Yes, I am trying to understand how they are calculated! I will be reviewing those previous posts you indicated very carefully. Thank you. (I'll also review how to search for past threads so I won't keep asking questions that have already been addressed.) Thank you everyone. Your replies have provided lots of clues for which I had previously been searching fruitlessly!
With all due respect(and I do respect you, as I have learned quite a lot from you), the links DeeAnna provided were and are extremely helpful for me and many others. I am one of those darned "why" learners. If I don't understand why, I simply can't retain and use that information. DeeAnna provided that "why" for me. I can now actually grasp what soap is going to be like without getting obsessed with those SoapCalc numbers. I know that the "values" on SoapCalc really don't predict what the soap will be like, but it was a great learning tool when I started.
You do not understand the math behind the formula "Longevity = Hardness - Cleansing". The formula "Longevity = Stearic + Palmitic" might play better for you and it would give precisely the same answer. The answer from either formula excludes myristic and lauric acids AND oleic, linoleic, and linolenic acids.
I am dismayed that you have so little empathy and tact for those who are still learning the ropes.
Still, I have to think there is a way to formulaically define a soap's qualities.
These qualities also must necessarily include those compounds which are not saponified because they will also have an impact.
While we are on the subject, how come we stop at the eight typical fatty acids? There's a group of even shorter chain fatty acids (C3-11)like caprylic, caproic, butyric; "intermediate" acids like Palmitoleic acid (16:1) .. just in case we want to make a macadamia oil soap for instance; then the longer chains (C20:1) like Gondoic acid. Why don't we count these? Is it "shorthand" for recipe formulation? If so, does that help define the difference between two oils that "seem" the same?
Keep in mind a soap is not going to cure eczema. For the most part eczema is an autoimmune disease and no soap in the world is going to cure it and it is very dangerous to call any soap or product an eczema product. If what you are calling eczema is just dry skin then any mild soap may help. Some people with true eczema cannot even use soap. Your first starting point should be find out what the person is allergic to. I would simply make a nice lard soap with no additives, no eo's or fo's. Some are very allergic to certain eo's and I find fo's are starting to bother me after 5+yrs of soapmaking mainly because of to much exposure, at least that is what I assume.Well, I'm still in the phase where the soapcalc numbers seem to be the only way to predict how my soap is going to turn out. I think it is a good educational tool. I have spent a lot of time already reviewing DeeAnna's explanation of how the numerical values are derived, and I intend to spend a lot more time reading and rereading it. Everyone's ideas help me immensely on here. I an't believe how awesome you guys are. Anyway, so I want to make a soap for a friend whose daughter has eczema and I devised the following recipe. I know a Creaminess score of 61 is off the charts. So, I wanted to run it by you guys and see if you have ever made a soap with such a high creamy score. Should I sacrifice hardness to reduce the creaminess score? Do you think this might be soothing (though I understand not necessarily healing) for someone who has eczema. What is a score of 61 in creaminess going to be like? Sticky? I was thinking that if the hardness score stays high like 48 and the bubbly score is 20, and the cleansing score is 0, then it might be super lathery... I don't like to waste my resources on ridiculous recipes, so I wanted to run it by you guys. Any feedback is helpful.
Glad to hear you've got pedagogical goals and lesson plans and whatnot. Everyone, fold your hands and pay attention. ;-)
You mean those students of yours? The ones you referred to as kids on training wheels? I do truly regret being so unclear that you thought it was THEM I was directing criticism towards.