Member Since: 19th Dec 2000
Total posts: 1015
Posted:Josh--I don't see the shape as a big issue. I don't do wrist wraps (not with fire, not yet), but I was under the impression the technique with those was to not quite wrap all the way up. Doing it that way, the shape doesn't really come into play.Perhaps there's a fire-friend where you are who has a set of cathedrals (btw, I have no idea why they're called that--I prefer to call them interleaves or accordians) who'll let you take a dry-run with them.Maelstrom--Keep an eye on that nut with the loctite--unless you specifically used high-temp loctite, it can be defeated by heat. A better approach is to put two nuts on and tighten them against each other, rather than tightening one nut against the wicking. You might also want to cut off the protruding bolt section and hammer on the remainder to flare it out and prevent the nuts from coming off.

Laugh while you can, monkey-boy

Delete

Pele
Pele

the henna lady
Location: WNY, USA
Member Since: 15th Dec 2000
Total posts: 6193
Posted:Josh, Cathedrals don't offer any trouble or resistance when it comes to wraps of any form, including wrist wraps. I use them without issues.Also, my guess about the name origin is that back in the day when peasantry was out to steal as much as they could from whomever they could all of the sacred regalia in churches that was set aside for special events such as communion day, hoildays, etc was actually wrapped in two lengths of cloth which was then sewn to the base of a tapestry. A thief could unroll one length with ease yet could not take the time to unfoldlayer after interwoven layer to get to the sacred object (usually made of gold) nor could they walk out with it since it was woven to a wall hanging of conciderable weight. >>Pele ends her bit of funky trivia<<
Non-Https Image Link
Adam, the reason it is not called an accordian is because and accordian fold is one length that is folded back upon itself to create a stack, instead of two layers "woven" over one another.>>bit of seamstress trivia there<<
Non-Https Image Link
Charles, any amount can be added to these wicks to get the desired flame. I truly don't think it is a matter of using less as much as it personal preference. The stave I saw with the Catherdral on the end took a beating! First of all the base for mounting is small and so the margin for error seems to be a bit larger. The weight distribution is also shifted as cathedral wicks tend to take on a more spiral effect. Drops and such are brutal on the wicks, since the force is not distributed but more buffered by the wick itself, and it just seems to me that the destructive force of it tends to counteract the longevity of kevlar that we have all come to love. At least this is all my opinion. Oh, and the ones I experienced were mounted on the stave by a screw through the center of the wick (ala poi) and into the staff end. The wicks were about two inches thick. I also noticed that because of the nature of the staff it seemed that the wider kevlar used in a tube wrap style warrents much better flames than the cathedral wicks, due to surface area, with less kevlar needed for the wrap.This is all imho on a very sleepy night!------------------Pele Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir...http://www.pyromorph.com


Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK

Delete

adamrice
adamrice

poo-bah
Location: Austin TX USA
Member Since: 19th Dec 2000
Total posts: 1015
Posted:Aha! Pele, thanks, your "cathedral wick" etymology makes perfect sense. Really interesting.

Laugh while you can, monkey-boy

Delete

Marlboro
member
Location: St.Annes, Lancashire, England
Member Since: 28th Jun 2001
Total posts: 180
Posted:Cheers for the info guys - I'm currently in the planning stage of making my first home made set and it's the wick that's been giving me the biggest headache!ThanxM
Non-Https Image Link


We were somewhere around Barstow on the edge of the desert when the drugs began to take hold.

Delete

NYC
NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Member Since: 26th Aug 2001
Total posts: 9232
Posted:Hey, I'm thinking of making a very light pair of poi for my next project. What's the LEAST amount of 2" kevlar wick you'd use in a single cathedral wick to still get a decent burn? 4'? 3'? 2'?! [er.. 4/3 of a meter, 3/3 of a meter, 2/3 of a meter?]

Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

Ade
Are we there yet?
Location: australia
Member Since: 14th Mar 2001
Total posts: 1897
Posted:Not a very scientific answer - but I use about 5 folds worth for each strip of kevlar being folded together.

Delete

adamrice
adamrice

poo-bah
Location: Austin TX USA
Member Since: 19th Dec 2000
Total posts: 1015
Posted:I'm not sure if this works out to the same number of folds as Ade mentioned, but I've found that the shortest cathedral wick I can make with standard wicking uses 19" sections.The other trick for making small wicks is to use flatter wicking. I usually use 1/8" wicking, but I recently got some 1/16" stuff. A friend asked me to make some half-height wicks, so I used the flatter stuff--I used the same linear measure that I usually do (24"), but the wicks wound up being 1-1.5" tall. Actually, 23"--a little less wicking is needed because there's less used up on each foldover.

Laugh while you can, monkey-boy

Delete

NYC
NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Member Since: 26th Aug 2001
Total posts: 9232
Posted:So 2 feet of normal 2 inch kevlar total, per poi is OK?

Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

adamrice
adamrice

poo-bah
Location: Austin TX USA
Member Since: 19th Dec 2000
Total posts: 1015
Posted:Maybe I was a bit vague. If you have 2 strips of 2" x 24" kevlar--1/8" thick kevlar--you'll get what I consider a full-size wick--about 2" tall. If you use only one strip, that's not really a cathedral wick, though I suppose it would work. If you use 2 2"x24" strips of the 1/16" thick kevlar, you'll get a wick that's about 1" tall, and it'll work fine.If you attempt to make a wick using 2 strips of 2" x 12" kevlar (regardless of thickness), you may not have enough to fold into a usable bundle. The smallest I've made have used 19" strips, and you could maybe get away with 17".

Laugh while you can, monkey-boy

Delete

NYC
NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Member Since: 26th Aug 2001
Total posts: 9232
Posted:How were your 19" wicks? Was the burn crazy short? I'm thinking of using 4 feet total 2" kevlar per wick (so 2' strips) but would like to go to 3 feet total wicks per poi if you don't think it'd be silly.

Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

adamrice
adamrice

poo-bah
Location: Austin TX USA
Member Since: 19th Dec 2000
Total posts: 1015
Posted:I think using 1/16" thick kevlar is a better technique for making small wicks. I don't know if you'd get a good bundle using two 15" strips. If you used kevlar half as thick, you could use two 30" strips to get the same height. That'd give you a tight bundle with lots of convolutions (more surface area, which I believe should promote better wicking action) but still pretty small overall.

Laugh while you can, monkey-boy

Delete

vanize
vanize

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Austin, Texas
Member Since: 21st Aug 2001
Total posts: 3899
Posted:My $0.02:I've built cylindrical, cathedral, and boxed cathedral (and a few other less succesful designs). I like the cylindrical ones because they flow through the air with less resistance. Between the cathedral and boxed, I prefer the boxed. It scrapes up your skin less when you hit yourself (also an advantage to the cylindrical). The cylindrical ones do burn faster for a given wick size.Right now I'm most partial to my boxed cathedral set. -v-

-v-

Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!

Delete