Some questions about various results and combos

[curiouscat]

Oooooook. So for those who use the putatives WITHOUT adding the DT...you are getting around 2 hours out of them? Did I see that? LOL. Do you think if used in COMBO with a blend, the DT that is already in the blends will help sustain the putative (assuming they have none)?

[Isis]

I put on p74on around 130pm yesterday and noticed I was still under the influence of it at 6pm. Though effects were lessened

[curiouscat]

Awesome! Thanks!

[Ildergreier]

Oooooook. So for those who use the putatives WITHOUT adding the DT...you are getting around 2 hours out of them? Did I see that? LOL. Do you think if used in COMBO with a blend, the DT that is already in the blends will help sustain the putative (assuming they have none)?

I always get some hours from them too.

[XSteveO]

Who said putatives aren't single molecules?

XSR molecules XSP molecules and ingredients like A1, enone... are all single molecules.

I don't fragrance, diffusion tech, or add anything other than the molecule itself and diluent into these as it would alter proper testing and possibly results. If you buy molecule XSP96 you get XSP96 with SD-Alcohol 40B and/or DPG with nothing else. The last thing anyone needs is me, or anyone else for that matter, adding stuff to a molecule.

There are times when I do a test combining a couple molecules but those got an XS... # to indicate they are not single molecules.

The only reason Putative Alternatives exist and are not simply listed as XSR Molecules is because of AD. Lots of people, to this day, had favorites and asked which XSR molecule would provide similar results or were the putative they liked. I cannot with absolute certainty claim anything as a definite, especially when dealing with claims from AD, so I chose to use the carefully selected word "alternative". I also do not want to skew any research by claiming XSR999 is actually XSP999. To many people, including myself, drank that cool-aid for way to long.

While I'm pretty certain, after extensive testing" of which ones are which, who would I be if I made the claim that I was 100% certain...I'm not. A lot of times what I found was putatives repeating themselves but either with different starting points (one putative might start at 12.5 whereas another of the exact same might have a starting point of 50mcg but listed as 12.5) or different labs doing the synthesizing. Jasmin herself said that P88 was a less pure synthesis of P93 and from our personal analysis it was clear why and actually part of the cypher that led to multiple other putative discoveries. Again though, these are simply my opinions of what is what so take it with a grain of salt. My word should absolutely not be your final authority. That my friends should solely rest in your hands.

What I can tell you is that every single molecule all starts with the exact same dosage. Regardless of what mg content we can obtain, 12.5mcg per spray is 12.5mcg per spray. To elaborate a bit more on starting points lets say we could only get 200mg of a substance as opposed to 1000mg (1gram). That gram is then converted into 100ml and with certain calculations you would get 12.5mcg per spray by adding it into further diluent. Well you wouldn't take that same 200mg and add that to 100ml and expect to get 12.5mcg from those drops, but from what I figure that's exactly what was done. Now some might claim that as unethical, but its actually not. By changing numbers and offering it as a separate putative it stands to reason that it would be done as a control function.

Personally I start it all at the same place and pass that along to you. There are numerous putative alternatives missing because we're not doing that. Some others I just am not comfortable saying I believe this to be whatever it might be. TAC is a perfect example. I have lots of ideas what it could be, but I'm just not convinced by it.

I can say with all honesty and every bit of conviction that I have read dozens of "so called" experts making claims as to XS formulas and while I couldn't post anything publicly there's a lot of these people who never bought any of the blends they claim to have deciphered. Same with the molecules. In some ways it pisses me off when these people make these claims because it only hurts our community especially since they are completely full of shit! They're so far off its ridiculous. Then you take many of our own community members and it totally restores my faith in what we are doing. Excuse my language but you're fucking brilliant!

Stop falling into the same old traps and cliches is the best advice I can give you. Just because one or two people say something it does not make it true. curiouscat I'm not calling you out here but that logic makes no sense. Diffusion Tech helps elevate a blends components to disperse it further into the atmosphere. On the other hand a fixative is designed to prevent something from dispersing before it should. Think of alcohol as diffusive and dpg as fixative. If you were to only use alcohol the molecule would simply evaporate, but add some dpg and you get a prolonged even dispersion.

Its almost the same silliness I read about all the time with A1. Spray that on the back of your neck so it doesn't effect you if you get adverse effects from it. Same person still expects that same A1 to create a 12 foot silage in a room but merely 4 inches from your nose it won't...HUH? Like I said there's a lot of people just regurgitating the same old shit, just on a different day. Be happy and discover what they do for you.

[NuTrix]

[Vicki Lee]

XSR molecules XSP molecules and ingredients like A1, enone... are all single molecules.

I don't fragrance, diffusion tech, or add anything other than the molecule itself and diluent into these as it would alter proper testing and possibly results. If you buy molecule XSP96 you get XSP96 with SD-Alcohol 40B and/or DPG with nothing else. The last thing anyone needs is me, or anyone else for that matter, adding stuff to a molecule.

There are times when I do a test combining a couple molecules but those got an XS... # to indicate they are not single molecules.

The only reason Putative Alternatives exist and are not simply listed as XSR Molecules is because of AD. Lots of people, to this day, had favorites and asked which XSR molecule would provide similar results or were the putative they liked. I cannot with absolute certainty claim anything as a definite, especially when dealing with claims from AD, so I chose to use the carefully selected word "alternative". I also do not want to skew any research by claiming XSR999 is actually XSP999. To many people, including myself, drank that cool-aid for way to long.

While I'm pretty certain, after extensive testing" of which ones are which, who would I be if I made the claim that I was 100% certain...I'm not. A lot of times what I found was putatives repeating themselves but either with different starting points (one putative might start at 12.5 whereas another of the exact same might have a starting point of 50mcg but listed as 12.5) or different labs doing the synthesizing. Jasmin herself said that P88 was a less pure synthesis of P93 and from our personal analysis it was clear why and actually part of the cypher that led to multiple other putative discoveries. Again though, these are simply my opinions of what is what so take it with a grain of salt. My word should absolutely not be your final authority. That my friends should solely rest in your hands.

What I can tell you is that every single molecule all starts with the exact same dosage. Regardless of what mg content we can obtain, 12.5mcg per spray is 12.5mcg per spray. To elaborate a bit more on starting points lets say we could only get 200mg of a substance as opposed to 1000mg (1gram). That gram is then converted into 100ml and with certain calculations you would get 12.5mcg per spray by adding it into further diluent. Well you wouldn't take that same 200mg and add that to 100ml and expect to get 12.5mcg from those drops, but from what I figure that's exactly what was done. Now some might claim that as unethical, but its actually not. By changing numbers and offering it as a separate putative it stands to reason that it would be done as a control function.

Personally I start it all at the same place and pass that along to you. There are numerous putative alternatives missing because we're not doing that. Some others I just am not comfortable saying I believe this to be whatever it might be. TAC is a perfect example. I have lots of ideas what it could be, but I'm just not convinced by it.

I can say with all honesty and every bit of conviction that I have read dozens of "so called" experts making claims as to XS formulas and while I couldn't post anything publicly there's a lot of these people who never bought any of the blends they claim to have deciphered. Same with the molecules. In some ways it pisses me off when these people make these claims because it only hurts our community especially since they are completely full of shit! They're so far off its ridiculous. Then you take many of our own community members and it totally restores my faith in what we are doing. Excuse my language but you're fucking brilliant!

Stop falling into the same old traps and cliches is the best advice I can give you. Just because one or two people say something it does not make it true. curiouscat I'm not calling you out here but that logic makes no sense. Diffusion Tech helps elevate a blends components to disperse it further into the atmosphere. On the other hand a fixative is designed to prevent something from dispersing before it should. Think of alcohol as diffusive and dpg as fixative. If you were to only use alcohol the molecule would simply evaporate, but add some dpg and you get a prolonged even dispersion.

Its almost the same silliness I read about all the time with A1. Spray that on the back of your neck so it doesn't effect you if you get adverse effects from it. Same person still expects that same A1 to create a 12 foot silage in a room but merely 4 inches from your nose it won't...HUH? Like I said there's a lot of people just regurgitating the same old shit, just on a different day. Be happy and discover what they do for you.

Thank you for your input XSteveO! As a newbie with only about 3 months of Phero usage this was very informative.

[Scottie2Hottie]

[

XSR molecules XSP molecules and ingredients like A1, enone... are all single molecules.

I don't fragrance, diffusion tech, or add anything other than the molecule itself and diluent into these as it would alter proper testing and possibly results. If you buy molecule XSP96 you get XSP96 with SD-Alcohol 40B and/or DPG with nothing else. The last thing anyone needs is me, or anyone else for that matter, adding stuff to a molecule.

There are times when I do a test combining a couple molecules but those got an XS... # to indicate they are not single molecules.

The only reason Putative Alternatives exist and are not simply listed as XSR Molecules is because of AD. Lots of people, to this day, had favorites and asked which XSR molecule would provide similar results or were the putative they liked. I cannot with absolute certainty claim anything as a definite, especially when dealing with claims from AD, so I chose to use the carefully selected word "alternative". I also do not want to skew any research by claiming XSR999 is actually XSP999. To many people, including myself, drank that cool-aid for way to long.

While I'm pretty certain, after extensive testing" of which ones are which, who would I be if I made the claim that I was 100% certain...I'm not. A lot of times what I found was putatives repeating themselves but either with different starting points (one putative might start at 12.5 whereas another of the exact same might have a starting point of 50mcg but listed as 12.5) or different labs doing the synthesizing. Jasmin herself said that P88 was a less pure synthesis of P93 and from our personal analysis it was clear why and actually part of the cypher that led to multiple other putative discoveries. Again though, these are simply my opinions of what is what so take it with a grain of salt. My word should absolutely not be your final authority. That my friends should solely rest in your hands.

What I can tell you is that every single molecule all starts with the exact same dosage. Regardless of what mg content we can obtain, 12.5mcg per spray is 12.5mcg per spray. To elaborate a bit more on starting points lets say we could only get 200mg of a substance as opposed to 1000mg (1gram). That gram is then converted into 100ml and with certain calculations you would get 12.5mcg per spray by adding it into further diluent. Well you wouldn't take that same 200mg and add that to 100ml and expect to get 12.5mcg from those drops, but from what I figure that's exactly what was done. Now some might claim that as unethical, but its actually not. By changing numbers and offering it as a separate putative it stands to reason that it would be done as a control function.

Personally I start it all at the same place and pass that along to you. There are numerous putative alternatives missing because we're not doing that. Some others I just am not comfortable saying I believe this to be whatever it might be. TAC is a perfect example. I have lots of ideas what it could be, but I'm just not convinced by it.

I can say with all honesty and every bit of conviction that I have read dozens of "so called" experts making claims as to XS formulas and while I couldn't post anything publicly there's a lot of these people who never bought any of the blends they claim to have deciphered. Same with the molecules. In some ways it pisses me off when these people make these claims because it only hurts our community especially since they are completely full of shit! They're so far off its ridiculous. Then you take many of our own community members and it totally restores my faith in what we are doing. Excuse my language but you're fucking brilliant!

Stop falling into the same old traps and cliches is the best advice I can give you. Just because one or two people say something it does not make it true. curiouscat I'm not calling you out here but that logic makes no sense. Diffusion Tech helps elevate a blends components to disperse it further into the atmosphere. On the other hand a fixative is designed to prevent something from dispersing before it should. Think of alcohol as diffusive and dpg as fixative. If you were to only use alcohol the molecule would simply evaporate, but add some dpg and you get a prolonged even dispersion.

Its almost the same silliness I read about all the time with A1. Spray that on the back of your neck so it doesn't effect you if you get adverse effects from it. Same person still expects that same A1 to create a 12 foot silage in a room but merely 4 inches from your nose it won't...HUH? Like I said there's a lot of people just regurgitating the same old shit, just on a different day. Be happy and discover what they do for you.

I've been saying this forever. Nice to see someone else say it.

[curiouscat]

XSteveO Thanks for the info! I actually just was trying to figure out the life of a putative (assuming it was without the DT) since there was some disagreement from others as to whether or not it was in the putatives previously in the thread. I appreciate the clarification about the difference in purpose between the DT and a fixative. When I said "assuming they have none"...I meant none as in = no DT...not none as in the abbreviated molecule. Not sure if that was confusing when I went back and re-read what I wrote. . I have been using pheromones for a good while now, but having only discovered XS recently, I keep finding new stuff...like the Diffusion Tech...and trying to figure out how that might benefit my experimentation with these newly discovered (by me) blends, etc.

[XSteveO]

I was just using you as a point of reference since you were the thread starter. I totally understood what you meant with the none as in none of that stuff in there and not there's enone in there. I only wanted to clarify the diffusion tech but I went on a bit of a rant. Its been a long couple of days

[Scottie2Hottie]

As much aa i might want to tell my doubters and haters Ha! I was rightt....Take that....it would be poor sportsmanship so I won't .

[curiouscat]

[Muestereate]

Thanks for explaining your nomenclature amongst other things.

[Isis]

Well, I'm glad that's cleared up.

Though I wasn't aware of a competition on who was right was going on. ???? But a discussion on whether putatives were single molecules or not

[Muestereate]

I think it was about 12 foot sileage.

[Scottie2Hottie]

Well, I'm glad that's cleared up.

Though I wasn't aware of a competition on who was right was going on. ???? But a discussion on whether putatives were single molecules or not

it's not a competition, I'm just clowning around. Unfortunately things like sarcasm don't always play well online. Sorry if anyone took it the wrong way.

[Green Eyes]

I thought it was funny. ????