I Like to Draw Pictures of Random Molecules

[ShaggyFin]

That's not right, sorry. Many of those do not have phenyl rings (= benzene rings), so they are just not aromatic.

Which is my point. You are not understanding that I have over and over admitted I am not a chemist. And over and over said that I won't know any of this shit until I get books. I am talking about making FRAGRANCES that potentially have the ability to effect people.

This is the harping I am talking about.

I get it. I say shit wrong. But I am just saying "Compounds, that are Aromatic" or "Molecules that can get to your nose through the air with no heat needed to activate them"

And what if we just slap some Cinnemaldehyde on there, would that work for you? I have no idea if it's benzene, I'm NOT a chemist. And I won't know shit till the books come in.

 

[pharmakos]

When I say "Aromatic Compounds" I just mean the materials listed as "Backbones" here.
http://theresearchplanet.blogspot.com/2014/03/aromatic-compounds.html

this is what i meant earlier about your backpedaling.... "oh, i was actually right, i just said it wrong"... not gonna fool us =p

tbh shaggy i probably don't know a whole lot more about chemistry than you do... i just make few assumptions about the blank spots in my understanding.

as abraham lincoln supposedly said: "it is better to remain quiet and be thought a fool than it is to speak aloud and remove all doubt."

not that i think you're any less of a fool than i am we're all together in this learning experience called life...

Which is my point. You are not understanding that I have over and over admitted I am not a chemist. And over and over said that I won't know any of this shit until I get books. I am talking about making FRAGRANCES that potentially have the ability to effect people.

This is the harping I am talking about.

I get it. I say shit wrong. But I am just saying "Compounds, that are Aromatic" or "Molecules that can get to your nose through the air with no heat needed to activate them"

whoa, no need to get so defensive. he wasn't harping, he was just correcting. there's a difference.

 

[Solipsis]

It's not really a convenient combination to not be able to tolerate a politely worded correction and to also be wrong all the livelong day on the subject of chemistry.

The reality is that you will have to ask thousands of questions before being able to get anywhere near that goal, or alternatively presume that you know something and be corrected that many times. Sure you will also be right about things using your intuition and logic.

I am getting you to clarify yourself so that we can actually follow and understand what you are saying, suggesting, claiming and try to achieve.

About psychoactive fragrances: unfortunately it doesn't bode well that most known drugs do not taste or smell pleasant. DMT can have a flower-y attractive fragrance but that kind of chemical can also very easily start smelling like manure to a person, it's a fine line there.
I have seen methylone being sold in smartshops in my country with added vanilla scent to sell it under false pretenses. I suppose mixing a drug and a smell would be cheating to you?

Maybe some classical cannabinoids would be more along the lines of what you are looking for. The class THC etc are in?

Other than that myrcene sounds like the only one fitting the profile. You should research how it works pharmacologically, it is necessary to understand that so that you can infer how it may be modified and improved.

 

[ebola?]

Let's try to keep discussion on topic, guys. Cluttering posts have been unapproved.
...

When I say "Aromatic Compounds" I just mean the materials listed as "Backbones" here.
http://theresearchplanet.blogspot.co...compounds.html

But I still fail to understand what these molecular backbones share in common. They're certainly not all volatile, nor are all of them even 'smelly'

ebola

 

[ShaggyFin]

Let's try to keep discussion on topic, guys. Cluttering posts have been unapproved.
...


But I still fail to understand what these molecular backbones share in common. They're certainly not all volatile, nor are all of them even 'smelly'

ebola

They are used in perfume creation or flavoring, and to me they look like they all have a backbone similar to Myrcene. But again, I am not a chemist.

 

[ebola?]

they look like they all have a backbone similar to Myrcene

But many of them do not.

ebola

 

[ShaggyFin]

But many of them do not.

ebola

They all look long and strong though and have points of attachment. So when I say I am creating a "new family" I am not referring to some "old family" that I am turning into new things. I am referring to a new family of compounds that will be made from those backbones. They will break apart, they will meet in new arrangements, they will break apart again, and they will meet again in again new arrangements.

I am not suggesting we create novel bullshit like Chlorobutanol every time, like that is just what I feel comfortable saying "I know I can do" right now. When I get the hang of reading these "Heiroglyphs" I will be proposing some WAY cooler stuff.

 

[ebola?]

They will break apart, they will meet in new arrangements, they will break apart again, and they will meet again in again new arrangements.

A chemical family is not analogous to a literal family in this way though: unless they share some key structural similarity, they are in no meaningful sense in a family, regardless of their origins in particular chemical reactions or the conceptual genealogy that inspired them.

ebola

 

[ShaggyFin]

A chemical family is not analogous to a literal family in this way though: unless they share some key structural similarity, they are in no meaningful sense in a family, regardless of their origins in particular chemical reactions or the conceptual genealogy that inspired them.

ebola

I understand that, and I may end up having to reclassify it as MANY families once I actually start trying to figure out more than just Damascone. But I want to try to break down Myrcene and Damascone and put them together, then use that as the main backbone for everything.

I found a simpler route to getting started here, cheaper and easier to get than Damascone, and can be made into Damascone. In fact, Damascone is in this chemical family. lol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionone

Myrcene is also cheap. So this looks like it's going to be moving forward soon.

 

[sekio]

Please, learn some practical chemistry before you start getting too excited.

That's all I have to say on that matter. If you're confident you're going to come back in two weeks and be a trained organic chemist, do that, don't waste our fucking time by just spinning your wheels and masturbating. You've produced nothing of note and only managed to argue that you know enough to play with the big boys but without any training or similar knowledge base.

 

[ShaggyFin]

Please, learn some practical chemistry before you start getting too excited.

That's all I have to say on that matter. If you're confident you're going to come back in two weeks and be a trained organic chemist, do that, don't waste our fucking time by just spinning your wheels and masturbating. You've produced nothing of note and only managed to argue that you know enough to play with the big boys but without any training or similar knowledge base.

You guys take everything to the extreme.
I am not saying that in 2 weeks I will be a trained organic chemist, I am saying that in 2 weeks I will understand enough to start drawing new stable structures.

Just thought I would add this, I am making a collection here of all the (not too hard to find) molecules that can be used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia

 

[pharmakos]

finn, play around with this http://www.webqc.org/moleculareditor2.php

it can even check your structure to see if you drew the molecule right, and spit out an IUPAC name for whatever you draw

 

[ShaggyFin]

finn, play around with this http://www.webqc.org/moleculareditor2.php

it can even check your structure to see if you drew the molecule right, and spit out an IUPAC name for whatever you draw

Thank you, I did not know things like that even existed.

My God, I just looked up Oxytocin and it's wild

 

[Transform]

You guys take everything to the extreme.
I am not saying that in 2 weeks I will be a trained organic chemist, I am saying that in 2 weeks I will understand enough to start drawing new stable structures.

Just thought I would add this, I am making a collection here of all the (not too hard to find) molecules that can be used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia

I can't wait to see what fine aromas your generate from ammonia.

Please can you adjust wikipedia image URLs so that they are shrunk to around 300-400 pixels. just change the the [xxx]px in the url.

I recommend you take a coursera course on chemistry. I can also assure you that there are some very talented chemists even in community colleges. Regardless of whether they have failed at DOW (like Shulgin did, in a way) they will be able to teach you a LOT.

 

[ShaggyFin]

I can't wait to see what fine aromas your generate from ammonia.

Please can you adjust wikipedia image URLs so that they are shrunk to around 300-400 pixels. just change the the [xxx]px in the url.

I recommend you take a coursera course on chemistry. I can also assure you that there are some very talented chemists even in community colleges. Regardless of whether they have failed at DOW (like Shulgin did, in a way) they will be able to teach you a LOT.

Ammonia will not be a main structure, it will be a catalyst for other structures.

I don't have money for school. And I'm not going into debt because some people online think I need to learn fundamentals from a teacher.

I looked it all up, less than $1000 and we could be doing this shit, if ya'll were down to fund a company we could all even do it like next month and this wouldn't even just be a discussion. But I'm gonna go it alone, plus just get bitched at the whole time I guess.

 

[sekio]

Regardless of whether they have failed at DOW (like Shulgin did, in a way)

Shulgin didn't "fail" at Dow Chemical, he invented a pesticide that made them money and then they continued to pay him until he got too heavily into drug synthesis. Sounds like a winner to me.

 

[ShaggyFin]

Shulgin didn't "fail" at Dow Chemical, he invented a pesticide that made them money and then they continued to pay him until he got too heavily into drug synthesis. Sounds like a winner to me.

I was going to say something but thought it would just lead to more flaming, Shulgin definitely was not a "failed DOW chemist". He made medicine as we know it, he just doesn't get the recognition.

 

[SeenSoFar]

I'm sorry. I've held my tongue as long as I can. I can no longer. Forgive me in advance for my first loss of temper on this forum, if you would be so gracious.

I was going to say something but thought it would just lead to more flaming, Shulgin definitely was not a "failed DOW chemist". He made medicine as we know it, he just doesn't get the recognition.

NO. NO. Just... NO. He did not make medicine as we know it. Not. Even. Close. You do realize he eschews SAR(that's structure-activity relationship)-based predictions on the activity of any given compound- which is the foundation of modern drug discovery- for a "make 'em and taste 'em" approach- which is the antithesis of how things are done in the labs of "big pharma"- right? You also realize that the pharmaceutical industry was already quite robust long before he ever produced a compound for human consumption? Yes, he did discover lots of fantastic compounds that target 5-HT_2A, but he did NOT INVENT MODERN MEDICINE. Saying that Shulgin invented medicine as we know it is like saying Colonel Sanders invented cuisine as we know it. So NO. Just... No.

Furthermore, you realize that I- as well as many of the geniuses you have belittled in your incoherient ramblings, I'm sure- was reduced to tears of laughter by your nonsensical gibberings, and then stoked to more anger than I believed I could feel from something as inconsequential as this by your total lack of respect for people who command it! Do you realize that, in my opinion, have poluted 7 FUCKING PAGES of what used to be a thread full of the light-hearted exchange of ideas between those who wanted to learn and those who had something of value to teach. Give you a hint: you're definitely not the latter, and although you've claimed otherwise, neither are you the former, since you consistently shit all over the very people who are trying to help you and have shown more patience with you than I believed was left in this world.

The very concept that you think throwing random-ass organic compounds into a pot is going to achieve anything other than making a mess, especially when you've admitted yourself that you know jack-shit about chemistry, including not being able to read a skeletal formula, repeatedly misusing and/or bandying around miscellaneous jargon (lmao at "decarboxylizing" in the context you applied it in), and then subsequently claiming you WILL be setting up a perfume company/supplement company IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS. Somehow you will equip your "ghetto lab," despite the fact you can't afford much beyond food (your own statement). I look forward to seeing pictures on the news of the dumbass who got arrested for possession of controlled precursors in a lab that I'm sure would horrify even a bathtub crank chemist. Here's another hint for you: a range hood is not a fume hood, no matter how similar in form and function they appear to be.

To sum it all up: You're a fucking moron. You don't know shit about what you're talking about, and you're oblivious to that fact no matter how many times its painted in 500m high letters directly in front of you. You know what though, all of that is forgivable. You know what isn't? Mouthing off people who come to try and help you achieve your goals, no matter how half-baked said goals may be.

In conclusion, there's a phrase I heard from an old AA'er that applies FLAWLESSLY to this situation: Take the cotton out of your ears and put it in your mouth. It will do you far more service there. QED.

 

[ShaggyFin]

I'm sorry. I've held my tongue as long as I can. I can no longer. Forgive me in advance for my first loss of temper on this forum, if you would be so gracious.



NO. NO. Just... NO. He did not make medicine as we know it. Not. Even. Close. You do realize he eschews SAR(that's structure-activity relationship)-based predictions on the activity of any given compound- which is the foundation of modern drug discovery- for a "make 'em and taste 'em" approach- which is the antithesis of how things are done in the labs of "big pharma"- right?

You realize that synthesis and testing are not the main parts of Pharma, right? Look at the families they use Piperazines (Abilify), etc. And before Shulgin "Mood Stabilizers" were called Sedatives or Euphoriants, because he brought ideas like "Psychedelic" and "Entactogen" to the forefront of human thought and they took it from there.

Sure all the main stuff he was playing with is illegal now, but that is not at all because of him. If you look at medicine it is OBVIOUS they have carried Shulgin's wisdom. We would not know HALF of what we know about receptors without him. Chopra's (and his group's) discoveries of "Chemical Emotions" would have been impossible without Shulgin as a "precursor".

 

[sekio]

You realize that synthesis and testing are not the main parts of Pharma, right?

Well, yeah, it's 2/3 of pharma's job to do drug discovery, the rest is marketing. Someone still had to make and screen a fuckload of compounds to come up with drugs like Abilify etc. Just because a compound is a piperazine doesn't mean it's intrinsically easy to make. Viagra is a piperazine and that's hardly a trivial synthesis...

And before Shulgin "Mood Stabilizers" were called Sedatives or Euphoriants, because he brought ideas like "Psychedelic" and "Entactogen" to the forefront of human thought and they took it from there.

The term "psychedelic" was coined by Humprey Osmond 1n 1957, before Shulgin's work on mescaline analogs. You credit the man too much. He hardly brought anything to the "forefront" of society, that was people like Hunter Thompson,the Beatles, Ken Kesey and R. Gordon Wasson etc.

If you look at medicine it is OBVIOUS they have carried Shulgin's wisdom. We would not know HALF of what we know about receptors without him.

He discovered a bunch of novel psychedelics, ate them, distributed them, and that's pretty much where it stopped... AFICT Dave Nichols was the guy who actually did receptor binding studies. And there's really a larger cast of characters in the GPCR family.

In conclusion, there's a phrase I heard from an old AA'er that applies FLAWLESSLY to this situation: Take the cotton out of your ears and put it in your mouth. It will do you far more service there. QED.

please