Hi I have been reading about making insectisides using pure soap. What is
pure soap sold as, i.e. trade name? Or will Dove soap do?

Thanks Ron

Ron, all you need to do is collect any remnants of old toilet soap tablets
from the bathroom, put them in a large pot or jam jar, add hot water, stir
and wait until the soap has turned gloopy. Dilute with more hot water and
use the resulting liquid as a spray. Dove soap would be fine as would any
other toilet soap. This soap spray works a treat with zapping whitefly.
They don't like it on them!

MCT
-----------
"ron" wrote:
Hi I have been reading about making insectisides using pure soap. What is
pure soap sold as, i.e. trade name? Or will Dove soap do?

Ysgrifennodd "ron" mewn neges
r.co.uk...
Hi I have been reading about making insectisides using pure soap. What is
pure soap sold as, i.e. trade name? Or will Dove soap do?

Thanks Ron



Pure soap flakes are available from Tesco's under the name Granny's
Original.

I can't get them anywhere else. I use em to wash my waterproofs in, works a
treat and is a lot cheaper than the expensive stuff you buy in outdoor shops
(which is almost identical, only liquid in form and many times more
expensive.)

T Dave R

"Dafydd Ap Arwyn" wrote in message
...

Ysgrifennodd "ron" mewn neges
r.co.uk...
Hi I have been reading about making insectisides using pure soap. What
is
pure soap sold as, i.e. trade name? Or will Dove soap do?

Thanks Ron



Pure soap flakes are available from Tesco's under the name Granny's
Original.

I can't get them anywhere else. I use em to wash my waterproofs in, works
a
treat and is a lot cheaper than the expensive stuff you buy in outdoor
shops
(which is almost identical, only liquid in form and many times more
expensive.)

T Dave R

Most washing up liquid - including supermarket budget brands - is
around 95% soap. There is nothing magical about soap which is merely a
compound of glycerine, and fatty acids derived from sources such
as tallow, grease, fish oils, and vegetable oils.

All unscented washing up liquids are equally effective when used
as shampoo*, bubble bath, insecticide, bicycle cleaner, engine
degreaser, and hand cleaner, as are branded products often costing
ten times as much, if not more.

* In the late 60's/early 70's, civilisation as we know it was almost
rocked to its foundations by Jilly Cooper's admission in the
Sunday Times that she only ever washed her hair in Teepol -
ICI liquid soap. Cue - "and it shows".


michael adams

...

In article ,
"michael adams" writes:
|
| Most washing up liquid - including supermarket budget brands - is
| around 95% soap. There is nothing magical about soap which is merely a
| compound of glycerine, and fatty acids derived from sources such
| as tallow, grease, fish oils, and vegetable oils.

No, it isn't. Its active ingredient is sodium laureth sulphate, which
is very different from sodium stearate and similar true soaps. I have
no idea what the chemical distinction between a detergent and a soap is,
but sodium stearate is pretty simple (C18H35NaO2 according to Wikipedia).
For comparison, sodium laureth sulphate is CH3(CH2)10CH2(OCH2CH2)nOSO3Na,
and the presence of both sulphur and nitrogen in the same organic molecule
is a well-known warning flag.

That is why sodium laureth sulphate is (a) more effective, (b) riskier
for delcate fabrics and finished and (c) more likely to provoke reactions
than sodium stearate.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"michael adams" writes:
|
| Most washing up liquid - including supermarket budget brands - is
| around 95% soap. There is nothing magical about soap which is merely a
| compound of glycerine, and fatty acids derived from sources such
| as tallow, grease, fish oils, and vegetable oils.

No, it isn't. Its active ingredient is sodium laureth sulphate, which
is very different from sodium stearate and similar true soaps. I have
no idea what the chemical distinction between a detergent and a soap is,
but sodium stearate is pretty simple (C18H35NaO2 according to Wikipedia).
For comparison, sodium laureth sulphate is CH3(CH2)10CH2(OCH2CH2)nOSO3Na,
and the presence of both sulphur and nitrogen in the same organic molecule
is a well-known warning flag.

That is why sodium laureth sulphate is (a) more effective, (b) riskier
for delcate fabrics and finished and (c) more likely to provoke reactions
than sodium stearate.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Must admit that's a bit better than Mike's comments-but only just.
Some of the cheaper washing up and Laundry liquids have an increasing amount
of sodium fatty acids in them. It's one way of getting rid of the fat no one
wants to eat anymore.
What's this thing about nitrogen and sulphur being a well know warning flag?
Come to think of it where is the Nitrogen in Sodium lauryl sulphate? It does
not contain any does it? Perhaps dissolved Nitrogen in the tap water:-)

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"michael adams" writes:
|
| Most washing up liquid - including supermarket budget brands - is
| around 95% soap. There is nothing magical about soap which is merely a
| compound of glycerine, and fatty acids derived from sources such
| as tallow, grease, fish oils, and vegetable oils.

No, it isn't. Its active ingredient is sodium laureth sulphate, which
is very different from sodium stearate and similar true soaps.

...

Fair enough, I'll settle for that.


quote

Sodium lauryl sulphate (SLS) is an anionic surfactant (detergent)
which is included as a foaming agent (to clean and make bubbles)
in a huge variety of commonly used products. These include shampoos,
^^^^^^^^^
soaps, face and body washes, toothpaste, washing up & laundry detergents
and also industrial cleansing chemicals such as engine degreasers.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There are many derivatives of SLS that can be found in commercial
preparations, including sodium laureth sulphate, sodium laureth-3
sulphate, and DEA or TEA sodium lauryl sulphate. Although these
derivatives may vary slightly in mildness, the general action and
effects are essentially similar.

http://greenpeople.co.uk/Organics_Features_SLS.htm

quote

No mention of bubble bath, or use as an insecticide or bicycle
cleaner there, but then aphids probably aren't to fussy in
any case.


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

All unscented washing up liquids are equally effective when used
as shampoo, bubble bath, insecticide, bicycle cleaner, engine
degreaser, and hand cleaner, as are branded products often costing
ten times as much, if not more.



michael adams

snip




Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
"Rupert \(W.Yorkshire\)" writes:
|
| Must admit that's a bit better than Mike's comments-but only just.
| Some of the cheaper washing up and Laundry liquids have an increasing amount
| of sodium fatty acids in them. It's one way of getting rid of the fat no one
| wants to eat anymore.

Oh, come off it! That is precisely what soaps ARE, and most common
detergents are fairly similar. And the reason has nothing to do with
surplus fat that people don't want to eat.

| What's this thing about nitrogen and sulphur being a well know warning flag?

Check it out - it is. The point is that sulphur-containing proteins are
often/usually very bioactive, and a hydrocarbon that contains nitrogen
is very like a protein.

| Come to think of it where is the Nitrogen in Sodium lauryl sulphate? It does
| not contain any does it? Perhaps dissolved Nitrogen in the tap water:-)

Wikipedia said that it did, and I said that I was using that as a
reference. You may know better.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"Rupert \(W.Yorkshire\)" writes:
|
| Must admit that's a bit better than Mike's comments-but only just.
| Some of the cheaper washing up and Laundry liquids have an increasing
amount
| of sodium fatty acids in them. It's one way of getting rid of the fat
no one
| wants to eat anymore.

Oh, come off it! That is precisely what soaps ARE, and most common
detergents are fairly similar. And the reason has nothing to do with
surplus fat that people don't want to eat.

Soaps are the sodium salts of fatty acids. Detergents are based on SLS or
similar . There are no chemical similarities between the two. Old fashioned
soap forms scum with hard water--SLS does not.
Nearly all the old fashioned soaps were replaced by SLS type things because
it was cheaper and did a better job.
Some of the cheapo washing up liquids do *now* contain increasing amounts of
the fatty acid based soaps and that is because they can't get rid of the
stuff any other way.

| What's this thing about nitrogen and sulphur being a well know warning
flag?

Check it out - it is. The point is that sulphur-containing proteins are
often/usually very bioactive, and a hydrocarbon that contains nitrogen
is very like a protein.

A bit too simplistic but if Wikipedia says that then perhaps it could be
wrong.


| Come to think of it where is the Nitrogen in Sodium lauryl sulphate? It
does
| not contain any does it? Perhaps dissolved Nitrogen in the tap water:-)

Wikipedia said that it did, and I said that I was using that as a
reference. You may know better.

I always find Wikipedia excellent on its Chemistry so I doubt that it would
say that SLS contains Nitrogen.
Could you have misread it or mistaken a little n for a big N
Beam me onto your source please.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Rupert (W.Yorkshire) wrote:
"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"michael adams" writes:
|
| Most washing up liquid - including supermarket budget brands - is
| around 95% soap. There is nothing magical about soap which is merely a
| compound of glycerine, and fatty acids derived from sources such
| as tallow, grease, fish oils, and vegetable oils.

No, it isn't. Its active ingredient is sodium laureth sulphate, which
is very different from sodium stearate and similar true soaps. I have
no idea what the chemical distinction between a detergent and a soap is,
but sodium stearate is pretty simple (C18H35NaO2 according to Wikipedia).
For comparison, sodium laureth sulphate is CH3(CH2)10CH2(OCH2CH2)nOSO3Na,
and the presence of both sulphur and nitrogen in the same organic molecule
is a well-known warning flag.

That is why sodium laureth sulphate is (a) more effective, (b) riskier
for delcate fabrics and finished and (c) more likely to provoke reactions
than sodium stearate.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Must admit that's a bit better than Mike's comments-but only just.
Some of the cheaper washing up and Laundry liquids have an increasing amount
of sodium fatty acids in them. It's one way of getting rid of the fat no one
wants to eat anymore.

You use fat to dissolve fat; soap has been made from lard for millenia;
you mix it with caustic soda and that makes it very hydrophobic at one
end which dissolves fat very well and hydrophilic at the other (the
sodium end) where it will dissolve in water., You end up with somethng
that dissolves the grease but will wash away.

Des in super shiny clean Dublin


What's this thing about nitrogen and sulphur being a well know warning flag?
Come to think of it where is the Nitrogen in Sodium lauryl sulphate? It does
not contain any does it? Perhaps dissolved Nitrogen in the tap water:-)

"ron" wrote in message
. uk...
Hi I have been reading about making insectisides using pure soap. What is
pure soap sold as, i.e. trade name? Or will Dove soap do?

Thanks Ron

I find washing up liquid works for greenfly.
Jenny

Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
"Rupert \(W.Yorkshire\)" writes:

Oh, come off it! That is precisely what soaps ARE, and most common
detergents are fairly similar. And the reason has nothing to do with
surplus fat that people don't want to eat.

Similar in the sense that they combine a longish carbon chain molecule
with a hydrophobic group at one end that wants to be in oil and a
hydrophyllic group at the other that prefers to be in water. The net
effect is to emulsify any free fat or grease in the water.

| What's this thing about nitrogen and sulphur being a well know warning flag?

Check it out - it is. The point is that sulphur-containing proteins are
often/usually very bioactive, and a hydrocarbon that contains nitrogen
is very like a protein.

That is a pretty weird viewpoint and potentially very wrong. It all
depends on how the sulphur and nitrogen is bonded into the molecule.
For instance:

Sodium lauryl sulphate is mildly hazardous and irritating in pure
reagent form
http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/SO/sod...l_sulfate.html

whereas the Ammonium salt, Ammonium lauryl sulphate is virtually
harmless.
http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/AM/amm...l_sulfate.html

| Come to think of it where is the Nitrogen in Sodium lauryl sulphate? It does
| not contain any does it? Perhaps dissolved Nitrogen in the tap water:-)

Wikipedia said that it did, and I said that I was using that as a
reference. You may know better.

In that case Wikipedia is incorrect. Are you sure it didn't give the
formula as

CH3(CH2)nOSO3Na

Where n=11 for classic lauryl/dodecyl sulphate (and related compounds
exist for other n).

Any surfactant will suffocate aphids, but the more aggressive ones may
also remove the waxy protective coating off plant leaves as well. I
once defoliated a bay tree by spraying it with a wetting agent to treat
a bad infestation of scale insect.

Classic soft soap formulations are about as good as you can get for
killing insect pests without inflicting too much collateral damage on
the plant.

Regards,
Martin Brown

In article .com,
writes:
|
| Oh, come off it! That is precisely what soaps ARE, and most common
| detergents are fairly similar. And the reason has nothing to do with
| surplus fat that people don't want to eat.
|
| Similar in the sense that they combine a longish carbon chain molecule
| with a hydrophobic group at one end that wants to be in oil and a
| hydrophyllic group at the other that prefers to be in water. The net
| effect is to emulsify any free fat or grease in the water.

Precisely.

| | What's this thing about nitrogen and sulphur being a well know warning flag?
|
| Check it out - it is. The point is that sulphur-containing proteins are
| often/usually very bioactive, and a hydrocarbon that contains nitrogen
| is very like a protein.
|
| That is a pretty weird viewpoint and potentially very wrong. It all
| depends on how the sulphur and nitrogen is bonded into the molecule.

Not all, and precisely!

Though I should probably have said "can be" not "is"! The point is that
both nitrogen and sulphur occurring in what is largely a hydrocarbon IS
a well known warning flag. Some such compounds are quite harmless; some
are not. Non-chemists (such as me and most of the readers here) cannot
guess which.

| Wikipedia said that it did, and I said that I was using that as a
| reference. You may know better.
|
| In that case Wikipedia is incorrect. Are you sure it didn't give the
| formula as
|
| CH3(CH2)nOSO3Na
|
| Where n=11 for classic lauryl/dodecyl sulphate (and related compounds
| exist for other n).

Yes, it did. I misread it, then.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

.. Quite often one sees people who
overdid it with the glosser and their hair looks as if it was recently
dipped in a chip pan.

Janet


MMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoooooooooooo oooowwwwwwwwwwwww

Why?

--
------------------------------------------------
Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
www.rnshipmates.co.uk
International Festival of the Sea 28th June - 1st July 2007

"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message
from "michael adams" contains these words:


I stand to be corrected, but as I understand it, the main determinant
of hair condition - which presumably includes shiny hair, is diet
What's ingested rather than whats applied externally.

That's a bit like saying the main ingredient of a beautiful model's
complexion is diet. These days, it's down to the coating she applied to
her skin. Same with hair. You can eat lots of oily fish and nuts; or,
you can apply conditioners and polishers (during washing, or after it,
or after it dried) which build up a surface sheen/ shine. Hairdressers
use many different finishing-conditioners and "hair polishers". (If you
don't ask what they put on, you'll never be able to recreate the
fabulous new look you walk out with). Quite often one sees people who
overdid it with the glosser and their hair looks as if it was recently
dipped in a chip pan.

Janet

Yes I know exactly what you mean. The odd fossilised chips and crunchy bits
are a dead giveaway.
Daft as it seems I would guess that lard could cause less harm than some of
the gear contained in a few hair formulations.