Quote:When we are done we will know what molecule A does at X, Y, Z concentration, etc. We will not have a glossary of AD products and our guesses of what those are.

This is true the project is seperate from trying to figure out what molecules we have been using from AD............ But once we have a list of molecules and what they do it will be easy for a member to compare them to androtics and sort of figure out what molecules they have been using. Most of us still shop at androtics for our molecules so this just makes sense and its what people want to know. Now once those tests are conducted if there is somewhere else to easily get the molecules (I am not sure of Dianes plans yet) then it wont really make a difference. We can just buy them there and not have to worry the P's. Its just my opinion that if we want this project to be successful we cant totally ignore Androtics. Its what many members have experience with.

Tisha

(12-04-2009 5:58 AM)Tisha Wrote:  This is true the project is seperate from trying to figure out what molecules we have been using from AD............ But once we have a list of molecules and what they do it will be easy for a member to compare them to androtics and sort of figure out what molecules they have been using. Most of us still shop at androtics for our molecules so this just makes sense and its what people want to know. Now once those tests are conducted if there is somewhere else to easily get the molecules (I am not sure of Dianes plans yet) then it wont really make a difference. We can just buy them there and not have to worry the P's. Its just my opinion that if we want this project to be successful we cant totally ignore Androtics. Its what many members have experience with.

Tisha

I agree and it isn't possible, IMO, to keep from comparing the new molecules' effects with what we have experienced with AD's products. I find that already in myself with my own preliminary testing. And I can't imagine anyone who was experienced with using AD's putatives to do otherwise.

But I guess what I wanted to emphasize is that we have no objective basis for saying that we who are going to be testing can even guess which molecule is which AD putative, no matter how close the subjective match may be. This is especially true with the molecules almost all having two or three completely different effects based on dosage.

So when a forum member asks if we have identified "TAF" yet, for example, we can not say that we have. What we can do is point that member to a named pheromone as a possible replacement for "TAF" because it has shown itself to have effects similar or identical to that putative.

So much of the pheromone response is dependent on the individual, also, and we've already seen that not everyone responds to "TAF" the same way, so how could we ever be confident that we have identified it? We can't.

The only way we could confidently say we have identified the AD putatives is to run lab analyses for each one. And if you'd like to fork that money over to a lab, I'll support you in that and happily await the result with everyone else. But I don't think that is feasible.

Diane

Quote:So when a forum member asks if we have identified "TAF" yet, for example, we can not say that we have. What we can do is point that member to a named pheromone as a possible replacement for "TAF" because it has shown itself to have effects similar or identical to that putative.

Oh I totally agree. We will never be able to say we know exactly what a coded molecule is unless we send them out for testing (which is still a possibility). But your right once we test some molecules by chemical name if someone asks what TAF is we can say "well I dont know but I do know of a pheromone that acts very much like it" I think as we go along at first you will get more comparisons but as we learn more and more about the molecules that will begin to stop.

Tisha

It's too bad - At a previous summer job I had full access to a very expensive gas spectrometer... For most of the summer I was the only one using the equipment too

<p>I love synchronicity.  I posted yesterday about how I was seeing stares from people when I was wearing Diane's 'Down, Girl!' mix that were reminiscent of P75.  Today I read a thread on PheroTalk speculating that P75 is really androstanone.  I believe that 'Down, Girl!' contains androstanone so it is possible that is P75 (or if not, it is something similar).<br /><br />Has anyone else worked with P75 much? </p>

I have never tried P75 or read much about it, but I've heard the speculation that P75 and Androstanone are the same thing.

Down, Girl does contain Androstanone. This is one very sexy molecule with some surprising effects. It makes me smile, it is sexually attractive, it is calming in a strong, masculine way, and strangely, it makes me happy and contented.

Diane

<p>

(01-13-2010 10:11 AM)Diane999 Wrote:  I have never tried P75 or read much about it, but I've heard the speculation that P75 and Androstanone are the same thing. Down, Girl does contain Androstanone. This is one very sexy molecule with some surprising effects. It makes me smile, it is sexually attractive, it is calming in a strong, masculine way, and strangely, it makes me happy and contented. Diane

<br /><br />Hmmm...  I know when I wear P75 (and Down, Girl!) that I feel pretty happy and more outgoing than normal.  The androstanone might play a part in that for me.  It is very interesting to me how when I wear P75 people (especially women) just stare at me unless I engage them in conversation.  Then they are oh, so nice.  Polite but also very interested in what I have to say.  Seems to make me more interesting than I am.</p>

Sorry if I've been out of the loop Diane, but are we still planning on doing blind tests of molecules?

<p>

(01-13-2010 4:44 PM)Phya Wrote:  Sorry if I've been out of the loop Diane, but are we still planning on doing blind tests of molecules?

</p>
<p>... beats me... I'm out of the loop.</p>
<p>Diane</p>

<p>

(01-13-2010 4:44 PM)Phya Wrote:  <strong><em>Sorry if I've been out of the loop Diane, but are we still planning on doing blind tests of molecules?</em></strong>

</p>
<p>

Diane Wrote:<strong><em>... beats me... I'm out of the loop.</em></strong>

<br /><br />Hi Diane,<br /><br />No, you're not out of the loop, you're just impatient and jumping to conclusions. It's not very nice and I don't appreciate it. <br /><br />You made it clear that you were going to be too busy to devote time to the project during the holidays. Mark, Renny, Tisha and I were/are busy, too. So, we said we'd continue to pursue it afterwards. <br /><br />Yes, Mark got your PM about the project, and told you he would have to get back to you. That was because he needed to confer with Renny, Tisha and me first. He hasn't had the opportunity to do that yet. Not all of us are here 24/7.<br /><br />Now, if you'll be kind enough to give us a minute, we'll be in touch. <img class="smilie" src="images/smilies/smile.gif" border="0" alt=":)" /><br /><br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br /><br />Bella </p>