• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ

Phenethylamines The Big & Dandy TCB-2 Thread

I understand that the analog 2CBCB-NBOMe has also been synthesized. I bet that one is a real winner, but the synthesis must be even more difficult than for TCB-2. Anyone have any info on this interesting rc?
 
Xerolad said:
I understand that the analog 2CBCB-NBOMe has also been synthesized. I bet that one is a real winner, but the synthesis must be even more difficult than for TCB-2. Anyone have any info on this interesting rc?
Click to expand...

I bet it's a whole lot less interesting compared to drugs already out there than TCB-2.

On a similar note, I have high hopes for TCD-2 and TCC-2.
 
Thanks Bloodshed. Any info on relative potencies? Also, has TCTFM-2 been prepared? I bet that one would be a winner as well.
 
TCB-2 is actually not difficult to make in racemic form. I found the article online. Separating the enantiomers is the troublesome part but you could just leave it racemic. It would just be less potent. I think it would probably be better to make a non-halogenated version though, like a methyl or ethyl at the 4 position.
 
Or perhaps CN, methinks, as it is a pseudohalogen as an aryl substituent. I agree separating the racemate is probably a waste of time for such a potent rc. Even the less active isomer probably still contributes something of value.
 
Last edited:
Xerolad said:
Or perhaps CN, methinks, as it is a pseudohalogen as an aryl substituent. I agree separating the racemate is probably a waste of time for such a potent rc. Even the less active isomer probably still contributes something of value.
Click to expand...

I think CN is a waste of time until we at least have the methyl and methoxy variants.
 
bloodshed344 said:
I think CN is a waste of time until we at least have the methyl and methoxy variants.
Click to expand...

That may be true, but the aryl CN substituent seems to confer some interesting properties to DOCN:

See table 1:

http://bitnest.ca/external.php?id=%7DbxUgX%5DCzy%04tz%7F%01%06V%5E

DOCN has higher affintity for the 5HT1A receptor and dramatically lower affinity for the 5HT1C receptor compared to the OCH3 variant, 2,4,5-TMA. It also has somewhat lower affinity for the 5HT2B receptor, and agonism of that receptor only causes problems. I say it's worth a look.
 
As I undertsand it, 2C-CN and DO-CN seem to be very selective for the 5HT2a receptor, which to me means that it might be more close to the NBOMe's in effects than the other 2C's. In that it's probably more shallow and not so deep.

That said, remember that ki values and receptor affinities are just a small part of the picture, the subjective flavour of a drug can't be guessed before it's been tasted.

2,4,5-TMA? you mean TMA-2?

What does the 2 in TCB-2 stand for? by the way. Is it because it's the "2 carbon" like 2C, so the corresponding amphetamine would be called TCB-3 ? That would be kind of wrong because there's actualy only 1 carbon on the amine chain as the other carbon is part of the cyclobutene ring.
 
Last edited:
I sure as hell am glad there are 'psychedelic RCs' out there. As a 'phenethylamine man' I'd be pretty limited just using mescaline all the time. And as much as I love LSD...it is a long commitment. I enjoy having some of the synthetic psilocin analogues at my disposal. Those who dismiss 'all the RCs as junk' or whatever he said...bully for you!
 
I just said that all the PEA and tryptamine RCs were junk because they all caused me quite unpleasant nausea and none of them had the kind of clear detailed visuals of LSD. None of them have the CNS stimulating effects of LSD either, which is good if you don't like staying up all night but bad because there isn't much pleasurable effect. LSD is not perfect but it's miles ahead of any other psychedelic I've tried.
 
Which ones have your tried? There are plenty that are stimulating....some annoyingly so and I don't touch them ever, like 2C-I, 5-MeO-DiPT. I'll pretty much concede that on the 'indole' side of things...these days about the only synthetic I'd still really hold up there with LSD is DPT. MET is also good stuff. DiPT has its uses. But on the phenethylamine side, there are numerous materials useful or more useful in my book compared to LSD...so just curious which ones you have tried.
 
Fagott said:
What does the 2 in TCB-2 stand for? by the way. Is it because it's the "2 carbon" like 2C, so the corresponding amphetamine would be called TCB-3 ? That would be kind of wrong because there's actualy only 1 carbon on the amine chain as the other carbon is part of the cyclobutene ring.
Click to expand...

Probably not, because there is not a simple and linear amine chain it is not appropriate anymore to just simply count carbon atoms and call them alpha and beta. Now it is a bicyclic molecule, the main part is the body with 2 rings and it has a mini-"chain" sticking out on the right now with only one carbon. In the main bicyclic body the total number of carbons are counted which makes 8. Then the number of carbon are counted that are between the carbons that unite the rings.

What used to be the alpha is now the 1-position.

A question I find more interesting is what the T in the name stands for. I think it is either for TwoCB or for tertiary because the carbon on the 1-position is tertiary but that would be a pretty awkward name. After all amphetamines have that as well.

The original name was 2CB-CB. I think they turned that into 2CB-2 because 2CB-CB is seen as a 'next' member in the modded 2C-B series and changed the 2 into a T to mask the fact that the 2 has stopped making sense since it is not a 2-carbon chain. You could say: 'but isn't it a next version of DOB?', but yeah it is just as much a cyclobutene version of 2C-B as it is of DOB.

There is no corresponding amphetamine because there is no more alpha-position to justify the name amphetamine (= alpha-methyl PEA). If you add a methyl on the 1-position, AFAIK it would probably be constrained (forced) to stick out in a direction that is uncomfortable for binding.
Whether it can be called TCB-3 or not would mostly depend on whether you still find that molecule to be a modification of 2C-B rather than DOB.
IMO what you propose would be appropriately named DOB-CB
The name TCB-3 is not reserved for the cyclopentene analogue, which is called 2CB-Ind so it would be hard to continue the nomenclative series consistently.
 
Last edited:
Solipsis said:
Probably not, because there is not a simple and linear amine chain it is not appropriate anymore to just simply count carbon atoms and call them alpha and beta. Now it is a bicyclic molecule, the main part is the body with 2 rings and it has a mini-"chain" sticking out on the right now with only one carbon. In the main bicyclic body the total number of carbons are counted which makes 8. Then the number of carbon are counted that are between the carbons that unite the rings.

What used to be the alpha is now the 1-position.

A question I find more interesting is what the T in the name stands for. I think it is either for TwoCB or for tertiary because the carbon on the 1-position is tertiary but that would be a pretty awkward name. After all amphetamines have that as well.

The original name was 2CB-CB. I think they turned that into 2CB-2 because 2CB-CB is seen as a 'next' member in the modded 2C-B series and changed the 2 into a T to mask the fact that the 2 has stopped making sense since it is not a 2-carbon chain. You could say: 'but isn't it a next version of DOB?', but yeah it is just as much a cyclobutene version of 2C-B as it is of DOB.

There is no corresponding amphetamine because there is no more alpha-position to justify the name amphetamine (= alpha-methyl PEA). If you add a methyl on the 1-position, AFAIK it would probably be constrained (forced) to stick out in a direction that is uncomfortable for binding.
Whether it can be called TCB-3 or not would mostly depend on whether you still find that molecule to be a modification of 2C-B rather than DOB.
IMO what you propose would be appropriately named DOB-CB
The name TCB-3 is not reserved for the cyclopentene analogue, which is called 2CB-Ind so it would be hard to continue the nomenclative series consistently.
Click to expand...
Very interesting, thanks. I learn something new everyday :) Especially that the "amphetamines" with the indane or cyclobutene ring will be of less potency or maybe even inactive, probably why they didn't make any.....I see that logic for sure.

Just to make it clear, I wasn't suggesting anything, just wondering on the name. I would have thought that Nichols would have written about why he gave the names he did in one of his papers, some one should know.

Other funny names are tomscaline and jimscaline.....wtf :D
 
Yeah! Can you see tomscaline and jimscaline and me-scaline sitting together in a cactus? So cozy...
 
Sasha and mescaline sitting in the backseat of a Buick. F-U-C-K-I-N-G. First comes TMA, then comes MEM. ahh I'm done.
 
I was always curious about this since reading about it on Bluelight years ago in this thread. Also 2C-TFM, and the legendary 2C-EF.
 
An anecdote: I recently went to a talk by David Nichols at the faculty of pharmacy were I live, it was about psychedelics. At one point he gets to a powerpoint with various molecules on and he quickly runs thruogh them, "this is this one, and that is that one", when he gets to TCB-2, he's like "and then we have......erh...um....err...well...some cyclobutane. And next one is....". And then he just went on. lol. Didn't sound like it had left him impressed.
 
Last edited:
This stuff really interests me. I doubt there is any more info on it, but I'm bumping it for the prune.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top