Bluelight

Thread: Some Interesting 2C-T Analogues (Chemical Masturbation)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 48
  1. Collapse Details
    Some Interesting 2C-T Analogues (Chemical Masturbation) 
    #1
    Bluelight Crew morninggloryseed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Semi Retired
    Posts
    11,888
    Just for my own chemical masturbation purposes...what do ya'll think of these. Of course A is good old friendly 2C-T...which in someone's poor judgment has never come to market (while things like 2C-N and 2C-G have). B is the simple thiol as proposed by Shulgin. I have no idea if that kind of group would be active, but he must have thought it may be, since he felt it was worth mentioning. D was proposed in this forum somewhere before, and from that I came up with C.

    Anyone want to take some gross guestimates as to the activity of B,C, and D? Obviously no one can do anything beyond guess...so does anyone guess they will be active. Talk amongst yourselves.

    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	2C-T Analogues.JPG 
Views:	1233 
Size:	32.4 KB 
ID:	3954  
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    #2
    Bluelight Crew Beenhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    3,517
    That Pentafloural lambda sulfanyl group looked awfully bulky to me, is there any SARs done any of them

    you should have started Anyone want to make.... with here's a topic
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
     
    #3
    I think I've read that a CF3 group is functionally very similar to a Br. I wonder what a SF5 group compares to ... it probably sucks up the electron density of the whole damn molecule right there. I'm sure it would be active though. I bet it would be similar in size to an iodine group there seeing as the thio atom is quite a bit bigger than a carbon.
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
     
    #4
    Bluelight Crew morninggloryseed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Semi Retired
    Posts
    11,888
    Quote Originally Posted by Dondante
    I think I've read that a CF3 group is functionally very similar to a Br. I wonder what a SF5 group compares to ... it probably sucks up the electron density of the whole damn molecule right there. I'm sure it would be active though. I bet it would be similar in size to an iodine group there seeing as the thio atom is quite a bit bigger than a carbon.
    The iodine is a big one.

    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	untitled.JPG 
Views:	1159 
Size:	37.7 KB 
ID:	3958  
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
     
    #5
    Ex-Bluelighter Helios.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    not there yet
    Posts
    1,879
    I'm afraid the 4-SH would be way too toxic.
    A (2C-ALEPH-1) is gonna be weak and probably boring.
    Are you sure the perflouro sulfur compounds exist?
    If they do, they are not bulky, but I won't venture to guess about their activity.
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
     
    #6
    Bluelight Crew morninggloryseed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Semi Retired
    Posts
    11,888
    2C-T sounds great. Potency isn't everything.
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
     
    #7
    Ex-Bluelighter Helios.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    not there yet
    Posts
    1,879
    Yeah, it probably is nice.
    You might have better luck with 2C-(S-CF3) though.
    Last edited by Helios.; 12-12-2006 at 05:49.
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
     
    #8
    Bluelight Crew morninggloryseed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Semi Retired
    Posts
    11,888
    I bet they would both be good (and different). Ah some many possibilities just with the 2C-T family alone.

    /me ejaculates
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
     
    #9
    Ex-Bluelighter Helios.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    not there yet
    Posts
    1,879
    ^lol.

    Speaking of the 2CT's, did Shulgin ever explore 2C-(S-CH2CH2CH2CH3)?
    I would be careful with that one.

    See also DOx, where x=(O-CF3)--not a 2CT, I know.

    All of this assumes that Ar-S-CF3's and Ar-O-CF3's exist.
    I've never heard of any, but I really don't know.
    Last edited by Helios.; 12-12-2006 at 07:21.
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
     
    #10
    Quote Originally Posted by morninggloryseed
    The iodine is a big one.

    Why does the amine end face differently for 2C-T? Is it a quirk of the program you used, or does the chemistry cause this configuration?
    Reply With Quote
     

  11. Collapse Details
     
    #11
    Ex-Bluelighter Helios.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    not there yet
    Posts
    1,879
    With organic structures, you can flip them over however you want as long as everything's in the right place.
    Reply With Quote
     

  12. Collapse Details
     
    #12
    Bluelight Crew morninggloryseed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Semi Retired
    Posts
    11,888
    The molecules are actually in constant motion but there are no chiral centers in the 2Cs, so what position that amine is in is not as important as it would be had I shown amphetamines. If I had drawn an amphetamine, I would have made sure to represent the R-isomer.
    Reply With Quote
     

  13. Collapse Details
     
    #13
    Quote Originally Posted by morninggloryseed
    Of course A is good old friendly 2C-T...which in someone's poor judgment has never come to market (while things like 2C-N and 2C-G have).
    Confucius say "seek and ye shall find, MGS-hopper..."

    It's out there (hint hint)
    Reply With Quote
     

  14. Collapse Details
     
    #14
    How to make the SF3 & SF5 compounds? SF6 exists and finds specialist use in high-tension electronics. I guess you could make a sulfonic (trifluoromethyl?) and flouridate that. Whatever, I suspect they would be very difficult to make.
    Reply With Quote
     

  15. Collapse Details
     
    #15
    2C-T sounds pretty unspectacular to me. Didn't shulgin call it the "generic psychedelic"? I have a feeling that complexity of the trip increases as you extend the carbon chain attached to the sulfer, an toxicity increases as well.

    Aelph seems more interesting.
    Reply With Quote
     

  16. Collapse Details
     
    #16
    Bluelight Crew fastandbulbous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    that rainy little island off europe
    Posts
    20,522
    I think 2C-T sounds very interesting. It actually sounds a bit like 2C-D but with more empathy stirred in.

    Compound 2 (the -SH group) is going to have a hell of a time getting across the BBB. Thiophenols might not be as acidic as phenols, but it's still a polar group. Not a clue about how an SF5 group would interact with the receptor (yes SF6 is used in HV electricty setups - think as some sort of dielectric), but intuitively something seems not quite right about it for some reason...
    Reply With Quote
     

  17. Collapse Details
     
    #17
    Ex-Bluelighter Helios.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    not there yet
    Posts
    1,879
    I found 3-CH3-S-methamphetamine to be very boring.
    One of Shulgin's friends said the same thing about the ALEPHs.
    Reply With Quote
     

  18. Collapse Details
     
    #18
    Ex-Bluelighter Gaian Planes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    ATL/asheville
    Posts
    11,144
    2-C-T entry from PIHKAL:
    (with 75 mg) I got up to a thin and fragile plus two, but there was a continuing feeling of a hooded cloak brought down over my head. Nothing obvious--it is transparent--but it somehow separated me from everything around me. I do not think the overall experiment was worth it.

    (with 100 mg) Material all right, but a little bit along the lines of a 'generic' psychedelic effect. Sharper edges than 2C-B. The one true negative, which has been pretty consistent with this drug, is that there is a certain emotional removal. One teeny step removed. One is connected with feelings, certainly, but there is a tendency for the intellect to be more evident, in me, than the heart. All this is moderately so. Nothing extreme. Pretty good material, but there are more inter-esting ones. However, if you are looking for a really short one, this is one of the answers. For most people. For me, it's still around 5 to 6 hours long. I wish we had more shorties, indeed.

    (with 125 mg) There was some physical tummy uncertainty, but once that was past, talking was extremely easy. This is probably really psychedelic, but I am not really sure why, as there is not much in the way of visuals. Dropping was noted just after hour number three, and I was at baseline three hours later.
    Reply With Quote
     

  19. Collapse Details
     
    #19
    Bluelight Crew morninggloryseed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Semi Retired
    Posts
    11,888
    Quote Originally Posted by Dondante
    2C-T sounds pretty unspectacular to me. Didn't shulgin call it the "generic psychedelic"? I have a feeling that complexity of the trip increases as you extend the carbon chain attached to the sulfer, an toxicity increases as well.

    Aelph seems more interesting.
    Yeah he said that of 2C-D as well and he was very wrong. I agree with F&B...I'd expect it (2C-T) to be much like 2C-D but with the added warmth/empathy the 2C-Ts seem to provice.
    Reply With Quote
     

  20. Collapse Details
     
    #20
    The one true negative, which has been pretty consistent with this drug, is that there is a certain emotional removal. One teeny step removed.
    That doesn't sound empathogenic to me, just the opposite.
    Reply With Quote
     

  21. Collapse Details
     
    #21
    given that sulfur tetrafluoride is a good fluorinating agent don't expect an aryl tetravalent sulfur fluoride to be anything less than lethal.
    the hexavalent sulfur compound might be less dangerous and more stable. But pretty much sulfur hexafluoride is the only inert and therefore non toxic sulfur fluoride.
    Reply With Quote
     

  22. Collapse Details
     
    #22
    The SF5 group is listed as a functional group you can use in my medicinal chemistry textbook, but thats the only place i've ever seen it, never come across any drug molecule where its actually been used.

    The sigma+ and pi+ factors for the SF5 group are larger than those for CF3, so it is very strongly electron withdrawing and hydrophobic. I'd imagine with all that electronegativity at the 4-position compound D should be highly active, so long as the SF5 group isn't so big it blocks the binding site. 2C-CF3 is very active, but 2C-T9 (with the S-t-butyl group at 4-position) is down in activity by maybe 10x.

    So the 4-SF5 derivative might be more potent because of the increased electronegativity, or less potent because of steric hinderance. Other similar substitution schemes that might be interesting would be 4-S-CF3, 4-CF2CF3, 3,4-tris(CF2) etc.
    Reply With Quote
     

  23. Collapse Details
     
    #23
    Ex-Bluelighter Helios.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    not there yet
    Posts
    1,879
    Personally, I would steer clear of any Ar-SF5.
    It doesn't look healthy.
    Reply With Quote
     

  24. Collapse Details
     
    #24
    Bluelight Crew morninggloryseed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Semi Retired
    Posts
    11,888
    You felt that telepathically, did you see data somewhere to show that, or just a hunch?
    Last edited by morninggloryseed; 16-12-2006 at 01:41.
    Reply With Quote
     

  25. Collapse Details
     
    #25
    Inhaling sulfur hexafloride is fun. Your voice goes down 2 octives. Don't do this with gas thats been used because it contains some S2F10 which is deadly.
    How to add a -SF5 group? I suspect it might be a total bitch. I think SF5Cl is the way to go.
    Link

    You might well react the SF5Cl with the -SH to form the appropiate SF5 species and HCl. This species is very unusual but does open up the possibility for, say, -S-CH2-CH2-SF5 which would be an interesting 2CT analog. Someone should ask Sasha if he's thought about this analog. Some friends have his E-mail address but I don't know him personally.
    Reply With Quote
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •