wooing: watch n’ learn, kids
April 18, 2007 – 12:58 amthings we say to the blogwife in the bubble bath: “if you put more of that oil in the water, the bubbles would last longer.”
blogwife: “well, duh. more oil … more bubbles.”
blog (clearing throat): “not more bubbles. think surfactants! a larger relative amount of bubble-causing protein solution would mean a less brittle bubble surface, a slower rate of surfactant drainage and a longer lasting foam — not unlike your perpetually downy breves. hoffmann says so!”
blogwife: “who said you aren’t romantic?”
blog: “if you give me a few minutes, i’ll figure out how to work in an edgy reference to beta-lactoglobulin.”
UPDATE: hoffmann asked for it:
alas, there be no ingredients listed. what kinda low-class, text-addled bubble bath did you expect this blog to be using, anyway?
the burning question now is … if oil is actually bad for foam, as mr. foodie tells us (in the comments), then why is bubble bath and dish soap and shampoo always so dang oily? isn’t oil, and its permutations, an obvious protein — making it ideal for surfactant use? and if not, then why did that cod oil macchiato get so flaming stiff and froofy?!
UPDATE: ah-HA! just because it cares, this blog has been reading the back of its shampoo bottle, which tells us that, just after water, the biggest ingredient is ammonium lauryl sulfate — which, according to googlable sources, is BOTH “a foaming agent” AND an oil! (coconut oil, to be specific … scroll down to the paragraph that begins “Now lets talk about” …) soooo. how, exactly, is oil bad for foam?
p.s. does this blog know what it’s talking about? it does not. is it thoroughly confused by the dueling authorities of mr. hoffmann and wikipedia? it is. but it’s becoming a bit more possible that its initial wild display of limited chemistry knowledge before the blogwife wasn’t entirely wrong!
we will, at some point, try to relate all this to the making of actual coffee beverages. we promise.
UPDATE: annnnnnd, we have our beverage tie-in … specifically, the extreme desirability of bipolar, sulfolipidic oils in cases of mixing and foaming. anyone in need of an obscure, stress-addled competition signature beverage? anyone? anyone?
Hoffmann would also probably get in trouble for mentioning that oil would do terrible things to the foam, because oil provides competition to the air for the attention and affection of said surfactants.
So I won’t say anything at all…..
dang. clearly, we should totally avoid dangerous second-hand scientific snippets in wooing situations.
but if oil is bad, then why does bubble bath almost always come in oil form?
i guess maybe we’re not talking about a pure oil, actually. but … it’s awfully oily.
Much in the same way washing up liquid/detergent/whatever you call it over the pond has a certain lubricating quality?
Does it come with ingredients on the bottle?
label posted. no ingredients.
but i still don’t get it. oil not good for foam?????
Please excuse the spam! I need a barista or two here in Grand Cayman. Good Pay, Housing possible. Busy coffee house on Seven Mile Beach. have them contact me for info.
Thanks!
In its natural state coconut oil and all other oils are hydrophobic, as Hoffman indicated, competing with the water on the surface and inhibiting the formation of foam. In the fabrication of ammonium lauryl sulfate , however, the oil lipids are bonded to a sulfate molecule. Sulfate is (drum role) hydrophilic, so it bonds to water. The resulting molecule has one end that is an oil and will then bond to other oils, while the other end is a sulfate and will bond to water. This means that the new molecule will easily mix with bath water to form a thick and greasy surface texture able to sustain foam. Most soaps are Phospholipids; same thing, only it’s a phosphate molecule that has bonded to the oil to give it a hdrophilic end.
my brother: a mini hoffmann! (that musta taken at least five minutes of googling)
works for me. the original point remains: adding more of the bath oil should make for stronger bubbles, no?
all we need now is a phospholipid-producing cow.
I was beginning to suspect that the above, and very eloquent, explanation posted by Nathanael would be the case and thus I should say that I was innaccurate and that your bath oils are a good thing. Oils in general bad, but soap capable oils good.
I like the interweb sometimes, I see it like the little things they put on kids’ bowling lanes to stop the gutterball – kind of knocking you back on course when you start to drift.
the blogwife asks that it be known: she guessed this a long time ago!
which sort of put our original, dangerous display of coffee-related chemistry in the proper context….
agreed, james. there’s a sort of refining quality to such banter. now, i am equipped to froth milk for guests, yakking even MORE uncontrollably about hopelessly obscure topics.