Look, I don’t expect Androtics to give away the farm. If they told too much, they’d risk folding, which wouldn’t be good for any of us: even if we knew everything they know, we’re much better off letting them handle the details of acquisition, distribution, data collection/analysis. Even the best organic chemists, biochemists or molecular biologists with labs full of grad students buy most of their complex molecules and standardized cocktails (specific-purpose reagent mixtures) rather than synthesizing or mixing them from scratch; In fact, they probably buy more: their reputation gets them the grants to afford it, and since senior researchers are judged by their lab’s overall results, they let suppliers as much of the grunt work as possible, so their students can focus on the experiments that can generate novel results.
Likewise, WE benefit from their hours and expertise. Reduplicating their efforts and connections wouldn’t be cost-effective. Do you want to spend your time on the lab bench, phone and computer exploring how to blow the minds of the gender of you choice? Is that even a question? “YOLO” as the young folks say (“Carpe Diem” in middle-aged academician-speak)
Still, looking back the sporadic tests of flushes and carriers in my 9 short mos of notes, I see some surprising failures which tell me I have a lot to learn. I’m hoping Androtics might drop some general hints, knowing (as they do) how much depends on the empirical chemistry/physiology of each specific pheromone.
Many of us have either the formal scientific background or hard core experience to pick up on any tips they may be willing to drop. Their competition may or may not learn something new (or care: it’s charlatan-rich territory), but if they do, I suspect the feedback (on our board and others) may benefit Androtics more than the others (as proven by the open source principle that drove the development of Internet and other software)
I was going to start another thread about this, but then I noticed this (unreplied) thread and figured this was a good example to get the conversation rolling.
I see a number of people using 191 proof vodka, or worse, the more typical 80 proof vodka as an ethanol substitute. I’d love to hear from those who have actual empirical evidence (data trumps theory) but I’m extremely dubious of the practice for several reasons.
chemically, water is not the ‘neutral’ substance it seems to be. It’s actually quite polar (charged) and has significant effects. We are generally quite careful not to introduce accidental water when we are working with other solvents in organic chemistry because it can change everything, both as a solvent and reactant.
Ignoring the tiny hydrogens (as we often do when discussing organic chemistry in broad strokes), ethanol is two [relatively larger] nonpolar carbons with a polar oxygen on the end. This is a much bigger molecule than water, with a polar end (which is attracted to charged atoms) and a nonpolar end (which is pushed toward nonpolar carbons and covalent hydrogens by exclusion)
in general terms, most steroids are flat plate-like molecules with tiny hydrogens sticking up above and below, and a charged moiety at one or both end, and sometimes around the edge. What’s a charged moiety? Carbon and hydrogen tend to share electrons fairly equally, but most other atoms have a different affinity for electrons, and don’t share equally with carbon, so if you put a nitrogen or oxygen (or a group containing them) in/on a carbon structure, the unequal electron distribution causes an unequal charge distribution which attracts polar entities. (Hydrogen only has one proton to attract its electron, so that electron is easily pulled to one side by a charge [induced dipole] or even removed entirely [ionized]. I don’t want tp go into all that, but I felty obligated to mention some of hydrogens many effects, because we’ll mostly be ignoring hydrogen in this broad-strokes discussion)
Ethanol’s polar end is attracted to charged moieties and can even induce a small attractive charge on otherwise uncharged hydrogens. Meanwhile its nonpolar end is happy laying against the nonpolar parts of a steroid. Water is basically a single charged oxygen vs ethanols two neutral carbons and one charged oxygen, so water is much smaller than ethanol and more strongly attracted to charged moieties. It can shove ethanol out of the way over time or at least partly shield a steroid’s charges
Ethanol itself is strongly attracted to water, so strongly that it forms a so-called “azeotrope” or chemical mixture that cannot be distilled apart. If you distill a mixture of water and ethanol, the ethanol is MUCH more volatile (as you know) but due to the azeotropic effect forces the ethanol to bring almost 5% water along with it, though you may have been taught in school that distillation creates a pure separation. That’s why the strongest vodka is 191 proof: that’s ~95.5% ethanol + ~4.5% water. To generate pure ethanol for lab use, you have to pass it through a “desiccant” (a chemical with an even higher affinity for water than ethanol has). Some dessicants, like Calcium chloride, crave water so much that they will suck water out of the air until they dissolve themselves into a puddle. If you’ve ever used calcium chloride as, say, a driveway de-icer, you know that you have to keep it tightly sealed.
water, being small/polar tends to form shell-like clusters around charged entities (spheres of hydration) that block less polar molecules from approaching
So (assuming the Gods of Chemistry haven’t already struck me dead for my criminal simplifications) there’s good reason to expect 95% ethanol+water probably won’t act as much like pure ethanol as one might think at first, and 40% ethanol (80 proof vodka) may act more like the 60% water it truly is. When you add other solvents like DPG, the net effect is likely to be even more different.
For example: remember what I said about the nonpolar end of ethanol being pushed against the nonpolar part of the steroid “by exclusion”? Here’s what that means: we all know oil and water don’t mix. In fact, most oils are what we call “hydrophobic” (water fearing) – in reality nonpolar oils are completely indifferent to water, but water has relatively positive and negative ends that love to love to nestle up against each other so much that they push the oils out of the way, like suitors clustering around the belle of the ball. Now remember that ethanol AND steroids tend to be much less polar than water. If you try to dissolve many steroids in water (or 60% water = 80 proof vodka), they may clump together or even end up pressed against the nonpolar polyethylene walls of a To-Go sprayer. Scary, huh? In your body, the concentration of steroids dissolved in water [free steroids] is miniscule. Generally most of the steroids would rather stick to a passing protein or lipid.
That’s only scratching the surface. Water also tends to catalyze reactions by pulling electrons out of their usual position (hydrolysis) leading to their breakdown – and not necessarily the same breakdown that happens in less water-rich environments.
I may be over simplifying. steroids like enone and testosterone aren’t as nonpolar as moltor or salad oil. They have moieties, like double bonds and oxygens at both ends, that do create some charge, but that’s relatively small compared to their typically 19-20 carbons sharing electrons fairly evenly with other carbons or hydrogens.
Thoughts?
Experiences?
Corrections? (I’m a big boy. I’d rather be corrected than wrong)
You are basically on the right track here. For consistency, using SmartMones perfumer’s alcohol unscented has worked best for me. As with virtually everything I write, there is a reason for this. I will explain more in future, time permitting.
Yes, I test quite a few mixes via layering of skin surfaces (many). I’ve used different solvents. However, it’s when you take orbital theory/physics into acct that you will sometimes bottle that mix and it just goes completely out there. So, as you state, when two molecules are distant from each other, electrical/electrostatic interaction is impossible. Which means variable interactions from near zero (1 foot apart on skin) to highly probable (polar dipoles in solution).
Does the manner or place of layering matter? By physics/atomic charge, it should. Do molecule/solvent dipoles matter. Yes, generally. So, hopefully I have walked a line that will allow someone who wants to to test this. Any decent library has chem books. This stuff isn’t too complicated. But I feel obliged not to render technical help to other companies, who, TBH, aren’t doing sh’t for me but to line their own pockets. Quid pro quo. They send me samples, I will test. They want mix consultations, they will pay. Up front. COD.
In our neverending quest for perfection, we’ve changed the base alcohol used in our spray products to an all organic, ultra premium distillation for 2007.*
Another reminder that this place often does not do things like the other guys. If they can’t make it perfect, they probably won’t. Of course, industrial distillates would be cheaper. Few people would notice. But they choose the costlier route.
Molecule purity really becomes a factor on special occasions. When you get to the atomic level. The affinity of the molecule to bind to receptors. A function of electrical charge. Attraction/repulsion. The ability of the (anhydrous) molecule to form a soluble complex at the receptor.
Don’t use water. Use the highest PA from the best source. Closest to 200 proof lab distallation/pure analyte you can get. Since there is always some commercial competitor that like to “borrow” every damned idea, putative and trademark that isn’t nailed down, I can’t be as open as I would like.
Some other website says they know what P96 is. Really, by what commercial espionage? I’ve tested it 6 mos. The results are > 90% consistent for me. The results equal a medical research compound, the product of decades of research by Big Pharma. Lots of money. Nothing else does what that class of molecule does. It doesn’t look at all like these:
I regret the trend in pheromones is toward serecy. “Join the club and test in the secret forum. Don’t learn how to make your own things. Buy from me. I am the cult master.” Some websites out there look like pheromone cults. Right down to using SmartMones trademarks without permission! Anyway, I will try to give you some ideas to test, and your own brains will take you to your own conclusions. Just some things I won’t talk about, to protect the innocent from the guilty in the wicked world of pheromone commerce.
Take whatever you have and try plain 80-proof vodka vs. PA. You should be able to make your own observations empircally. You should just see it without me saying what you see.
Post Script: If you work at it, you can make your own stealth-type diffusion or “pack” lots of mones into .5 mL. It gets $$$ due to lots of mones. To go full tilt takes a formulary lab and concentrates. But, counterintuitively, you get less scent, incredible effects, good longevity and improved diffusion. Scent goes down but effects go up. It just costs mega bucks to use that much mones.
Honestly, though, Vanadium, you have no idea how many times I’ve nearly quit this board over some post with 5K rep points who doesn’t know what a damned polar molecule is. And doesn’t want to learn. So, you get credit for being accurate here. Look at this. You should be able to see straight away the error in the article. But we have “professional” pheromone vendors that can’t do high school chem nomenclature. Too many ego-driven cult heros and too few men and women of science.
OK. Skills test. Don’t reply Vanadium. Let’s wait until next week. Someone post the basic error they see in the Wiki article. Note that in 2012, one of the top pheromone vendors missed it. For the sake of his own ego, I won’t embarass him.
I have a question: is DPG “diphosphoglycerate”? (I put it in quotes because it’s technically bis-phosphoglycerate, as many a professor has drilled into my head) If so, is it 1,2-BPG or 2,3-BPG? I have a cute layman’s analogy for some ways that diffusion could be altered, but I don’t want to mislead.
I have no idea if my analogy would actually work, not do I actually care. It’s just an analogy to illustrate some general mechanisms for those, like me, who were initially mystified to the point of borderline skepticism by some of the diffusion claims I’d read. Mixtures of molecules can sometimes behave in surprising ways
Yes, I suppose it’s more proper to say “-glyceric acid”, but I’ve always discussed it in aqueous solution under physiologic conditions, so I say “-glycerate” out of habit. It ‘feels right’)