☛ Official ☚ The Small & Handy 2-Trifluoromethyldeschloroketamine (2-TFMDCK, TFM-K) Thread
- Thread starter roi
- Start date
Bagseed
Bluelighter
jesus roi, I also like correct nomenclature, but keep that smugness to yourself please...
Yes, solid 
^ and perhaps TFM-ket colloquially..?
I don't know what you mean by the M coming out of nowhere. The discrepancy between TFMK and trifluoroketamine? In that case, yeah its awkward.
This is all very baby-name picking when you don't know wtf its gonna be like ;p Trivialize something unavailable xD
^ and perhaps TFM-ket colloquially..?I don't know what you mean by the M coming out of nowhere. The discrepancy between TFMK and trifluoroketamine? In that case, yeah its awkward.
This is all very baby-name picking when you don't know wtf its gonna be like ;p Trivialize something unavailable xD
pharmakos
Bluelighter
What about inventing a new organic chemistry prefix? I propose "ver" (makes sense in German 
) as a brother to "des"... Instead of describing what is removed like " des" does, "ver" would require a positional marker and merely state what is new in its place, with the assumption that the old substituent has been removed.
So "2-MeO-Ketamine" (sic) would be 2-vermethoxy-ketamine, or 2-VMeO-K. And the stuff in the title of this thread would be 2V-TFMK.
Only a little less bulky than "des-x" method, but certainly requiring the description of what was removed is mostly just noise.
It even rolls off the tongue when said out loud. "Hey you try that twovee methoxy?". And we can have threevees and fourvees.
) as a brother to "des"... Instead of describing what is removed like " des" does, "ver" would require a positional marker and merely state what is new in its place, with the assumption that the old substituent has been removed.So "2-MeO-Ketamine" (sic) would be 2-vermethoxy-ketamine, or 2-VMeO-K. And the stuff in the title of this thread would be 2V-TFMK.
Only a little less bulky than "des-x" method, but certainly requiring the description of what was removed is mostly just noise.
It even rolls off the tongue when said out loud. "Hey you try that twovee methoxy?". And we can have threevees and fourvees.
Last edited:
pharmakos
Bluelighter
It's a modifier prefix. Like lieben -> verlieben
So DOM (desoxy methyl) would have been VM (vermethyl)
So DOM (desoxy methyl) would have been VM (vermethyl)
pharmakos
Bluelighter
i know. i am proposing a new nomenclature. with the prefix inspired from german, because german and chemistry just mesh well together.
this explains why it fits better than i can https://yourdailygerman.com/2013/11/01/german-prefix-ver-explained/
this explains why it fits better than i can https://yourdailygerman.com/2013/11/01/german-prefix-ver-explained/
Bagseed
Bluelighter
lol
German is my native language and I can tell you that this will never go down. sounds silly ^^
German is my native language and I can tell you that this will never go down. sounds silly ^^
We could borrow from music nomenclature and use sus- (as in sus4, add2), I'm not sure why but my gut tells me that the 'ver' feels awkward because grammar implied in ver... seems so alien to chemistry nomenclature.
'Nor' is just well establish and nobody questions it, but as german acronym it's obscure rather than intuitive.
Suggesting new nomenclature rules is pretty whimsical :D but I like playing along. Add is worthless as prefix because any explicitly named substitution is an addition I guess, or perhaps not if there is ambiguity about what is presumably a 'replacement' substitution.
Full IUPAC names will of course always point out what's going on, it's trivial names that aren't specific but apparently too vague for some of you, and you'd be right if there is any confusion with other close analogues.
In plenty of cases such as DOM, none of this would even apply. The naming convention itself already implies a 'replacement' substitution. You aren't really modifying in a way that is an exception to the convention.
With K, I keep repeating that anything placed on the 2-position must be a replacement of chloro, there's just no other way.
However if compounds would surface that have an additional 3-MeO rather than a substitution that excludes the 2-chloro, sus-3-MeO-K or add-3-MeO-K would I guess serve to point out whether it is the addition or replacement (suspension). That is, of course, until we would consider multiple substituted compounds where it is less obvious what is being replaced.
Kinda shows that all this adds complexity of still having to add prefixes, to end up with half-vagueness instead of just vagueness... gaining little and losing the whole point of shorthand alphanumerical abbreviations. The sus or add in this case achieves nothing that the DC of deschloro doesn't do well.
It is quite a challenge to both clarify distinction between 3-MeO-ketamine and 3-MeO-deschloroketamine and use only so few letters and numbers that it is still attractive for those mythical individuals who both dabble in rare RCs but so casually that using "lengthy" names like 3-MeO-Ket vs 3-MeO-DCK is too much to ask. There just seems no real way to make say a 2-TFM-3-Br-K shorter without really sacrificing clarity.. and the only alternative left is to have someone like usually unfortunately a dipshit vendor coming up with something like Trifbretamine and hope for the best.
As another reminder: with 2-MeO-ketamine you're perfectly welcome to be both casual AND a nomenclature nazi, insisting on including the deschloro, but as I said earlier it serves no purpose as 2-MeO-K must also be 2-MeO-DCK.
fucking lol
'Nor' is just well establish and nobody questions it, but as german acronym it's obscure rather than intuitive.
Suggesting new nomenclature rules is pretty whimsical :D but I like playing along. Add is worthless as prefix because any explicitly named substitution is an addition I guess, or perhaps not if there is ambiguity about what is presumably a 'replacement' substitution.
Full IUPAC names will of course always point out what's going on, it's trivial names that aren't specific but apparently too vague for some of you, and you'd be right if there is any confusion with other close analogues.
In plenty of cases such as DOM, none of this would even apply. The naming convention itself already implies a 'replacement' substitution. You aren't really modifying in a way that is an exception to the convention.
With K, I keep repeating that anything placed on the 2-position must be a replacement of chloro, there's just no other way.
However if compounds would surface that have an additional 3-MeO rather than a substitution that excludes the 2-chloro, sus-3-MeO-K or add-3-MeO-K would I guess serve to point out whether it is the addition or replacement (suspension). That is, of course, until we would consider multiple substituted compounds where it is less obvious what is being replaced.
Kinda shows that all this adds complexity of still having to add prefixes, to end up with half-vagueness instead of just vagueness... gaining little and losing the whole point of shorthand alphanumerical abbreviations. The sus or add in this case achieves nothing that the DC of deschloro doesn't do well.
It is quite a challenge to both clarify distinction between 3-MeO-ketamine and 3-MeO-deschloroketamine and use only so few letters and numbers that it is still attractive for those mythical individuals who both dabble in rare RCs but so casually that using "lengthy" names like 3-MeO-Ket vs 3-MeO-DCK is too much to ask. There just seems no real way to make say a 2-TFM-3-Br-K shorter without really sacrificing clarity.. and the only alternative left is to have someone like usually unfortunately a dipshit vendor coming up with something like Trifbretamine and hope for the best.
As another reminder: with 2-MeO-ketamine you're perfectly welcome to be both casual AND a nomenclature nazi, insisting on including the deschloro, but as I said earlier it serves no purpose as 2-MeO-K must also be 2-MeO-DCK.
fucking lol
Last edited:
Incunabula
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2010
- Messages
- 1,861
Solipsis. I get what you mean, but do you seriously think that adding a 2-chloro to MXM is going to make it any better, more potent or more ketamine like? Imo it's probably inactive, but of cause we don't know that. And btw, we could just call it the simple name Cl-MXM if we needed to.
Compounds named something-K or something-ketamine should imo be reserved for compounds not only resembling ketamine in structure, but also effects. So far there's only 2-fluoro and 2-bromo who does that, we can be sure TFM does it too, but how potent it will be? We'll see. Personally I don't believe there will be that many analogs truely earning the surname ketamine.
NENK and 2-MeO were shit. And look at DCK and MXM, they both resemble the "PCP-type" dissociatives in effects (or should we call them "MXE-type"?) more than the "ketamine-type". It says something about what you can do to the ketamine scaffold, and still keep the special flair of ketamine as well as activity.
I've made this point in other threads before, and I think it's silly naming every new ArCHA as an analog of ketamine. That why I like the name O-PCM better than DCK. Because it's effects seem more related to O-PCE than to ketamine, and the structure is just as close. Going by the "ketamine nomenclature" btw, O-PCE should have been called DCNENK. And that would have been silly imo. With trivial names we've got to be flexible as well as correct, and not get stuck in calling every new ArCHA "something-deschloroketamine", like they all resemble ketamine, when they're actually closer in relation to the mother of ArCHA's ---->PCP.
I actuallly liked Pharmakos idea, but I'm totally aware that it's just not going to happen, and of cause it sound silly to german ears. LOL at nomenclature nazi btw :D
Compounds named something-K or something-ketamine should imo be reserved for compounds not only resembling ketamine in structure, but also effects. So far there's only 2-fluoro and 2-bromo who does that, we can be sure TFM does it too, but how potent it will be? We'll see. Personally I don't believe there will be that many analogs truely earning the surname ketamine.
NENK and 2-MeO were shit. And look at DCK and MXM, they both resemble the "PCP-type" dissociatives in effects (or should we call them "MXE-type"?) more than the "ketamine-type". It says something about what you can do to the ketamine scaffold, and still keep the special flair of ketamine as well as activity.
I've made this point in other threads before, and I think it's silly naming every new ArCHA as an analog of ketamine. That why I like the name O-PCM better than DCK. Because it's effects seem more related to O-PCE than to ketamine, and the structure is just as close. Going by the "ketamine nomenclature" btw, O-PCE should have been called DCNENK. And that would have been silly imo. With trivial names we've got to be flexible as well as correct, and not get stuck in calling every new ArCHA "something-deschloroketamine", like they all resemble ketamine, when they're actually closer in relation to the mother of ArCHA's ---->PCP.
I actuallly liked Pharmakos idea, but I'm totally aware that it's just not going to happen, and of cause it sound silly to german ears. LOL at nomenclature nazi btw :D
We'll have to wait and see about the TFM simple as that, and I have already conceded the other day that indeed we may run out of other close analogues quite fast [importantly when we focus on the chlorophenyl moiety], but I haven't really taken a very hard look at it, and I simply don't know that others have - how long has it taken before even 2-fluoro surfaced (as to make a point, regardless of what you think 2-fluoro is worthy)? So you are perhaps right but for now I am not closing the door on close K-like stuff... Yeah chloro is a dead end or maybe a cul-de-sac? 
But what do we know about a carefully placed methyl on the cyclohexanone ring? Yeah possibly worthless compared to PCP SAR strategies but first check it then I'll believe it.
Or what about an N-fluoromethyl? Depends on what makes NENK shit, I guess.
The point is: let's keep looking before we give up. It doesn't seem like we have nearly exhausted the potential analogues that aren't that far off. Haven't some RC's been pretty damn ingenious?
Regarding what I think of 2-fluoro: I think it's good, just weak. Couldn't say if it is as economically unviable as NENK. But 2-MeO man that was really utter scheisse.
As for most of the other points you make, it seems like you don't get that I was trying to use a hypothetical illustration to very generally talk about making trivial names and nomenclature condensed vs complicated. Or as you said: preferably flexible and correct.
And on that note, it is only fair that I admit I seem to belong to the nomenclature nazi movement ;p
Also no I have no faith in 2-chloro-MXM lol. But have no evidence to support my sheer inconfidence.
Hmm it doesn't seem like SO many chems are inappropriately being called "something-deschloroketamine" ? And DCK well it might be unlike ketamine but the structure is so damn closely derived from it that it gets a bit hard to deny it. O-PCM however would be a damn good replacement name I must say, but I fear you might get in a fight with roi about that after having discussed the name O-PCE with him..
But what do we know about a carefully placed methyl on the cyclohexanone ring? Yeah possibly worthless compared to PCP SAR strategies but first check it then I'll believe it. Or what about an N-fluoromethyl? Depends on what makes NENK shit, I guess.
The point is: let's keep looking before we give up. It doesn't seem like we have nearly exhausted the potential analogues that aren't that far off. Haven't some RC's been pretty damn ingenious?
Regarding what I think of 2-fluoro: I think it's good, just weak. Couldn't say if it is as economically unviable as NENK. But 2-MeO man that was really utter scheisse.
As for most of the other points you make, it seems like you don't get that I was trying to use a hypothetical illustration to very generally talk about making trivial names and nomenclature condensed vs complicated. Or as you said: preferably flexible and correct.
And on that note, it is only fair that I admit I seem to belong to the nomenclature nazi movement ;p
Also no I have no faith in 2-chloro-MXM lol. But have no evidence to support my sheer inconfidence.
Hmm it doesn't seem like SO many chems are inappropriately being called "something-deschloroketamine" ? And DCK well it might be unlike ketamine but the structure is so damn closely derived from it that it gets a bit hard to deny it. O-PCM however would be a damn good replacement name I must say, but I fear you might get in a fight with roi about that after having discussed the name O-PCE with him..
Last edited:
Incunabula
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2010
- Messages
- 1,861
We'll have to wait and see about the TFM simple as that, and I have already conceded the other day that indeed we may run out of other close analogues quite fast [importantly when we focus on the chlorophenyl moiety], but I haven't really taken a very hard look at it, and I simply don't know that others have - how long has it taken before even 2-fluoro surfaced (as to make a point, regardless of what you think 2-fluoro is worthy)? So you are perhaps right but for now I am not closing the door on close K-like stuff... Yeah chloro is a dead end or maybe a cul-de-sac?
Or what about an N-fluoromethyl? Depends on what makes NENK shit, I guess.
The point is: let's keep looking before we give up. It doesn't seem like we have nearly exhausted the potential analogues that aren't that far off. Haven't some RC's been pretty damn ingenious?
I can't say I disagree with anything you say. N-fluoromethyl is a fascinating idea, and I admit that I am making a huge assumption, when I say that there's not going to be many dissociative analogs of ketamine, that are going to be ketamine-like in effects. I just think that NENK, DCK and O-PCE gave us some huge hints about what's going on with ketamine SAR vs. the more "PCP-like" Arylcyclohexylamines. But I'm not particularly knowledgeable on SAR og chemistry. I'm just a guy with a computer making speculations on the internet.
yes, I might very well have missed the point in your post. To be honest, I don't think we disagree that much, and I didn't attend to attack your position, only voice my own thoughts.
Me neither
Hmm it doesn't seem like SO many chems are inappropriately being called "something-deschloroketamine" ? And DCK well it might be unlike ketamine but the structure is so damn closely derived from it that it gets a bit hard to deny it. O-PCM however would be a damn good replacement name I must say, but I fear you might get in a fight with roi about that after having discussed the name O-PCE with him..
Yes, maybe you are right
But O-PCE was called DCEK in the beginning, and It came out about the same time as DCK. It just seemed to me that there for a while was a trend, to call every new ArCHA "something-ketamine". Going by that logic, MXE should have been called 3-MeO-DCEK. Not that silly actually. Except if one was a true nomenclature nazi, that should have been 3-MeO-DCNENK. because were's the sense in always insisting on "des", and then ignoring "Nor" when the name becomes too long. And O-PCE should have been DCNENK, not DCEK. Thank god, at least one major vendor had more sense than keeping that name. Because it sounds to me, that O-PCE is closer in effects to PCE than it is to ketamine. About DCK, I'm not suggesting we change the name, it's too late for that and DCK is fine really. I just personally think we should refrain from falling into the habit of calling every new ArCHA "something-deschloroketamine" by default. That's just my opinion, and people don't neccesarily have to agree
I hope we'll see some 2-TFM-K reports soon, it's what this thread should be about after all.
Last edited:
Incunabula
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2010
- Messages
- 1,861
Think about O-PCE. Doesn't that proove, that it could only be the combination of 2-halogen on phenyl and n-ethyl that makes NENK shit?
Spicehead45
Greenlighter
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2012
- Messages
- 9
How about calling it tri-k for short? Why isn't this and 2fk the more popular dissociatives instead of the possibly antibiotic ones? Is it price? I mean there are so many options, why choose ones that are possibly very dangerous? Don't get me wrong o-pce is beautiful especially iv, but it's the wrong choice imo. They should of tried 3-meo-2-oxo-pcp, pcpr, or pcpy compounds imo.
Bigazznugz
Bluelighter
Jesus will they just release this shit already. So everyone can find out it's probably crap?
Sorry but after the last uk legal ahc that was released I would be astounded if it's any good.
Sorry but after the last uk legal ahc that was released I would be astounded if it's any good.
Crashing
Bluelighter
I can't say I disagree with anything you say. N-fluoromethyl is a fascinating idea, and I admit that I am making a huge assumption, when I say that there's not going to be many dissociative analogs of ketamine, that are going to be ketamine-like in effects. I just think that NENK, DCK and O-PCE gave us some huge hints about what's going on with ketamine SAR vs. the more "PCP-like" Arylcyclohexylamines. But I'm not particularly knowledgeable on SAR og chemistry. I'm just a guy with a computer making speculations on the internet.
yes, I might very well have missed the point in your post. To be honest, I don't think we disagree that much, and I didn't attend to attack your position, only voice my own thoughts.
Me neither
Yes, maybe you are right
About DCK, I'm not suggesting we change the name, it's too late for that and DCK is fine really. I just personally think we should refrain from falling into the habit of calling every new ArCHA "something-deschloroketamine" by default. That's just my opinion, and people don't neccesarily have to agree
I hope we'll see some 2-TFM-K reports soon, it's what this thread should be about after all.
DCK sounds like a corporation for sure, O-PCM or DXE is where it's at.