View Full Version : Some help mixing Pheronomes Products having SECRET ingredients?
Shenandoah
04-27-2005, 08:10 PM
This would require some help from Bruce, and the manufacturers of pheromeones having
"Secret" ingredients would have to cooperate too. But some way of intelligently mixing these mones haivng secrets
would help everyone. I suggest this as a way of trying to predict the impact of mixing these pheromone products
having secret ingredients.
WAGG has 5 secret ingredients, Chikara has 7 secrets, A314 has 8 secrets, TE and NPA
are half secret, etc.
Now a way to name a secret ingredient (we don't have to know its chemical name) would be
to code it with the first letter of the product that it was first marketed in. So the secret ingredient for EE
becomes E, and its formula would then be .05 mg of None, and .05 mg of E (or E-mone) per ml.
If there are two
secret ingredients in EE, they become E-1, and E-2 (or E-1 mone, and E-2 mone), so EE would have .05 mg of None, and
hypothetically .x of E-1, and .(05-x) E-2 mg per ml. Thus NPA would then have .24 mg per ml of None, and
hypothetically .y mg of E-1, and .(24-y) mg of E-2 per ml.
Now suppose WAGG had four unique ingredients, and
used E-2 also. Then the portions of unique ingredients for WAGG could be given as .x mg of W-1, .y mg of W-2, .z mg
of W-3, .w mg of W-4 per ml, and the EE ingredient that is shared as .v mg of E-2.
Suppose Chikcara had four
ingredients that weren't previously used. It's formulation could hypothetically be given as .a mg of C-1, .b mg of
C-2, .c mg 0f C-3, and .d mg of C-4 with .e mg of E-1, .f mg of W-2, and .g mg of Nol, etc.
Such a naming scheme
could allow a little more intelligent mixing of Pheromones containg secret ingredients.
Also any A314 unique
mones could be N-1, N-2, etc where N stands for "new"(to avoid confusion w/ A-1) , and the 2ml vial naturally
becomes V, unless it has already been released in another product as a secret, or maybe it should be N-1, if it also
is in A314
I guess my background as a tech type is showing, but it could help us use these products more
wisely.
a.k.a.
04-28-2005, 06:04 AM
Wow! That looks complicated.
I just wear the product until I get a good sense of it’s effects and then experiment with pheromones that add
“missing" qualities.
Also, I’ve never gone wrong by simply adding more Nol.
CptKipling
04-28-2005, 07:59 AM
Generally you can just mix from
the feeling and reactions you get from each product.
Eventually you may guess which products have ingredients in
common.
One other problem is that we really
are shooting in the dark. Even if *we* give them names, unless we have some sort of standard "list" like they do on
food labels that are broken down by the amount of each ingredient, we really don't know if person A's ingredient
"X-1" ("Chemical X") is the same as person B's "X-1," if you catch my drift. There would need to be some agreement
by the manufacturers themselves to assign some sort of names or designations to these secret ingredients, and
unfortunatley I have a hunch it's not likely to happen, given "trade secrets" and all.
"Nothing is never
easy." (Capt. Dylan Hunt, Andromeda Ascendant)
metropolitan
04-28-2005, 09:43 AM
i would just be happy if
they listed the amont of -none as i OD way too easily on it so i try to avoid it or use it very cautiously.
as an
example pherone's M-11 which i occassionaly use has a "secret" formula but they're nice enough to point out that
it has one mg or -none in it. i wish i knew all the ingredients, but knowing the amount of -none was enough for me
to go ahead and make the purchase.
i'm curious about aa314 myself as i almost bought the original from the other
(bad) site, but would love to know how much -none it has before i purchase.
NaughtieGirl
04-28-2005, 01:19 PM
Wow! That
looks complicated.
I just wear the product until I get a good sense of it’s effects and then experiment with
pheromones that add “missing" qualities.
Also, I’ve never gone wrong by simply adding more Nol.I tried hard
to understand your post Shenandoah. One challenge I see with it, is that we don't know who first markets an unknown
ingredient.
I think it would be so much better if no-one spoke of "secret" :blink: ingredients. If we want this
science to ever be taken seriously, "secret" sounds too much like magic. Undisclosed ingredients sounds much better
to me.
UI = undisclosed ingredient
UQ = unknown amount
Hence aa314 would have roughly 80% -rone and ... (how
many again?) 7 UQ of UI's ? :think:
A proprietary blend of UI's - for products we know nothing about! :lol:
Shenandoah
04-28-2005, 05:41 PM
Points accepted. I did make
it too complicated. I plead it being late at night when I wrote it. I also made several mistakes in the examples,
that could have been avoided by simply observing what is known from the Pheromone Library.
Rbt has a valid
comment that manufacturers are not likely to be forthcoming.
Yet even slight differences in bio-chemical
arrangement make radical differences in effects. Right-handed and Left-handed dextrose are exactly the same
chemicals arranged as mirror images of each other. Both taste sweet, but one can not be assimilated by humans, and
therefore contributes no calories to one's body, even though they both have measurable calories in the lab.
Alpha-Nol, and Beta-Nol are both Nol, yet someone noted the difference as being possibly important, and now both can
be bought in the Chem Set. So if different manufacturer's chemicals have a discernable difference, maybe they
deserve a different designation.
Naughtie Girl is right, "secret" sounds like voodoo charlatans selling "snake
elixir" so lets accept Unspecified Ingredient, or UI. But getting past the unspecified quantity (UQ) is where we
need to go to bring some semblence of control, and eliminate possible bad choices, and OD's that need not happen,
but may go undetected for awhile. It would be nice to get to a state of knowledge where we go to our pheromone
cabinet, and select the mood we wish to enhance, and cultivate for our women on any given evening = easy listening
one night, classic jazz another, followed by hard rock, and Bolero the next.
Right now the Pheronomes having UI
are A314, Edge, NPA, WAGG, Chikara, Pheros, and the mystery vial. If we include Copulins as types of UI, which seems
reasonable, we add PCC, Perfect-10/w, PheroMax/w, and PI/w. The problem with Copulins is that there seems to be no
attempt to sort out how many there even are, let alone what types are being bottled. Maybe there is some benefit to
women (and those men experimenting w/ wearing women's products) if Bruce could simply start by asking how many
copulins are in each brand, it may be a move down the road toward bringing some science to the women's pheromones
that are being marketed.
Pheros is too complex (100+ ingredients) , and the quantities too small (even of known
pheromones) to merit disection, and quantification. There just isn't enough of anything in it to cause an OD when
mixed with known quantities of mones in other products. Just treat it as an unique entity unto itself. It is Great
by itself, or Great as a cover scent that has it's own kick when mixed with other mones. I like it.
Based on
the knowledge that can be garnered from the Pheromone Library I make these suggestions for designating the UI, until
more knowledge can be obtained. To keep things simple, no gel packs are being considered in this suggestion.
All
Edge products for men are
.05 mg None + .05 mg E (or Emone, if a single letter is bothersome)
All Edge products
for women are
.025 mg None + .075 mg Emone per ml
NPA/m = .24 mg None + .24 mg Emone per ml
NPA/w =
.12 mg None + .36 mg Emone per ml
Chikara = x mg None + y mg Nol (Alpha? Beta?) + z mg Rone + a mg (C-1) + b
mg (C-2) + c mg (C-3) + d mg (C-4) per ml
WAGG = a mg (W-1) + b mg (W-2) + c mg (W-3) + d mg (W-4) + e
mg (W-5) per ml
WAGG-N = .10 mg None + .8a mg (W-1) + .8b mg (W-2) + .8c mg (W-3) + .8d mg (W-4) + .8e mg (W-5)
per ml
A314 = a mg None + b mg Nol (Alpha/Beta) + c mg Rone + d mg Dienone + e mg (N-1) + f mg (N-2) + g mg
(N-3) + h mg (N-4) per ml
Mystery Vial = m mg of V per ml
If there is some overlap in ingredients
other than the "common" three, then we can try sorting out which set of letters and numbers to apply to a specific
UI at a latter time.
Bruce, can you help us?
jollysnowdevil
04-28-2005, 05:48 PM
i think i have more fun
just experimenting and seeing what happens. it just makes every dya its own adventure
Points accepted. I
did make it too complicated. I plead it being late at night when I wrote it. I also made several mistakes in the
examples, that could have been avoided by simply observing what is known from the Pheromone Library.
Rbt has
a valid comment that manufacturers are not likely to be forthcoming.
Yet even slight differences in
bio-chemical arrangement make radical differences in effects. Right-handed and Left-handed dextrose are exactly the
same chemicals arranged as mirror images of each other. Both taste sweet, but one can not be assimilated by humans,
and therefore contributes no calories to one's body, even though they both have measurable calories in the lab.
Alpha-Nol, and Beta-Nol are both Nol, yet someone noted the difference as being possibly important, and now both can
be bought in the Chem Set. So if different manufacturer's chemicals have a discernable difference, maybe they
deserve a different designation.
Naughtie Girl is right, "secret" sounds like voodoo charlatans selling
"snake elixir" so lets accept Unspecified Ingredient, or UI. But getting past the unspecified quantity (UQ) is where
we need to go to bring some semblence of control, and eliminate possible bad choices, and OD's that need not
happen, but may go undetected for awhile. It would be nice to get to a state of knowledge where we go to our
pheromone cabinet, and select the mood we wish to enhance, and cultivate for our women on any given evening = easy
listening one night, classic jazz another, followed by hard rock, and Bolero the next.
Right now the
Pheronomes having UI are A314, Edge, NPA, WAGG, Chikara, Pheros, and the mystery vial. If we include Copulins as
types of UI, which seems reasonable, we add PCC, Perfect-10/w, PheroMax/w, and PI/w. The problem with Copulins is
that there seems to be no attempt to sort out how many there even are, let alone what types are being bottled. Maybe
there is some benefit to women (and those men experimenting w/ wearing women's products) if Bruce could simply
start by asking how many copulins are in each brand, it may be a move down the road toward bringing some science to
the women's pheromones that are being marketed.
Pheros is too complex (100+ ingredients) , and the
quantities too small (even of known pheromones) to merit disection, and quantification. There just isn't enough of
anything in it to cause an OD when mixed with known quantities of mones in other products. Just treat it as an
unique entity unto itself. It is Great by itself, or Great as a cover scent that has it's own kick when mixed with
other mones. I like it.
Based on the knowledge that can be garnered from the Pheromone Library I make these
suggestions for designating the UI, until more knowledge can be obtained. To keep things simple, no gel packs are
being considered in this suggestion.
All Edge products for men are
.05 mg None + .05 mg E (or Emone, if a
single letter is bothersome)
All Edge products for women are
.025 mg None + .075 mg Emone per ml
NPA/m = .24 mg None + .24 mg Emone per ml
NPA/w = .12 mg None + .36 mg Emone per ml
Chikara = x
mg None + y mg Nol (Alpha? Beta?) + z mg Rone + a mg (C-1) + b mg (C-2) + c mg (C-3) + d mg (C-4) per
ml
WAGG = a mg (W-1) + b mg (W-2) + c mg (W-3) + d mg (W-4) + e mg (W-5) per ml
WAGG-N = .10 mg None +
.8a mg (W-1) + .8b mg (W-2) + .8c mg (W-3) + .8d mg (W-4) + .8e mg (W-5) per ml
A314 = a mg None + b mg Nol
(Alpha/Beta) + c mg Rone + d mg Dienone + e mg (N-1) + f mg (N-2) + g mg (N-3) + h mg (N-4) per ml
Mystery Vial = m mg of V per ml
If there is some overlap in ingredients other than the "common"
three, then we can try sorting out which set of letters and numbers to apply to a specific UI at a latter time.
Bruce, can you help us?
It'd be nice to figure out overlapping ingredients, although I
don't think the distributor of manufacter's products is going to start giving too many hints about that, let alone
have all that much to share.
LC's secret is probably unique, wagg and chikara might have beta rones and
nols in there. I don't really know how much this is all useful. I respect what you're trying to bring to the
forum, though. There's barely anyone who wants to study this stuff in a orderly, linear, logical way.
Shenandoah
04-28-2005, 07:23 PM
After posting I noted that
there are 15 Unspecified Ingredients. It is possible that there are 15 unique UI, but not terribly likely. Some are
probably overlaps that could be OD'd if products w/ UI get stacked wrongly.
There is another aspect to consider
that will greatly serve to complicate matters, at least for a while. Even if we knew the exact formulation of every
pheromone product available, there are going to be preferences of one over another when the products are virtually
identical. An example is that both Primal Instinct, and Rogue Male have .50 mg per ml of None, yet users have posted
getting different results from them. Perhaps the different manufacturer's Nones are different, perhaps the medium
is different enough to have different effects, perhaps there are scents deliberately added that enhance the effect
of one when compared to the other. Maybe one has more impurities than the other. Maybe there are just as many
impurities, but of a different type.
Another example, Edge Essentials comes unscented, yet some perfer the Heat
scent version, while others perfer the Arouser blend of oils.
The point being that even if we knew everything
there is to be known, there will be differing choices made as a function of the impact that different people get
from them.
Another example, I personally can, and do get tremendous mileage out of simply APC, which is the
lowest amount of None (.05 mg per ml - other than not having any None) available, and also the simplest formula
available, that is, one ingredient, w/ a nice cover fragrance.
Yes the SMO's also have one ingredient, lot's
of Nol (about .40 mg per ml), with a variety of eight different fragrances
Every product from LS that I've
tried, has gotten me noticeable changes in reactions from women. I'd like to be able to fine tune my mixing, before
going hunting. Selecting the appropriate tools to accomplish the task at hand.
Being able to categorize, and
characterize the UI, even without knowing the exact name of any of the UI would just help us choose more wisely.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.