or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Diapering › A New Wool that I Love
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A New Wool that I Love - Page 2

post #21 of 44
mara
In essence it does the same thing that a wool soaker would do, but might protect your wool soaker or cover a bit longer as far as being 'soiled' with urine.
It 'breathes,' but it is the same barrier system as wool and basically is a double whammy of the same effect . . . trying to get the diaper to absorb what it can without soiling the cover, but being breathable.
post #22 of 44
Thread Starter 
After using these for a few days, here is how I think that they work and how they work best. My goal was to see if I could use one of the wool liners to prevent the body of the fitted dipe from getting wet. It is possible if all these conditions are met:

1. The wool liner is placed under a soaker that is pretty substantial (for my heavy wetting son, that means a good sized soaker and 4-5 layers of hemp fleece).

2. The wool liner is slightly larger than the soaker, and the soaker snaps into the back. If the soaker snaps into the front, you can't get the wool liner all the way underneath it, and then moisture will will from the very top of the soaker onto the body of the diaper. I also didn't have good luck with a lay-in soaker-- it seems that (at least for my active baby) that the soaker can shift if not snapped in and compress against the body of the diaper and then moisture will wick onto the body of the diaper.

3. The diaper has to have a good, snug fit against baby's body, especially in front (I have a boy; this might be different for a girl). If the diaper not right up against baby's skin, then when baby pees it goes everywhere (not just right into the soaker) and the whole system is shot.

For those who are curious about the wetness factor-- have you experienced the phenomenon with hemp where it doesn't really feel damp, but you know it's really wet (as opposed to sopping wet when you remove the dipe)? What seems to happen when hemp works well (and is most absorbent) is that the fibers suck up more of the moisture rather than laying right on top of it). Although the fiber surface of the fabric can absorb, underneath the surface is the fiber core microstructure (which looks like millions of tiny spong-like tubes under a microscope). (see picks and more explanation from FuzDaddy here: http://www.fuzbaby.com/articles/art-absorb.htm )

My theory is the that wool liner forces the moisture into the fiber core of the soaker (hemp/cotton fleece in my experience), which means there is less moisture on the surface of the fabric. When I take off the fitted diaper that has had the wool liner underneath the soaker, it doesn't feel like I could wring out the urine from it (as it would if I hadn't used the liner). It is that dry-damp feeling that I think comes from the fabric absorbing into the core microstructure as opposed to the fabric surface.

make sense?

Karla
post #23 of 44
Oooh Karla - cloth diaper cyber geek . . . I LOVE IT!

Thanks for a most thoughtful explanation!
post #24 of 44
I was also looking at those wool liners and thinking they sounded cool....

So could you do the same thing with a piece of felted wool sweater? I have leftover wool sweater pieces from making a bum sweater...maybe I'll try one out tonight.
post #25 of 44
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by nancy926
I was also looking at those wool liners and thinking they sounded cool....

So could you do the same thing with a piece of felted wool sweater? I have leftover wool sweater pieces from making a bum sweater...maybe I'll try one out tonight.
Give it a try. The only caveat I would see is you might run into the same problems as with with recycled wool covers, which are hit-or-miss with respect to their water repellant abilities. Some wool sweaters may not retain much of the original lanolin because the machine processing wipes it out, and since the lanolin needs to regularly be replaced in wool (and how many of us with wool sweaters want to do that?) or the wool hairs dry up and get brittle (though this can only be seen at a microscopic level, you won't feel it on the surface of the wool), so if the sweater is real old the wool might have lost its water repelling ability. Also, some sweaters that are sold as all wool may actually be part nylon, which will wick the moisture straight out. But it's worth a try and I would lanolize the liners before you try using them. Cut them a bit larger than your soakers/doublers.

Let us know how it works!
Karla
post #26 of 44
Quote:
Originally posted by lifetapestry
Some wool sweaters may not retain much of the original lanolin because the machine processing wipes it out
If there's no lanolin in it (or very little) wouldn't you still get the great absorbancy of wool, though? So even if it doesn't repel the water back up into the soaker, it should still work as a super-absorbent layer, as Reese alluded to above. Right or wrong?
post #27 of 44
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by lkblair
If there's no lanolin in it (or very little) wouldn't you still get the great absorbancy of wool, though? So even if it doesn't repel the water back up into the soaker, it should still work as a super-absorbent layer, as Reese alluded to above. Right or wrong?
Maybe--though I'm not sure. My belief (with absolutely nothing but my intuition to back it up) is that stripping the wool of its natural lanolin (which machine processing tends to do) messes with the wool hairs/fibers such that they are not great absorbers either. Recycled soakers made from machine processed wool tend to leak pretty bad.

My wool soakers (hand knit, made from minimally processed wool) work so much better than even the best of my wool fabric covers (e.g. Fuz, RB, SP when I had them). And when I think about it, that kind of makes sense. Wool was designed to keep sheep dry and comfortable. The less you mess with it, the closer you are to its originally-intended purposes. Minimally process wool yarn, hand knit, is the closest approximation to what's actually on the sheep. I'm not sure whether wool fabric or machine-knit wool is closer, but I think they are both a distant second to the water repelling and water absorbing abilities of hand-knit soakers.

Karla
post #28 of 44
HUH, I'll have to lightly lanolize the "soakers" i've made and see how that goes. *now where have I put my lanolin...This has been an awsomely interesting thread, thanks all for all the imput.
post #29 of 44
Here's the link to Heather's article that I was referring to: The Diaper Drama: Dryness and Rashes
post #30 of 44
great reading!! I make mine very "trim" and to have just enough "soakyness" to keep the stream of urin from hitting my floor LOL. DS goes coverless at home so for my sanity I have to have to have "enough"but what others may deam not nearly enough I feel is plenty if not too much. My diapers MUST dry w/1 cycle in the dryer and I feel a thicker diaper doesn't get very clean or is a potential breading ground for mildew. I LOVE my sugar peas, because with the thin layers of fabric I feel they get clean and dry properly. I use no more than 7 layers of flannel, which borderlines on too much for me. I have knit diapers that only have a total of 4 layers of sherpa. I love the wool for a slim diaper that helps keep the potty stream from hitting my furniture or floor. i do use extra for outings and bedtime, but still change up to 14 diapers in a 24 hour time. i think because i am so diligent my 13.5 month baby told me "didi"(diaper)tonight and THEN pooped, then went to the dresser where I have his changing pad. I was so surprised and impressed. My 2 sposie babies never even cared if they had a soiled diaper (well dd did but she "got over it" around 3 months). I feel my life revolves around changing diapers, but that's why I have a veriaty (sp) of colors and such to keep my interest. I love my home made super trim imo well shaped diapers so much I'm considering a possible wahming, but I don't really have a lot of time on my hands so not really being proactive on that line of thought. I do have a friend that is persuing it more and is in the same line of thought as I about the trim and only needing enough to keep the stream from hitting the floor, but no more than "1pee worth" to hold". Just me thinking aloud...
post #31 of 44
i wondered how those worked.
Thanks i just bought 2 to try myself.

post #32 of 44
Quote:
Originally posted by Mizelenius
Here's the link to Heather's article that I was referring to: The Diaper Drama: Dryness and Rashes
good article; thanks for sharing the link. I am also not overly concerned with super absorbency during they day. Nighttime diapering is what has me befuddled. Since Ty sleeps through the night, I really need something that can absorb a lot! I had been using a pocket diaper stuffed with 2 hemp soakers and a doubler; that worked really well, but since he's started with this rash, I can't use that anymore. I think I've determined that he's got sensitivities in several areas - need more breathability than the PUL provides, need to avoid detergent buildup at all costs, and need to limit fleece. So, what to do to provide enough absorbency at night and keep him feeling dry? With these inserts, I keep coming back to the concern that the lanolized wool will force too much liquid back up to the soaker and keep his skin feeling too wet. Of course, I guess the only way to find out for sure is to try them. Maybe I should just do that instead of rambling on and on, huh? :
post #33 of 44
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by lkblair
With these inserts, I keep coming back to the concern that the lanolized wool will force too much liquid back up to the soaker and keep his skin feeling too wet. Of course, I guess the only way to find out for sure is to try them. Maybe I should just do that instead of rambling on and on, huh? :
From my experience, I don't believe this is what will happen. What I believe happens is that the wool forces the inner core of the soaker fibers to absorb the liquid, rather than just the surface of the soaker fibers. It is astonishing, the way that a soaker feels after you take it off babe when one of these wool liners is underneath. You *know* that it is very wet, but it is not sopping wet (that's surface fiber wetness, I believe), it almost feels dry to the touch. The moisture is deeper than just the surface, and that's why I believe that babe will feel dryer in these.

Karla
post #34 of 44
What the heck! For $6 I'll chance it, and ordered 2 to try out. I'll try anything once....
post #35 of 44
I got great customer service and fast shipping when I ordered two of these wool liners. No complaints here.

But they just didn't work for me?: Maybe I didn't use them right: I had a hemp fleece liner on the top, then the wool liner inside a flannel fitted. I have used the hemp fleece, fitted combo before and never had any problems but within half an hour to an hour the fitted was very damp.

Am I doing something wrong or is it because of the lanolin in the wool?

Anyone else try theirs yet?

Like I said though the customer service and craftsmanship of the product was great!

Tawnya
post #36 of 44
Is this the kind of thing you want to use only if most of your absorbent layers are in your doubler rather than sewn into the fitted? Because the wool wouldn't allow the urine to get to the internal soaker, right? So I'm thinking this would work well with something like LizsCloth or Sugarpeas where the primary source of absorption is the snap in doubler. But it wouldn't work with something like an SOS where most of your absorbency is internal.

What do those that have tried them think? (Yes, I'm still debating getting some)
post #37 of 44
Quote:
Originally posted by lkblair
Is this the kind of thing you want to use only if most of your absorbent layers are in your doubler rather than sewn into the fitted? Because the wool wouldn't allow the urine to get to the internal soaker, right?
This is what I'm thinking . . .I got mine today and tried it out. I used it like this: fleece topped hemp doubler, wool liner, then CPF. The wool liner made the hemp doubler work VERY hard. It was wet all over, not in just a spot or two. The thing is, this is the doubler that's closest to DD, so do I really want it this wet? Maybe it should go under the whole diaper, sort of like an extra layer for the cover? Hmm.
post #38 of 44
Quote:
Originally posted by Mizelenius
This is what I'm thinking . . .I got mine today and tried it out. I used it like this: fleece topped hemp doubler, wool liner, then CPF. The wool liner made the hemp doubler work VERY hard. It was wet all over, not in just a spot or two. The thing is, this is the doubler that's closest to DD, so do I really want it this wet? Maybe it should go under the whole diaper, sort of like an extra layer for the cover? Hmm.

That's what it did to mine, make the doubler really wet.

What type of cover are you thinking of using it in? That is an idea....maybe I'll try that once I wash the wool liner. I use bummis wraps on occasion.

Tawnya
post #39 of 44
Elena, did the cpf get wet?

I'm thinking these may be useful round the house in summer to avoid using a cover (too hot), but provide a bit of protection. Yeah, I think that may work with something like a sugar peas fitted, it would be nice and cool I imagine.
post #40 of 44
Quote:
What type of cover are you thinking of using it in?
As we speak I'm experimenting again . . .I have it under the diaper in a wool cover.

Quote:
Elena, did the cpf get wet?
Hmm. . . .I don't think so!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Diapering
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Diapering › A New Wool that I Love