Soap Bubble Wiki
Register
Advertisement

Tonight, I did the first multi-solution run-through of the test matrix The trial run was more of a proof of concept than anything else. See the Test Matrix article for details of the tests. This run-through did not include the bubble-in-bubble test. As noted in the table below, some of these solutions are just detergent and water. They were being tested for a baseline against which to compare them after having amendments added.

0614test 0607P


The pictures below illustrate the size potential test run on each of the tested solutions. Hopefully, it demonstrates why the test is useful. A couple of things of interest turned up to me. Two fairly concentrated solutions (0607P and 0607U) were tested in concentrated and dilute form. You will notice that the diluted versions did more poorly in every respect than the concentrate. However, size potential was less negatively affected than the other parameters. The other item of note is that among the unamended solutions the solution with Dawn Ultra fared significantly worse than Dawn Pot & Pan solution and the Non-Concentrated Dawn solution. The superior size potential of Dawn Pot & Pan (compared to ultra) also is apparent in the comparison of 0607P and 0607U although the difference is not as striking as with the unamended solutions. 0607P also appears to have much better colors than 0607U. Also of interest may be a previous blog post that compared Non-Concentrated Dawn and Dawn Ultra.


One area in which the more dilute solutions did seem superior was in color. 0607P Dilute and 0607U Dilute both seem somewhat more colorful than their undiluted counterparts.


There are a few things to note in interpreting the results:


  1. The batteries used for the small wand test fan were not changed to day. The test protocol needs to be updated to include putting fully-charged batteries in the fan. The difference when the fan is fully-charged versus not fully-charged makes a big difference with some solutions. So, the Gazillion Small Wand test numbers are somewhat lower than usual. (Gazillion tends to average around 20 bubbles per dip.
  1. The Cricket Hill solution that was used was just over a week old. It did about the same as expected with the Small Wand Test but did very poorly on the size potential compared to what would be expected. I believe that this is an indication that Crickey Hill solution degrades fairly quickly once mixed (which others have noted). No conclusions should be drawn from this performance


0607P

Stats
Size Potential: 7.3
Small Wand: 18.2
Longevity: 86.6
Easy to complete bubble with 4 inch wire hoop
0614test 0607P
0607P dilute

0607 diluted 2:1 with water

Stats
Size Potential: 4.8
Small Wand: 4.2
Longevity: 60.3
0614test 0607Pdiluted
0607U
Stats
Size Potential: 6.5
Small Wand: 6.8
Longevity: 108
0614test 0607u
0607U dilute
0607U diluted 2:1 with tap water
Stats
Size Potential: 5.4
Small Wand: 2.2
Longevity: 66.7
0614test 0607u diluted
0610NCD
4 to 1 water to det.
Stats
Size Potential: 4.5
Small Wand: 1.2
Longevity: 12.2
0614test 0610ncd
0610P
6 to 1 water to det.
Stats
Size Potential: 4.2
Small Wand: 2
Longevity: 8.2
0614test 0610p
0610U
6 to 1 water to det.
Stats
Size Potential: 3.4
Small Wand: 1.8
Longevity: 8.6
0614test 0610u
Cricket Hill
1 week old
Stats
Size Potential: 3.1
Small Wand: 9
Longevity: 38.2
0614test Cricket
Gazillion
Stats
Size Potential: 3.4
Small Wand: 14.4
Longevity: 114
0614test Gaz


See other articles about experiments and testing.

Advertisement