Anyone tried a 5 phero mix. Results here.

[DrSmellThis]

XVS, In more than one previous post, I stated why Fibonacci ratios for these particular substances are not at all arbitrary -- quite the opposite. They do correspond roughly with natural ratios in/on the human body. Where were you?

I came to this belief after corresponding with Stone Labs about this, before I ever talked about Fibonacci ratios in the forum.

[DrSmellThis]

Very articulate, FTR.
[img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[xvs]

It\'s arbitrary in that there\'s no reason to think it has any relationship to actual values.

For example, if I knew that to make a cake, one needed flour, sugar, butter and yeast, would it make sense to decide to use a ratio of 1:1:2:3 (the start of the Fibonacci series) as follows:

1 cup of flour
1 cup of sugar
2 cups of butter
3 cups of yeast

I don\'t think so. But that\'s precisely what\'s being done with this series... without knowledge of the proper ratios, picking arbitrary substances to assign to a ratio is just that: arbitrary. The ratio may or may not be applicable in any particular circumstance, and again the items picked to appear in different places in the ratio may or may not be applicable even if the ratio is correct.

Now maybe the Fibonacci series could work for baking a cake (though if it did, I think that would be a coincidence more than anything) if you picked the right part of the series and assigned the right substances. For example:

1:2:3:5

1 tablespoon of yeast
2 tablespoons of butter
3 tablespoons of sugar
5 tablespoons of flour

That might produce some kind of cake... but what kind? Would it be the best cake for any particular purpose? It actually still sounds like a rather yeasty sweet bread, and the fact that it would work at all is only because we knew in advance that yeast should be the smallest quantity, etc.

I think this Fibonacci mixing, numerologically appealing as it may be, isn\'t really a reasonable way to come up with a formula that is likely to work. It reminds me more of alchemy than science, and while alchemy is romantic, it never did find the Philosophers\' Stone.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Bravo, xvs, I think that was very well done. I think yours is an entirely valid approach, or at least I don\'t see anything wrong with your reasoning. You hit the crux of it though, speaking of alchemy and romance. It stands to reason that if nature loves the fibonacci series (and she must, because she creates so many things according to that plan that it must be a favorite) then use of that series may also yield a creation favorable to nature - in the abstract - which may then be applied to enhance human scent or attractiveness, in a sort of spirit of oneness way. It\'s an intuitive approach that aims toward an aesthetic. It\'s just a different value system. Which apparently is effective; it seems widely employed with good success.

[DrSmellThis]

Again, all points I\'ve addressed before.

The sequence I proposed is the sequence for men: none to nol to rone, and is based on what is known so far biologically, ratios and all. I moved the A1 down because it had to be done, \"medically,\" despite being the most biologically prominent, and I wanted to keep the aesthetic appeal while modulating the -none effects. I am working within a general structure provided by nature, not \"numerology.\" I did not invent this.
The standardized Stone Lab formulas are such that you are quite possibly not mixing apples and oranges (or flour and yeast), as you seem to imply.

As a psychologist/amateur perfumer, or scientist/artist, I have sought an approach with both scientific and aesthetic elements. I believe a combined approach is superior to a purely biological approach. For example, the formula for EW could perhaps have turned out lot better (and no doubt will, when Stone has time to refine the test version) had the aesthetics of a woman\'s sexual smell been considered in addition to the pheroscience, which is still at relative Kindergarten level.

I am thus far reasonably satisfied that this approach is one way of helping the aesthetics turn out better than \"random\" or \"arbitrary\" approaches. I\'m sure I will experiment with other aesthetic approaches (e.g., based on other natural ratios such as 5/4, which is also in the pherobiology ballpark.). I am open to any aesthetic contributions you might end up making, even though you seem more interested in science than aesthetics.

But even with a strictly scientific approach, a good scientist carries the burden of proposing something that works better, not just criticizing. Whether or not my formula represents a decent first shot at a mixing principle depends on what the actual natural ratios are (the empirical data), and how they\'re calculated.

What are they, xvs? How do you calculate them?

In scientific terms, the question of ratios is an empirical question, and requires an empirical answer. Dissertations about cakes do not pass muster in this regard.

I have started with what is known and moved on from there, rather than stay in some self-made \"scientific prison\", afraid to venture beyond the edges. The tail will never wag the dog, and science will never successfully recreate Man in its own image.

[upsidedown]

DrSmellThis,

Can you explain in more detail your comment \"I moved the A1 down because it had to be done, \"medically,\"?

If it was addressed in a previous post, you can just give me the thread name and I\'ll find it. However, I think I\'ve read most posts on here in the past 3 months, and I don\'t recall seeing any rationale on this addressed before.

Thanks.

[xvs]

I can\'t find the reference, but here are the proportions that were published as having been measured in apocrine sweat:

Androstenone................0.8
Androstadienone............5
Androstenol...................1

I\'m not sure about the age etc. of the males whose sweat was analyzed, but this at least is a starting point.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I think Dr. Smell This meant that so much A-1 would cause him to be depressed. Well, in the Realm patents, I once read that the total amount of androgens on the human body was about 700 ng. That\'s less than 1 mug or 0.001 mg. Remember, this is TOTAL androgens (A-1, -none, -nol, etc.). If you want to start from this figure, your $80 supply of A-1 will last >50 years. Also, I don\'t think these androgens turn over every day. I still wonder how much pheros build up on the body if you apply 0.02 mg every day.

[CptKipling]

Yes but we want to produce an ultra dominant male sig., which would have higher -none anyway.

A better way would be to find out the raitos of a good sig., not the average male.

[upsidedown]

I hear a lot of people talking about too much A1 making them depressed, burt I have yet to experience this. It doesn\'t make me depressed at all......it doesn\'t seem to effect me in any way Perhaps I\'m not wearing enough to cause problems but I doubt it.

So how much A1 does it take for you guys to start experiencing depressing effects from it?

[DrSmellThis]

If I go any higher than the first formula I mentioned above, I start to get negative A1 effects. I\'m still OK if A1 is the third highest of 4. Usually I use the first formula and then som Edge + 1 drop A1 on my back. I\'m fine with that.

I\'m still looking for more information on ratios. Sometimes the internet sux.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

isn\'t anybody else wondering why xvs is putting yeast in his cake? Apparently not very many cooks here. [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

Seriously, though you probably could make a fairly serviceable cake with fibonacci ratios, assuming you only employed them for the major components of the cake. Just like the doctor is positing that it might be possible to make a serviceable mix using fibonacci for the major components. Your inclusion of yeast in your speculation makes an interesting point, but is as counterintuitive and un-necessary as suggesting that since we know that salt is a component of sweat that we should use lots of it in making our phero mixes. Yes, some leavening agent is required in a cake, but is not a *major* ingredient.

try this recipe:
http://cake.allrecipes.com/AZ/ButterCake.asp
it\'s the first one I found searching the web. it includes:
.5 cup butter
1 cup sugar
1.5 cups flour
hmm.... a fibonacci sequence of 1, 2, 3.... [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]
My guess is this is not an isolated example, and that many fibonacci combination of the three key ingridients will yield a completely pleasing cake....but I leave the chasing down of additional recipes as an exercise for the reader.....

By the way, I\'m not sure that the goal is to mimic the ratios found apocrine sweat. For me at least, the goal is to get the most effective mix. The sound of crickets chirping is a natural musical construct that can be pleasant and relaxing. Man made music, which is an artificial construct, can be just as pleasing, and in some cases, more enjoyable than it\'s natural counterparts. So what if the phero mix isn\'t in the same proportions as the stuff you can scoop out of your armpit? If it works, it works....which is an argument for both points of view, since you\'re both getting results with your separate approaches.

[Gerund]

WTF? lol

[DrSmellThis]

Bump, for cryin\' out loud. Aren\'t people aware that the strongest potential for pheros lies in mixing all of them? Why not go for the best? Isn\'t your sex life important enough? Chem sets last. Chem set + A1 + NPA + EW = maximum weaponry. Why not save your money up? Who cares about scents? Great scents can come from freakin\' anywhere. No offense to anyone, but do people really think the scents are that outstanding? SOE is good, but there are many great musk colognes. Why not concentrate on the pheros? That is the unique offering of this site. The more we support raw pheros, the more they will introduce! Does anyone think our chances to get laid will improve that much by putting the same old -none in a strap, versus an old sock, powder, a hat, a diffuser, or a new pineapple/banana joy jelly? -- by mixing two -none colognes together and naming it after myself? SOE+Rogue+PPA+SPMO = BiteThis1. By worrying about which -none flavor to buy? Whatever. Dudes, PPA is -none in suntan lotion! Rogue Male is -none in a whatever cologne. I understand convenience for newbies, but we need to concentrate on taking it to a new level! -- not on combining the same 2-3 ideas over and over. Primal Instinct with ylang-ylang? Give me a break. It\'s -dirty -none with a girly scent added. It\'s for premature ejaculators. I\'m sure it works, but not for any reason other than it contains a -- suprise -- pheromone! It\'s the same chemical as in any other -none formula. Hello? Should I put it on my arm, my finger, or my eyelashes? Should I spray it over my nuts or under my nuts? Maybe I should masturbate with it, right here in front of the other premature ejaculators in the forum. If I combine 6 products with the exact same pheros, is it better than 5? Let\'s debate for a week or two. Where\'s my freakin\' Pabstie? Buuurp.

[EXIT63]

I believe you\'re right Doc. But I have no clue where to begin. The only thing I know how to mix Ketel 1 and OJ. (with a splash of seltzer).
Dilution, ha PLEASE. Jist get me some isopropyl, some everclear, and some veggie oil, and I\'ll be fine. For a flambe perhaps.

I don\'t even know what a friggin BASE NOTE is.

I\'ll just mix my IUD with a little pitchuulee and throw in 1/400th of one drop of essence of warthog and I\'ll have the MAGIC BULLET.

Perhaps you should compose the definitive chem-set mixing guide complete with proper instructions for every aspect of making your own combinations. Don\'t leave anything out. I for one and I\'m sure many others on the forum would be forever in your debt.

[EXIT63]

And while you\'re at it. Don\'t forget the appendix. Make sure its chock full of resources on where to find all that aged hippie, new age mumbo jumbo.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Damn, Doc. I think you went on a rant. Feel better? I know I do...

[EXIT63]

And the glossary. Don\'t forget the glossary. I need clear and concise definitions for everything.

[EXIT63]

And I want it on my desk by Monday morning.


Dammit Red, you\'ve interrupted my flow.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Leave Dr. Smell alone. He\'s been answering the same questions now for so long his head\'s about to explode, he can\'t help it.

(Not that I understand it any better than you do, Exit, no matter how many times it\'s explained...)

[Whitehall]

Dr. Smell,

You are basically correct and insightful in your critique.

I do think many here are exhausting the creative limits of pheromone arts and that innovative approaches hold the most promise for increased effectiveness and new applications. There are some room for improvements but the scope will be marginal - existing pheromone technology is maturing. There is too much juvenile posturing and angst going on and it gets tiresome. I will say that some notions for advancement, such as the spiked baby powder on the balls idea, are worthy of at least MY time in development although Red deserves the credit for the basic idea.

I will further support some of the chatter on the board as legitimate consumer product evaluations. RM vs. PPA vs. NPA are important issues since they are not particularly cheap items. I do welcome thoughtful experiences of others to guide me in my purchasing decisions. From some viewpoints that will appear mundane, much like a car magazine testing a Volvo vs. a Saab. It\'s not a big deal unless we\'re talking one\'s own money.

You concept of enhancing the complete pheromone signature using 5 or 6 different compounds IS the cutting edge. I see this effort as having high potential. However, your insistence on using the Fibonacci numbers for ratios smacks of crank science and diminishes your credibility. I will grant that you have to start somewhere in the absence of hard science or understood art.

I\'m looking forward to your SOBER response.

With greatest respect,

Whitehall

[MaxiMog]

WOW, there aren\'t many posts I enjoyed reading as much as this one. You definitely have got a point there. I feel kinda stupid for buying too many products some time ago all at once, while I\'d better have bought some chem sets and other \'\"raw materials\".

[DrSmellThis]

You understand many things, FTR.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[DrSmellThis]

Thanks Whitehall. I respect your work in the forum quite a bit, so that\'s a nice compliment.

Of course, product comparison is just prudent consumerism.

And I have powder on my balls right now. Illustrative diagram:

OO
.....

By the way, I absolutely do not insist on using Fibonacci numbers. It is one approach. It happens to have been the most generally effective for me so far. Next month it may be different. And my understanding of our scientific and natural belief systems (from my own scientific and academic work), requires that most folks would find these ideas incredible at first. That could not diminish my enthusiasm, then. Although there is an element of intuition, I would be comfortable expressing these ideas SOBER to a panel of the greatest minds, scientists or critical thinkers out there. (I\'m not saying I\'m one of them, by the way. [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]). It\'s all logical, scientific, and compatible with what\'s known -- even though \"it\" itself is in part a fun guess! So what?

By the way, if you were to study sacred geometry (I prefer to call it \"natural geometry\" rather than lace it unnecessarily with religion) in depth, I think you\'d find it a quite legitimate, if not amazing field. Cross-disciplinary applications are literally everwhere. It\'s a mundane fact to me that the same geometric, numeric and mathematical patterns are everywhere in nature, and in every field of study.

[DrSmellThis]

I\'d like to see us start reducing some of the gross uncertainty regarding these mixes, while immediately gaining an appreciation of their value for us.

So are we ready to try a pilot study? I\'d love people\'s feedback to see if we can we go any further. (I could ask Bruce whether we could negotiate a modest SPMO or SOE gel special as an incentive for participants [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif[/img])

Method

Participants would make a batch of a reasonable 4 phero chem set mix, as follows: 13-none, 8-nol, 5-rone; 3A1. This would be diluted 2:1 in whatever you choose, to yield .5mg/ml total phero content. We then try it at four dabs, spread out wherever on the body. Over this we would apply whatever cover scents we felt smelled good on us.

Why this mix? This mainstream formula is likely safe and very effective. It is similar to our proven heroes, AE and P10, with a touch of A1. It\'s designed to get consistent sexual/romantic hits while minimizing target intimidation.

As a modification, If folks wanted to add 1 spray of edge or 1 dab of NPA on their bodies for icing on the cake, that\'d be cool, but participants would have to agree beforehand on a mix we could try for a little while. I always favor the icing on the cake approach, personally [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif[/img], but I don\'t care.

Baseline phase:

First we would wear 4 dabs of the mix without EW, daily for a week, to establish a baseline sense of effectiveness for ourselves. At four dabs I\'m hoping we\'d see few OD\'s, as none is just over half the total content (I could be wrong, of course).

EW Phase:

Then we would try different amounts of EW vs. no EW at all, as EW is the biggest unknown.

The proper role of A1 is unclear, too, but less unclear. Few men can wear it in large quantities without adverse psychological reactions, a finding that is supported by professional research. So it appears the role should be small for now, as in the experimental mix.

I am suggesting we use A1 as above, just to tone down the \"target side effects\" for -none (fear, etc). That is a concentration that has given me no A1 hangover, whereas with just two more drops I can notice it slightly. On the other hand, I have absolutely noticed less -none target side effects since including it. Women generally have been acting fairly comfy these days, despite the fact I typically wear \"near OD levels\" of none.

So, in this phase, participants would put 1 drop of EW in the chemset alcohol bottle with whatever dilutant (that\'s approximately a 700:1 dilution, I think.). Participants could add a modest amount of essential oil mix to the EW mix to tone it down. Then we would apply 1 drop to ourselves, along with the other mix. At one drop spread between the pubic hair and forearms, it\'s consciously detectible but not offensive.

Results

Partcipants would agree to enter results both in a results poll, and by verbally reporting their experiences.

[DrSmellThis]

Well what\'y\'a know, I\'m now a phero dude!

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Hey, we knew that. [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[Watcher]

It could be a very useful experiment. We all know that things work in mystical ways around here so why not.

[MadMaxx]

Dr, I basically like your idea, but I am a bit averse to buying the A1 and trying it. I am worried that I might be a prime candidate for being badly affected by it. This might not be a logical conclusion, but I am just guessing so because of how sensitive I am to -none. -None makes be totallly hostile, angry, grouchy, etc.
I have 4 of the necessary pheros, just not A1. I would try a 5 phero thing if someone hooked me up with a small sample of A1, but otherwise I don\'t know whether I can convince myself to fork out the money for it.
By the way, as far as EW goes, is it correct that you find 1 drop at 700:1 detectable? I can\'t imagine that. I use about 20 drops daily, with dilution of I don\'t know what, but supposedly much less than that. I put 3 large drops in 30ml of water. Somebody suggested that it might be about 300:1. Anyway, with that application rate it is definitely easily detectable right after putting it on, but after an hour or so, it is hard to say whether it is detectable or not. I use cover perfumes so it either blends really well with those fragrances or it isn\'t giving off much scent. Recently I have been putting several drops on my arm before sleeping, with nothing else. I can\'t detect anything when I wake up. Do you figure I have become \"immune\" to the smell? Can you imagine yourself not smelling anything if you applied as I have described?