# Getting from emulsion to very light trace



## rdc1978 (Apr 6, 2020)

I think I finally figured out how to get my soap batter to emulsion.  I figured it would be easier just to do all soap swirl designs from there, but it's been a bit of a problem.

I tried to do a cosmic swirl technique where you color layer three different colors and then pour it into a loaf mold in a zig zag motion and alternate between sides. 

The problem is that at emulsion the batter is so thin that each color seems to bleed into the other and so I don't get the dramatic effect. 

But I don't want the batter to get too thick to where I can't pour it easily. 

So how does one get from emulsification to thin trace or at least a trace that would allow the colors in the batter to keep their integrity BUT still be malleable enough to pour? 

Ann-Marie at teatree works (in another recipe) suggested just waiting....but I'm not sure how long youd wait and if you would just keep stirring it while you wait.

I don't know if there is a difference between stirring the batter vs. whisking it in terms of thickening the batter faster (ie - if you whisk the batter does it make it get thicker faster than stirring it?). 

Should I just whisk it to get it to go from emulsification to light trace, stir it, stick blend it, or just literally walk away from it for a while? 

Thanks in advance.  I'm attaching pictures so you can see how the blues mostly blend together.


----------



## Susie (Apr 6, 2020)

You need to just wait.  You need to watch how long it will take to move just that bit more into light trace.  Whisking slows trace if you are speaking of hand whisking.  If you are machine whisking, I would be concerned that you would get air in there.  You can also stick blend just that tiny bit longer.  All of this is a matter of experience.  Lots of batches from now you will know just exactly how long to do this or that.  Hang in there.


----------



## dibbles (Apr 6, 2020)

Once your batter is at emulsion, or almost there, you can just let it sit and check on it and stir every 10 minutes or so. Just stir once it is at emulsion. Depending on your recipe, this can take 10 minutes to over an hour. I use my stick blender very sparingly (basically just a pulse followed by stirring) until it is at emulsion. Then stir only. Like @Susie said, it's just a matter of experience - but once it clicks, it's a good thing to have in your toolbox and worth the effort to learn.


----------



## rdc1978 (Apr 6, 2020)

Thank you both so much, this is exactly the information I was looking for.  

LOL @ lots of batches from now.....don't I know it!!!

Thanks again you two!


----------



## Belindasuds (Apr 6, 2020)

@Susie and @dibbles have you covered, but I did want to mention that if your recipe is high in butters/hard oils, waiting too long can allow the batter to cool, which can result in stearic spots. 
Wanted to mention that just in case, because I learned that one the hard way


----------



## dibbles (Apr 6, 2020)

Belindasuds said:


> @Susie and @dibbles have you covered, but I did want to mention that if your recipe is high in butters/hard oils, waiting too long can allow the batter to cool, which can result in stearic spots.
> Wanted to mention that just in case, because I learned that one the hard way


Good point!


----------



## luluzapcat (Apr 7, 2020)

This is magic information! I had no idea that once it was at emulsion, you could let time do the work on your batter. Thanks for asking and answering this one!


----------



## rdc1978 (Apr 7, 2020)

luluzapcat said:


> This is magic information! I had no idea that once it was at emulsion, you could let time do the work on your batter. Thanks for asking and answering this one!



Me neither and you're welcome!  If you're as curious and fascinated as I am I found this awesome video on emulsification and trace.


----------



## dibbles (Apr 7, 2020)

rdc1978 said:


> Me neither and you're welcome!  If you're as curious and fascinated as I am I found this awesome video on emulsification and trace.



I just started a new thread linking this video. It is awesome!


----------



## Rsapienza (Apr 7, 2020)

I do a lot of swirling.  I SB to emulsion and then separate for coloring. I find that between stirring in my colors and the time taken to do so, my batter will be at a light trace when I'm done.


----------



## Mobjack Bay (Apr 7, 2020)

rdc1978 said:


> Me neither and you're welcome!  If you're as curious and fascinated as I am I found this awesome video on emulsification and trace.



That is an AWESOME video!


----------



## Todd Ziegler (Apr 8, 2020)

The only thing I would add to the previous post is that I would look into "in the pot swirls" or ITPS for short. I to was having problems with swirls but after trying the ITPS a couple of times, I now have decent swirls. Not great but very workable.


----------



## TheGecko (Apr 8, 2020)

rdc1978 said:


> So how does one get from emulsification to thin trace or at least a trace that would allow the colors in the batter to keep their integrity BUT still be malleable enough to pour?



Time.  Experience.  Getting to be BFFs with your batter...and colorants...and scents...throughout the year.  There are just so many variables to consider:  the types of oils/butters you use; the temperature of your lye solution, oils/butters, batter; the size of your batter, the ambient temperature of your home/studio/shop; how long you stick blend, whisk, stir; the additives you use; the behavior of any scents you use; the types of colorants you use from micas, to clays, to oxides, to natural powders and infusions.


----------



## Belindasuds (Apr 14, 2020)

TheGecko said:


> Time.  Experience.  Getting to be BFFs with your batter...and colorants...and scents...throughout the year.  There are just so many variables to consider:  the types of oils/butters you use; the temperature of your lye solution, oils/butters, batter; the size of your batter, the ambient temperature of your home/studio/shop; how long you stick blend, whisk, stir; the additives you use; the behavior of any scents you use; the types of colorants you use from micas, to clays, to oxides, to natural powders and infusions.



I think maybe this is why I enjoy Soap Making so much! All the variables make creating a successful batch so satisfying. It's a constant journey of learning and experience.


----------



## TheGecko (Apr 14, 2020)

Belindasuds said:


> I think maybe this is why I enjoy Soap Making so much! All the variables make creating a successful batch so satisfying. It's a constant journey of learning and experience.



I recently switched over to making a 6lb batch of soap instead of making 2-2lb and 2-lb; new learning curve.  1) It takes longer to bring 6lbs of batter to emulsion, than 1 or 2 lbs.  2) The batter changes as it sits in the tub (aka dish pan) so I have to plan my designs accordingly.


----------



## Belindasuds (Apr 14, 2020)

TheGecko said:


> I recently switched over to making a 6lb batch of soap instead of making 2-2lb and 2-lb; new learning curve.  1) It takes longer to bring 6lbs of batter to emulsion, than 1 or 2 lbs.  2) The batter changes as it sits in the tub (aka dish pan) so I have to plan my designs accordingly.



Great points! I found the same regarding emulsion with larger batches too, and also once emulsion is reached, trace was slower, but that may be different depending on the batch. I haven't done many large batches yet. Mainly due to limited space – dreaming of a one day having a soap shed. I love how creative people get with their soap "vessels" too. It makes me look at my storage containers differently.


----------



## rdc1978 (May 6, 2020)

So, I'm attaching this article I just read to see if anyone else can verify.

The writer said that you can check the temperature of your batter just after you add the our water and when the temperature goes up exactly one degree, you're reached emulsion.  Is this true?  Is this conventional wisdom?









						Controlling Trace
					

In other words – How to slow down the speed at which your soap starts setting up! There are many different factors that can affect how quickly your soap batter will set up. For many of the So…




					soapchallengeclub.com


----------



## TheGecko (May 6, 2020)

rdc1978 said:


> So, I'm attaching this article I just read to see if anyone else can verify.
> 
> The writer said that you can check the temperature of your batter just after you add the our water and when the temperature goes up exactly one degree, you're reached emulsion.  Is this true?  Is this conventional wisdom?



I’d have to test it.


----------



## rdc1978 (May 6, 2020)

TheGecko said:


> I’d have to test it.



Thanks for the reply, I wasn't sure if this was popular knowledge . If I have time during lunch I think I'm going to try to test it!


----------



## amd (May 6, 2020)

Stop and think about what emulsion is: An _emulsion_ is a mixture of two or more liquids that are normally immiscible (unmixable or unblendable). 

In this case, water and oil. How is temperature going to tell you if you've blended water and oil to the point where they will stick together and not separate back into themselves? I think the author found a coincidental temperature and is using that as fact.


----------



## rdc1978 (May 6, 2020)

amd said:


> Stop and think about what emulsion is: An _emulsion_ is a mixture of two or more liquids that are normally immiscible (unmixable or unblendable).
> 
> In this case, water and oil. How is temperature going to tell you if you've blended water and oil to the point where they will stick together and not separate back into themselves? I think the author found a coincidental temperature and is using that as fact.



While I'm not a scientist, separate, the oil and lye water will continue to cool.  It's possible that the reaction of the lye and oil molecules coming together would be a chemical reaction that would cause an increase in heat.  

But, its possible a scientist could tell me different.  I only took high school chemistry.


----------



## amd (May 6, 2020)

rdc1978 said:


> It's possible that the reaction of the lye and oil molecules coming together would be a chemical reaction that would cause an increase in heat.


Right, I'm not arguing that. Pour the lye solution in your oils and don't mix it. It's still doing the chemical reaction, and it's still going create heat from what is saponifying... it's just that your whole batch isn't saponifying. See what I mean? So if you're measuring temp you're only going to see an increase (especially as minor as 1 degree) only where the reaction is happening. Which is still not necessarily emulsion.


----------



## rdc1978 (May 6, 2020)

amd said:


> Right, I'm not arguing that. Pour the lye solution in your oils and don't mix it. It's still doing the chemical reaction, and it's still going create heat from what is saponifying... it's just that your whole batch isn't saponifying. See what I mean? So if you're measuring temp you're only going to see an increase (especially as minor as 1 degree) only where the reaction is happening. Which is still not necessarily emulsion.



What I'd say is that it's possible that just sitting on the bottom of the bowl, the lye water hasn't really combined with the oil.  The process of mixing the two together and incorporating the two would possibly cause an increased number of reactions between the molecules creating increased heat.  

Which, I would think, could ostensibly cause an increased temperature from the lye water sitting on the bottom of a bowl of oil.   I could see that being as minor as one degree because it may not take a ton of energy just to get to emulsion, particularly from when the lye water sits on the bottom of the bowl and some of the reaction has already occured.

I'll test it out a little later at lunch, but it's good to talk through it. thanks!


----------



## dibbles (May 6, 2020)

If I remember correctly, I think a person, or people, in the SCC mentioned that they found this to be the case as an indication of the beginning of saponification and when to split batter for coloring. The later consensus has been that it isn't necessarily the case. I might be completely wrong about this - I have never taken a chemistry class. My grandfather was a HS chemistry teacher, but I don't think that counts .

This whole idea may have come from From Grace To You YouTube videos. She routinely whisks her batter until the temp goes up by 1 degree. If I remember, she also soaps warm.


----------



## atiz (May 6, 2020)

It could be the case -- but it seems much more of a hassle to check the temp than to just look at it and see if there are any free-floating oils around. Once you know how to recognize emulsion it is quite easy I think, at least if you have good light.

I can believe that the batter will get warmer as it emulsifies, but the 1 degree (F? C?) seems very arbitrary.


----------



## rdc1978 (May 7, 2020)

So, I actually tested this today after work. 

Basically, when I poured the lye into the oils the surface temp was 92.  I stirred it a bit because I figured that the 92 was just the surface temp of the oils.

The temperature after agitating the lye with the oil (a little stirring) was 93 degrees. I figured this was more accurate as the surface would be representative of the whole.  The mix was nowhere near emulsion.

I stick blended until what I felt was the earliest stage of emulsion and the temperature was 94, one degree up from 93.

Even as I continued to stick blend the temperature didn't go over 94.  If I let it sit, the mix would cool.....but if I started to stick blend again it would go back to 94, but not to 95.

Also, before anyone's comes @ me, I normally don't soap in a Pyrex and I know I should have been wearing gloves but it was impossible to use the SB, the thermometer and the camera phone without having panic fits about how easily I could drop the phone into the batter.

ETA - I probably wouldn't use this method unless I was unsure about whether I reached emulsion, but it's kinda cool.  I'm also not advocating for this method.  I think it's interesting but Im not a chemist or a scientist nor do I play one on TV!!


----------



## amd (May 7, 2020)

That's because emulsion and saponification are not the same - emulsion itself does not generate heat. I would have been curious to see an internal temp rather than a surface temp. You may have seen more of a temp change by using a probe thermometer. [might have giggled a bit because I'm 12 and I said "probe"]


----------



## rdc1978 (May 7, 2020)

amd said:


> That's because emulsion and saponification are not the same - emulsion itself does not generate heat. I would have been curious to see an internal temp rather than a surface temp. You may have seen more of a temp change by using a probe thermometer. [might have giggled a bit because I'm 12 and I said "probe"]



Yes, that's why a more accurate measure of what the starting temperature of the oils and lye were better measured when i agitated them a bit to mirror on the surface what was happening below....namely the reactions between the molecules that would cause the heat.  

As the batter is stick blended and all the molecules on the surface and below go through that reaction, it could ostensibly cause an increase in heat.  This appears to be one degree consistently throughout different phases of emulsion up to trace.  

While it's one experiment, it seems in line with the information in the article.


----------



## jcandleattic (May 7, 2020)

rdc1978 said:


> So how does one get from emulsification to thin trace or at least a trace that would allow the colors in the batter to keep their integrity BUT still be malleable enough to pour?


You look at it. LOL 
I've read all the other posts in this thread, and honestly don't understand why anyone would be bothering with such insignificant temp changes to determine emulsion, trace, and thick trace. 
Once you've been soaping for a while and have a recipe you like and work with often, you will instinctively know just by looking at your batter when it is at each stage. Seriously, literally by looking at it. I have not used a thermometer in 17+ years and I know when my batter is at each stage of the process: emulsion, when it's barely past that to a very thin trace, to trace, medium trace and thick trace. 
IMO all this temp taking and wondering about the chemistry (while good to have the knowledge) is just a LOT of extra work that is not needed.


----------



## rdc1978 (May 7, 2020)

jcandleattic said:


> You look at it. LOL
> I've read all the other posts in this thread, and honestly don't understand why anyone would be bothering with such insignificant temp changes to determine emulsion, trace, and thick trace.
> Once you've been soaping for a while and have a recipe you like and work with often, you will instinctively know just by looking at your batter when it is at each stage. Seriously, literally by looking at it. I have not used a thermometer in 17+ years and I know when my batter is at each stage of the process: emulsion, when it's barely past that to a very thin trace, to trace, medium trace and thick trace.
> IMO all this temp taking and wondering about the chemistry (while good to have the knowledge) is just a LOT of extra work that is not needed.



I'd agree that it's probably unnecessary work, but the information is there for those who want it.  LOL, frankly, every single thing about soaping is unnecessary, IMO.  But I enjoy it and even this experiment was fun for me. 

However I wouldn't expect anyone who has soaped for 17 years to need or even want to know because that person would already be so practiced and such information wouldn't be welcomed or wanted.  I certainly didn't mean to imply that this should be of any real interest or assistance to experienced and expert soapers because you all would be so far beyond this.


----------



## jcandleattic (May 7, 2020)

rdc1978 said:


> However I wouldn't expect anyone who has soaped for 17 years to need or even want to know because that person would already be so practiced and such information wouldn't be welcomed or wanted. I certainly didn't mean to imply that this should be of any real interest or assistance to experienced and expert soapers because you all would be so far beyond this.


Okay, but how do you think they get that experience? By doing what works. 
If something like what you are suggesting to do worked, all soapers would do it because it would be something that worked and worked well. It obviously doesn't or it would be a common thing, and all soapers would be doing some form of this. 
This is literally the first time I've heard of it, so it is not a common practice among soapers. 
Just because it's out there and someone is doing it, doesn't mean it's something that should be done. 
There is a LOT of erroneous information out on the interwebs, and videos of people doing things the incorrect way. 
Just sayin'.


----------



## rdc1978 (May 7, 2020)

jcandleattic said:


> Okay, but how do you think they get that experience? By doing what works.
> If something like what you are suggesting to do worked, all soapers would do it because it would be something that worked and worked well. It obviously doesn't or it would be a common thing, and all soapers would be doing some form of this.
> This is literally the first time I've heard of it, so it is not a common practice among soapers.
> Just because it's out there and someone is doing it, doesn't mean it's something that should be done.
> ...



Which is why I tested it.  And just because not everyone is doing something doesn't mean it's not true. 

Particularly if the prevailing wisdom is to eschew and reject any potential new knowledge or methodology. 

So if someone who isn't quite sure when or if they have gotten to emulsion wants to consider using that method as an additional check while they are learning I see nothing wrong with that.

There are other threads ive seen where soapers are tempted to SB just a little more because they want to be absolutely sure they are at a safe point with their soap.  If this method can serve as an additional check on that, I see nothing wrong with it.

At this point it's been suggested by a fairly experienced soaper (if the founder of soapchallengeclub wrote it) it's been linked to "bygraceforyou" and I've tested it.  I'm not saying to take it as gospel, but to dismiss it because you haven't heard of it seems....premature. 

And frankly, just because it hasn't made it to every soaper on this site doesn't mean that it hasn't been used or employed by other soapers. 

The idea that "if it worked everyone would do it" may seem logical on its face, but I don't think it is.  It's possible, even with the wide knowledge base you have that you may not know everything or have heard of everything.  

It seems improbable of course, given your expertise and experience, but not impossible.  Particularly if you are not on the hunt for information about how emulsion and stages of trace as you're very practiced in those. 

Either way people should use this information as they see fit...or not. 

Anyways, I come on this site to get and share knowledge and I'm not here to fight or engage in snark.  To that end, I've put you on ignore so you shouldn't reply if you want me to see the response.  But you can reply for the forum at large.


----------



## amd (May 8, 2020)

rdc1978 said:


> So if someone who isn't quite sure when or if they have gotten to emulsion wants to consider using that method as an additional check while they are learning I see nothing wrong with that.


But here's the problem... and what is trying to be explained to you... you are using temperature to evaluate an unrelated event. Heat is caused by saponification. Saponification does.not.need.emulsion to happen. The two are only related in that bringing your batter to emulsion more evenly promotes saponification. This also shouldn't be a method promoted to beginners. It would be better (more accurate) for them to learn how to see emulsion - we have an excellent video showing it here


----------



## rdc1978 (May 8, 2020)

amd said:


> But here's the problem... and what is trying to be explained to you... you are using temperature to evaluate an unrelated event. Heat is caused by saponification. Saponification does.not.need.emulsion to happen. The two are only related in that bringing your batter to emulsion more evenly promotes saponification. This also shouldn't be a method promoted to beginners. It would be better (more accurate) for them to learn how to see emulsion - we have an excellent video showing it here




The process of emulsification requires the molecules to expend energy for one to become suspended in the other. 

That expension of energy causes heat. Expending energy always causes heat.   Which explains the degree change in temperature from when the molecules are not emulsified from when they are emulsified.  

I'm not saying that emulsion is saponification, I don't believe I ever said that it was.  What I think I posited was that the process of the molecules expending energy to emulsify would cause an increase in temperature.  By one degree.

I've tested it, it's been linked to a more experienced soaper and a fairly experienced soaper wrote about it.  

Using it as a check for a beginner who isn't sure if they have met the earliest stage of emulsion is reasonable.  

There are many great videos on how to see emulsion and if a beginning soaper would like to use this method to check and make sure they are at an emulsion and aren't sure if they should SB once more I see no issue with that.

Do you not think that the molecules expend energy in the process of emulsion?  Or do you not think that heat is the byproduct if expending energy? If you don't believe either of these things, I suppose your position makes sense.  But it makes sense to me that the molecules do expend energy to become emulsified and therefore the byproduct would be heat because of the expended energy.


----------



## amd (May 8, 2020)

rdc1978 said:


> Do you not think that the molecules expend energy in the process of emulsion?


I don't - when i emulsify my salad dressing it doesn't change temp.


----------



## rdc1978 (May 8, 2020)

amd said:


> I don't - when i emulsify my salad dressing it doesn't change temp.



Have you checked?  A one degree change in temperature would be hard to feel.

Salad dressing is also a bit different as the emulsion isn't stable and when left alone the molecules return to the state that requires the least energy, namely they separate back into oil and water because existing as an emulsion requires too much energy.


----------



## moodymama (May 8, 2020)

Is it not the lye causing the water and oil to be able to emulsify? Water and oil won't emulsify on their own.  Emulsion is the beginning. So in essence you could saponification causes emulsification in this instance.  I also read on here that once you reach emulsion you can wait out your batter to each stage of trace after. 

Personally I wouldn't use a thermometer, I just look at the spatula or stick blender.


----------



## amd (May 8, 2020)

I'm checking out of this conversation. You can continue to believe this if it makes you feel better. My opinion is that a newbie is better off learning the visual cues because checking temp is inaccurate, as proven by your test:


rdc1978 said:


> The temperature after agitating the lye with the oil (a little stirring) was 93 degrees. I figured this was more accurate as the surface would be representative of the whole. The mix was nowhere near emulsion.



You said it yourself - the temp raised 1degree and was nowhere near emulsion.


----------



## rdc1978 (May 8, 2020)

moodymama said:


> Is it not the lye causing the water and oil to be able to emulsify? Water and oil won't emulsify on their own.  Emulsion is the beginning. So in essence you could saponification causes emulsification in this instance.  I also read on here that once you reach emulsion you can wait out your batter to each stage of trace after.
> 
> Personally I wouldn't use a thermometer, I just look at the spatula or stick blender.



I believe the lye causes the ability to stabilize the emulsion, but doesnt cause the emulsion itself.  Without a stabilizing agent such as lye the oil and water would separate, because that is the most efficient energy state for the molecules.  

It's my understanding as well that once emulsion is reached you can wait it out as well.  

However, since the stages of emulsion-light trace- medium trace- heavy trace are a sliding scale some people may want to start their process at the very earliest point of emulsion.  

However, if you aren't sure, it's possible to stick blend past that.  I know I have.


----------



## rdc1978 (May 8, 2020)

amd said:


> I'm checking out of this conversation. You can continue to believe this if it makes you feel better. My opinion is that a newbie is better off learning the visual cues because checking temp is inaccurate, as proven by your test:
> 
> 
> You said it yourself - the temp raised 1degree and was nowhere near emulsion.



What I said was that 93 degrees was a more accurate representation of a starting temperature since it reflected on the surface what was occuring below the surface.  

Since the thermometer measured only the surface, it was important to get a starting temp that reflected what was occuring below, so that the surface temp was a more accurate representation of the temp of the entire contents.  

From that starting point of 93 degrees it went up a degree to 94 degrees  when it reached emulsion.  

While I didn't do an in depth read of this article it does mention that in a small percentage of the energy during an emulsion is caused by molecular interaction.  So, that suggests that there is energy expended by the molecules themselves during emulsion.  Though it is small. 

"The percentage of interfacial energy in relation to the total energy employed in the emulsification process (uiAi/Wu) was between 0.019 and 0.061%. In general, studies in literature estimate that this fraction is lower than 0.1% (McClements, 2005; Walstra, 1993), which is in agreement with the results obtained here"



			INTERFACIAL ENERGY DURING THE EMULSIFICATION OF WATER-IN-HEAVY CRUDE OIL EMULSIONS


----------



## CathyB (May 9, 2020)

To retard saponification after emulsification, would putting the bowl in cold water help?  Or is the process unstoppable once it is put into motion?


----------



## jcandleattic (May 9, 2020)

CathyB said:


> To retard saponification after emulsification, would putting the bowl in cold water help?  Or is the process unstoppable once it is put into motion?


Saponification is unstoppable once it’s started until it is complete, however, yes, putting it into a colder environment will slow the process. This is why ungelled soaps take longer to saponify.

ETA: emulsion can be stopped though. This is how you can get a soap that has separated. The emulsion was not complete.


----------



## josianeg (May 31, 2020)

Mobjack Bay said:


> That is an AWESOME video!



This video is so helpful!!!


----------



## AliOop (May 31, 2020)

I love watching Grace to You's videos, and she is very clearly a talented soap artist. I also have great respect for Amy Warden of Soap Challenge Club. I did see Amy's announcement of this 1º theory, and understood her to be saying that it was something to check out, not that it was proven science.

It is my understanding that Grace uses a very standard recipe, with only slight variations thereof, for every soap creation. She also watches her temps very closely and consistently soaps at very precise temps. That allows her the time to create her amazing soap art, because she knows exactly how this consistent batter is going to behave.

Thus, it may be true that for her very specific soaping recipe and conditions, a 1º temperature increase does indeed signal that her batter has been emulsified.

However, I would not want to assume that every other combination of oils, and every other possible combination of lye-water temp and oil-temps, would also be emulsified at the 1º mark. My personal experience is the opposite - that the amount of water (or water substitute), the specific oils being used, and definitely the temperature of ingredients all affect the rate of emulsion and saponification.

But maybe that's just me.


----------



## rdc1978 (May 31, 2020)

AliOop said:


> I love watching Grace to You's videos, and she is very clearly a talented soap artist. I also have great respect for Amy Warden of Soap Challenge Club. I did see Amy's announcement of this 1º theory, and understood her to be saying that it was something to check out, not that it was proven science.
> 
> It is my understanding that Grace uses a very standard recipe, with only slight variations thereof, for every soap creation. She also watches her temps very closely and consistently soaps at very precise temps. That allows her the time to create her amazing soap art, because she knows exactly how this consistent batter is going to behave.
> 
> ...



I won't put too fine a point in it, but to quote the article by amy on the soap challenge club.

*Here’s a new tip:* No matter which method you use to blend – whether it is using a stick blender or a whisk, check the temperature of the soap batter when you first combine the oils and lye.  As soon as it raises one degree, you know the batter is emulsified!!

This doesn't sound as something she is presenting as a theory to be investigated further.


----------



## AliOop (May 31, 2020)

rdc1978 said:


> I won't put too fine a point in it, but to quote the article by amy on the soap challenge club.
> 
> *Here’s a new tip:* No matter which method you use to blend – whether it is using a stick blender or a whisk, check the temperature of the soap batter when you first combine the oils and lye.  As soon as it raises one degree, you know the batter is emulsified!!
> 
> This doesn't sound as something she is presenting as a theory to be investigated further.


Yes, that is definitely more emphatic than I remembered. I still don't think it is going to work for every batter, at every temp. But it might be fun to make a bunch of different batches, all in the name of scientific testing, of course!


----------

