I’m completely new to the site and 'mones in general and was just wondering why some products like AMMO are only $60 even for the 2X version, while other products like IO or IJ are $120 for regular strength.
Have these mixes proven to be more effective or something, causing them to be priced higher?
Thanks!
Hello, Mark!
No, the pricing isn’t based on effectiveness. All of the consumer products were created to be as effective as possible. The pricing is based on the ingredients. Some products use more pheromone molecules than others, and some of those molecules can be quite rare and expensive. For example, there is a molecule that takes 3 years to produce just one batch. Don’t let the price be your guide when deciding what to buy. Decide what your goals are, and find things that will help you achieve it. Feel free to ask us questions, we’d love to help you narrow down the right products and combos!
OMG Really!!??!!?? PLEASE tell me. I have to know.
I believe that one is p96
hmm funny… The price doesn’t seem to reflect that as being the case. But still regardless 3 years is a LONG time per batch. I wonder what the bottleneck in that process is.
The concentration of different mones will affect the prices, too. The ingredients and concentrations are proprietarily guarded.
Three years to synthesize a molecule? Any literature on this?
Brian recently posted on it.
It may be taking the company Ad is using 3 years to make a batch but I’m thinking that chemistry does not work that way. Once you have the process mapped out automation could speed up and greatly increase the amount made.
I know I probably don’t understand this that well but I do know that most of the money spent on any molecule is in research and discovery. Producing it afterwards is not really a big deal in terms of money.
Like I said, I don’t know…I’d have to look into this. There are other places I’ll post that have some scientists there, I’ll ask them.
Go ahead and ask Brian or John about it.
long processes are not unheard of… I know at least in nuclear physics the process of enriching uranium it needs to be in the centrifuge for several months. I figure there are likely similar processes in organic chem that take this ammount of time.
Also the possibility could be just in harvesting raw materials. It could take 2.9 years to collect a significant quantity of raw material and only a few weeks to process it.
I will keep my opinion on this one private, but those chemically inclined should see the obvious truth.
If one knows where to buy the raw material from and also how to mix it and has the proper machine to dissolve the bulk molecule then the process becomes quick an simple measuring for dilution. Some take longer than others to acquire and others take longer to synthesize. But we are talking hours not days. Years?
Now, for some molecules you need a large upfront payment to purchase that amount, and it is often a non refundable payment if the process fails. If I need 10K to buy p96 and wait six weeks for the lab to get it to me, would I buy it? That begs the question of market viability and profit margins. How much is a company willing to pay for something? If the mark up was huge and it sold like hot cakes it would be in stock. If not, we wait for it to be viable again. As long as cheaper products sell we can’t expect super expensive molecules to be released.
There is a class of 3,5,20,21 (positions of relevant functional atoms) steroids (putative “pheromones” if you wish) on the cutting edge of medical research. All of them are very interesting. Some are likely only available in milligram amounts with no easily sustainable supply. Just doing a search for the chemical name, finding them would prove most difficult. And they aren’t mentioned on internet forums. The are not easy to “test” or decode. Would take years and $$$. Doubtful they could be sold commercially except as steering molecules.
Some vendors and testers have molecules on hand they don’t perhaps comprehend, using nomenclature and trivial names scientists don’t. Never seen “Beta THDOC” in an academic reference in recent memory.
Asymmetric induction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Enantioselective synthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It is not scientific short hand we are discussing. P’s are as short hand as they come. Rone, E and A None, etc. All shot hand for the chemical name.
I have a history of steroid knowledge. I dabbled in that science, if you will. New steroid science is not new. It is recently being tested, that is all. The black market gets steroids before they are clinically tested. Every single one is leaked before it goes to clinical trial or medical paper.
That is not the point. If you want to talk the science and effects of steroids we dont have knowledge of, lets talk a more interesting class, SARMS. Thought to be a miracle replacement for steroids but with some interesting side effects to vision. Sounds like a pheromone, no? Or Ambergies. Or other naturally existing pheromones.
If a chemical can be named and created, it can be replicated in a simple manor. Expensive is another story. A small amount? Micro dosage is all we use.
Some harder to produce or replicate steroids due to the volitile nature of the specific molecular structure still are and can be mass produced and used. It just cost more. You get some bad batches, but it works.
Whoa man! Not talking anabolic steroids here. Pheromones, not 'roids. Specifically, a class of C21, 4-ring neurosteroids with functional groups at specific positions and alpha/beta conformations at 3, 5 and other positions. I am 100% confident I’ve seen no mention of these on any known pheromone-related website. The medical applications are patented from research in Sweden. I sent the material to Brian, but I won’t post that here, as it includes the CAS numbers and IUPAC systematic names as well as laboratories in Rhode Island and elsewhere where the scientists obtained them.
Your search - “beta thdoc” - did not match any Google book results.
That terminology isn’t used in textbooks. I’m saying many conversations online about pheromones are junk science. I’m saying they are rumor and are incorrect. I’m saying the molecule in the wikipedia article for THDOC is not 3a, 5a. The image is for 3a, 5b. I’m saying LS “appears” to sell inferior “reagent grade” BNOL at a supposed discount to the research grade product most expect, and that 90% of their customers would be naive to that. Have I stated any factually incorrect information? If so, I will edit it. Not too proud to admit a mistake. It is for these reasons medical researches still call alpha nol “pig pheromone.” They tend to be dismissive of any “tests” by users and accuracy of them. In other words, they think it’s a joke when wrong names are printed. They mock the qualifications and advertising of the vendors. The point being that the labs target institutional researchers and make materials available according to their needs one milligram at a time.
Here’s a simple (not) synthesis for A1 from testosterone. Note, you’ll need a PhD, a fully equipped, federally licensed lab and a permit for the testosterone feedstock. The ? marks are degree symbols.
Alternatively, thermolysis (460?) of the methyl carbonate of testosterone gives Androsta-4,16-dien-3-one in 90% yield. 17B-MethoxyCarbonyioxy-androst-4-en-3-one (IV) was prepared from testosterone (III. Fluka) with methyl chloroformate/pyridine (a) in 76% yield (after recrystallization from MeOH). M.p. 140-141?, [a]D = +95.4? (c = 1.10) - IR. (CDCl3) : 1740s, 1665s, 1450s, 1280s, - 1H-NMR. (360 MHz): 0.87 (s, 3 H); 1.20 (S, 3 H); 3.77 (s, 3 H); 4.53 (br. t, J 8, 1 H); 5.75 (s, 1 H). A solution of the methyl carbonate IV in toluene was pyrolyzed (b) as described for I. Recrystallization of the crude product from acetone at RT. gave pure ketone 4 in 90% yield. M.p. 127-129.5?, (a)D +118.9? (C = 1.32) ([3]: m.p. 131.5-133.5? (hexane), [a]D 16 = +123?3.5? (C = 1.03)). - IR. (CDCl3): 3050W, 1660s, 1615m. - 1H-NMR. (360 MHz): 0.82 (s, 3 H); 1.22 (s, 3 H); 5.70 (m, 1 H); 5.73 (s, 1 H); 5.84 (m, 1 H).
Recrystallization is one techinque I’ve heard of in asymmetric synthesis.
No sir, it isn’t simple at all. The economics of the whole thing is a reason why one cannot buy THDOC named from other vendors. Not profitable. It’s not a new molecule, but it’s not available in profitable consumer quantity, or someone would have done it years ago. I’m not trying to be argumentative, but much misleading information abounds out there. What so-and-so may have told you (incl. Al. D) isn’t quite the whole story. Now, homebrewing DHEA, that’s another matter.