Some help mixing Pheronomes Products having SECRET ingredients?

[Shenandoah]

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.]

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]

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.

[Rbt]

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]

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]

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" 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 ?

A proprietary blend of UI's - for products we know nothing about!

[Shenandoah]

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]

i think i have more fun

just experimenting and seeing what happens. it just makes every dya its own adventure

[bjf]

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]

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.