A1 in New Dial Bodywash

[belgareth]

I doubt they use the same

suppliers. There's a huge difference between the other place and a huge conglomerate like dial. Its altogether

possible that the makers of dial are making it themselves or have commissioned a laboratory to make it specifically

for them.

As for the stickiness, how hard would that be to modify and why would they bother if they couldn't

show that it worked to some degree?

[tribal]

If scent molecules and

pheromones have different molecular structures then it would mean pheromone products are scented to mask odour and

not to diffuse pheromones as mentioned on the other site.

Androstenone is not "stickier" it's just that if you

don't scrub properly it's OD effects are more pronounced than Androstenol, Androsterone and Androstadienone. If

you look at the molecular formula you'll realise Androstenol is heavier than Androstenone. I wonder who started all

this misinformation about -none. (not referring to you Attractor)

[idesign]

If you've ever applied an

unscented pheromone product you know that it needs nothing to help diffuse the constituent molecules. Added scent

is just a built-in cover.

Considering the tenacity of molecules, keep in mind that pheromones are hormones, and

change as they react with your skin, sometimes even converting. As well, we're adding to what we already produce

naturally, and amplifying it exponentially.

[belgareth]

Speaking of nonsense, who

started the nonsense that scents were to difuse the pheromones? They only mask odor. Pheromones difuse well all be

themselves. The scent doesn't matter except it might encourage people to inhale them more if they like the scent.

[idesign]

Androstenone is not "stickier" it's just that if you don't scrub properly it's OD effects

are more pronounced than Androstenol, Androsterone and Androstadienone. If you look at the molecular formula you'll

realise Androstenol is heavier than Androstenone. I wonder who started all this misinformation about -none. (not

referring to you Attractor)

I forgot to add... its not a matter of being "more pronounced", its a matter

of being a very different molecule with very different effects. Molecular weight has nothing to do with it.



Common science accepts that scent, and by extension pheromones-since they're processed by the same olfactory

system, are received and processed by molecular shape. Another well researched theory contends that scent is

recognized by vibration. That theory allows for a much more complex and realistic allowance for the huge diversity

in our ability to smell, and react to smells, particularly with reference to synthetic pheromones.

Its amazing

enough to think of this when we smell flowers and essential oils from those flowers. Imagining the ramifications of

molecular vibration causing reactions due to pheromonal stimulus kind of boggles the mind.

All of this is theory,

like all of what we know about synthetic pheromones, but applying common sense to science you can have a lot of

fun, and get a better angle on what we're dealing with.

[tribal]

By Tisha23 "Another reason

neroli was chosen is because they know that people want to use there own scents sometimes. Neroli blends with just

about anything. Foody scents, Musky scents, florals. It dosnt alter the cover scent. Many perfumers use it, not as

part of the scent but because it is so diffusive and can create more sillage (vapor trial) for there perfume

formulas. Sillage is important, it carries the mones around the targets and gently creates that pull to you.

"

[belgareth]

By Tisha23

"Another reason neroli was chosen is because they know that people want to use there own scents sometimes. Neroli

blends with just about anything. Foody scents, Musky scents, florals. It dosnt alter the cover scent. Many perfumers

use it, not as part of the scent but because it is so diffusive and can create more sillage (vapor trial) for there

perfume formulas. Sillage is important, it carries the mones around the targets and gently creates that pull to

you. "

I see. In my personal opinion, I don't think she knows what she is talking about. Of

course, I do reserve the right to be wrong. However, mones create their own cloud which likely mixes with any other

scents but I do not believe that the scent does anything to carry the mones.

[Peregrine]

Mr.

(XXXXX)
Page 1

October 13, 2009

Dear Mr. (XXXXX):

Thank you for taking the time to contact

us regarding a cleansing product we manufacture.

Unfortunately, the percentages of ingredients is proprietary

information and not available for dissemination.

Thank you again for contacting us.

Consumer

Affairs


If you should need to contact us again regarding this matter please refer to the following

contact number:
XXXXX

PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL. THE MAILBOX IS USED FOR OUTBOUND EMAILS

ONLY.

I didn't think they'd release any extra information but it was worth a shot. I agree w/ you Bel, a

distribution of this magnitude would have to be from another lab, maybe their own. Of course putting

.000000000001ncg of A1 in the soap could justify their claims of being "pheromone infused". Only testing will

tell.

[Rbt]

I gave the product a shot during my

shower this morning. About the only immediate reaction is that I don't like the "slimey" feel that many body

washes, including this one, seem to leave behind. I guess it's done on the basis that it makes it feel like you

have softer skin, but to me it was uncomfortable and I rinsed a lot longer than usual to try to minimize the feel.



Scent-wise it was okay, pretty much faded down as expected to near nothing by afternoon.

As for pheromone

effects? Who knows... I'd have to test it for a lot longer and in more diverse situations, along with a "control"

product (non-pheromone enhanced).

So far, as far as I'm concerned, it's just a basic body wash product. Only

time will tell. If it tells at all.

[belgareth]

I

didn't think they'd release any extra information but it was worth a shot. I agree w/ you Bel, a distribution of

this magnitude would have to be from another lab, maybe their own. Of course putting .000000000001ncg of A1 in the

soap could justify their claims of being "pheromone infused". Only testing will tell.

I agree as

well. One thing I will note is the ingredients are listed from largest to smallest. So, there is more A1 than

preservatives but less than the salt content. At least that gives us some information. Though the amount of

stabilizers and preservatives is not a lot, the pheromone content should be enough to be active. I'm not in any way

a chemist but have worked with some organic compounds that required perservative and have something of a feel for

it.

I'd agree about the bond too but am too weak in chemistry to really be certain if it would happen or not.

[Peregrine]

I

see. In my personal opinion, I don't think she knows what she is talking about. Of course, I do reserve the right

to be wrong. However, mones create their own cloud which likely mixes with any other scents but I do not believe

that the scent does anything to carry the mones.

To me, in order for the scent to "carry" the

pheromones, the molecules would have to form a bond. I can't speak on the molecular stability of synthetic

pheromones. A study conducted by the EPA called "Polar Organic Compounds In Fragrances Of Consumers" claims the

tested fragrances contained ninety percent of the chemicals listed in the EPA's hazardous waste list. That's a lot

of molecules that could possibly carry or even break down pheromones. Keep in mind I'm not a chemist.

[tribal]

I forgot to

add... its not a matter of being "more pronounced", its a matter of being a very different molecule with very

different effects. Molecular weight has nothing to do with it.

Common science accepts that scent, and by

extension pheromones-since they're processed by the same olfactory system, are received and processed by molecular

shape. Another well researched theory contends that scent is recognized by vibration. That theory allows for a

much more complex and realistic allowance for the huge diversity in our ability to smell, and react to smells,

particularly with reference to synthetic pheromones.

Its amazing enough to think of this when we smell

flowers and essential oils from those flowers. Imagining the ramifications of molecular vibration causing reactions

due to pheromonal stimulus kind of boggles the mind.

All of this is theory, like all of what we know about

synthetic pheromones, but applying common sense to science you can have a lot of fun, and get a better angle on

what we're dealing with.

So what's your take on -none?