• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ
  • PD Moderators: Esperighanto | JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Phenethylamines The Small & Handy 2C-EF Thread

Buzz Lightbeer said:
I found this, it's the explanation of their 'parts' https://www.ecstasydata.org/about_data.php

So to summarize we can't really know the exact ratios for sure, but @methoxetaman his approximation was right, except that you mixed up the compounds ;)
~45% 2C-T-2
~33% 2C-C
~22% 2C-T-7

I understand why they don't give the ratios, but in this case the percentages are more useful than the 'parts' notation. In any case, we don't know if the substances mix perfectly, so it might be best to make a solution and rely on these numbers.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation link; makes sense when I go back to my chemistry education. and yeah the percentages are much easier to understand.

And damn I cant keep anything straight. Guess maybe I was subconsciously hoping it was more 2C-T-7 since that one sounds like the best of the three... but they’re all rare so oh well ??‍♂️

& yes he just because my sample is a certain ratio of each doesn’t mean yours will be the exact same ratios... remember the vendor probably got a huge bag of it (assuming he didn’t mix them himself) and all our samples are gonna have slightly different ratios, right?
 
Yeah the fake 2C-EF blend was powder so no guarantee at all that it was a uniform mixture.
Percentages are still a ratio, they just happen to add up to 100 :LOL: but I get your points that they're practical

Is it possible that the ecstacydata analysis was flawed because they didn't have a reference sample of 2C-EF in their database, and so it matched as this 2C blend, when in fact it was actually the real deal?

edit: I see now that the gas chromatography step can identify the presence of distinct molecules
 
I too was really hoping that was the case but it definitely does appear pretty precise. I still havent seen any other test results it will be nice to see if these ratios are different.

perpetualdawn said:
Is it possible that the ecstacydata analysis was flawed because they didn't have a reference sample of 2C-EF in their database, and so it matched as this 2C blend, when in fact it was actually the real deal?

edit: I see now that the gas chromatography step can identify the presence of distinct molecules
Click to expand...
 
2CT2 is a gem too imo. But T7 was always "the one that got away" and never got to try at that first wave of rcs.

methoxetaman said:
Thanks for the explanation link; makes sense when I go back to my chemistry education. and yeah the percentages are much easier to understand.

And damn I cant keep anything straight. Guess maybe I was subconsciously hoping it was more 2C-T-7 since that one sounds like the best of the three... but they’re all rare so oh well ??‍♂️

& yes he just because my sample is a certain ratio of each doesn’t mean yours will be the exact same ratios... remember the vendor probably got a huge bag of it (assuming he didn’t mix them himself) and all our samples are gonna have slightly different ratios, right?
Click to expand...
 
Super thankful that I checked this thread, I very nearly mixed this "2C-EF" into MDA and ketamine last weekend but thankfully opted for 2C-B instead. T7 + MDx could've been less than safe, and I'm willing to pay for my own mistakes but I was dosing a group. God forbid...

So this weekend i busted out the reagents and TLC kit for the 2C-EF, 2C-YN, bk-2C-B and 2C-B-FLY, presumably from the same supply discussed in this thread. Interesting results - I looked at the EF first and on the first plate it only registered one spot. I ran it next to 2C-T-7 and 2C-C on that plate expecting to get two of the EF cocktail's constituents spotting next to the known references.

In fact it only registered one part, as if it were an unadutlerated product. The spot was around where T7 registered. To make sure I didn't screw something up I ran a plate just 2C-EF from 3 origins and every track registered, again, a single spot in parallel.

Getting plates and filming reactions for all of these was a pain in the ass, so i'm gonna look at the rest tomorrow. Ultimately I'll probably just send everything off to energy control, but this was fun in the meantime.

Note: this is in-my-kitchen thin layer chromatography vs. the GC/MS earlier in the thread. TRUST THE GC/MS! I'm NOT trying to muddy any waters here, and I'm certainly not claiming that the substance is 2C-EF. Just that using bunk police's setup this appeared as *one* substance, whatever said substance may be. There could be a million reasons for that, though.
 
Hey yardbird! Nice to see you.

There were 2 batches of 2C-EF, and we're wondering if the earlier one (from some time ago that is not like a month or two ago) is the real deal, or if they're both bunk. You got some of that supposed 2C-YN? I was going to, until I discovered the bunkness of the 2C-EF. Glad I didn't, but wondering what it is.

All this said, the 2C-T-7/2C-T-2/2C-C blend is really nice, I like it a lot. Just wouldn't have paid so damn much for it.
 
yardbirdrc said:
Super thankful that I checked this thread, I very nearly mixed this "2C-EF" into MDA and ketamine last weekend but thankfully opted for 2C-B instead. T7 + MDx could've been less than safe, and I'm willing to pay for my own mistakes but I was dosing a group. God forbid...

So this weekend i busted out the reagents and TLC kit for the 2C-EF, 2C-YN, bk-2C-B and 2C-B-FLY, presumably from the same supply discussed in this thread. Interesting results - I looked at the EF first and on the first plate it only registered one spot. I ran it next to 2C-T-7 and 2C-C on that plate expecting to get two of the EF cocktail's constituents spotting next to the known references.

In fact it only registered one part, as if it were an unadutlerated product. The spot was around where T7 registered. To make sure I didn't screw something up I ran a plate just 2C-EF from 3 origins and every track registered, again, a single spot in parallel.

Getting plates and filming reactions for all of these was a pain in the ass, so i'm gonna look at the rest tomorrow. Ultimately I'll probably just send everything off to energy control, but this was fun in the meantime.

Note: this is in-my-kitchen thin layer chromatography vs. the GC/MS earlier in the thread. TRUST THE GC/MS! I'm NOT trying to muddy any waters here, and I'm certainly not claiming that the substance is 2C-EF. Just that using bunk police's setup this appeared as *one* substance, whatever said substance may be. There could be a million reasons for that, though.
Click to expand...


Very interested on your results of the other compounds from the same source as well. It would be interesting to know what month window this batch was obtained as opposed to others
 
perpetualdawn said:
Yeah the fake 2C-EF blend was powder so no guarantee at all that it was a uniform mixture.
Percentages are still a ratio, they just happen to add up to 100 :LOL: but I get your points that they're practical

Is it possible that the ecstacydata analysis was flawed because they didn't have a reference sample of 2C-EF in their database, and so it matched as this 2C blend, when in fact it was actually the real deal?

edit: I see now that the gas chromatography step can identify the presence of distinct molecules
Click to expand...

Yes, even if you had no standards for any of the compounds, a blend of 3 compounds should give you three distinct peaks during the GC step. For a mass spectrum to make sense you need a pure substance, hence the need to separate a forensic sample using gas or liquid chromatography.

Assuming you had no standard for 2C-EF, you could still identify it by looking at each peak's mass spectrum, atleast if you knew what you were looking for.

All of these compounds have significantly different molar masses, and are going to produce different fragmentation patterns resulting from their structure. For example, 2C-C should have the characteristic double peaks arising from the two isotopes of chlorine, 2C-T-X is going to make alkylthio fragments (which have their own characteristic masses), and 2C-EF should produce fluoroethyl and fluoromethyl fragments (again with their own characteristic masses).
 
I finally got around to trying this stuff. I think it’s just 2C-T-7, but idk.

I boofed about 5mg and started feeling it pretty hard within a few minutes.... I would say this is definitely a strong ROA because I was even gtting slight visuals and a heavy body feeling, and my friends say 10mg oral or snortedwas weak sauce.

I decided to take some trazodone to kill the trip after like an hour. I do not like it.
 
I'd imagine 10mg of 2C-T-7 snorted to be quite strong, but there was probably some 2C-T-2 and 2C-C in there then. Interesting that 5mg plugged was so intense
 
Weird, I love this stuff. I have snorted 3mg bumps, and after doing 2 of those in a night, I was tripping pretty solidly, for a long time, and it was SO nice, very euphoric, absolutely zero bodyload, pretty pro-social. It was amazing to be honest, this was before I knew it wasn't 2C-EF. 2C-T-2 is quite a bit more potent than 2C-T-7 and 2C-C (2C-C is more potent than 2C-T-7 for me), so I was thinking it was mostly T-2. It may be that all of ours are different in composition of the 3, as if the dude just dumped 3 powders together and mixed, it's not going to be uniform.

I guess T-7 snorted is particularly strong though. I can take 40mg of 2C-T-7 orally and not get the trip that people describe, it is mostly emotional with little in the way of visuals. I remember morninggloryseed said he needed 50-70mg orally for a full trip. T-7 seems particularly variable in oral potency, but reports seem to solidly indicate high potency when snorted.
 
Not been round here in a long time, so hello to you all! What a fascinating thread.

When something like this happens: initial glowing reports, followed by others confirming them, of the "unique" nature of this particular PEA - doesn't it really hammer home the huge amount of expectation/placebo effects going on here?

And given this timely reminder - do you think to question that maybe some of the time, it's good old set n' setting that accounts for a significant part of the variance, rather than the different molecular structure?

Many experienced psychonauts claim that tryptamines feel one way, the halogenated 2Cs another, but subtly different to the alkylated versions, etc etc...

This has, I'm afraid, always struck me as rather unlikely. Given the number of other variables in a psychedelic experience, the tweaks to the molecules might well get washed out by other factors. I have a strong hypothesis that doing a double-blind test, with an experienced user, choosing drugs of similar duration, that they would not be able to guess better than chance which substance was which.

I remember a few years back, there was a load of Hoffman blotter in the UK, that subsequently tested by Energy Control to be DOC. I'd been munching it all summer long, and a fair few people in my circle had too. And every single time I thought "Man, this is good acid". Only in retrospect, with people remembering "Oh but I couldn't sleep for ages" did things start to slot into place. It's funny, the narratives we tell about our experiences, and how we change them when new facts come to light.

Anyway, I'm glad to see there are still some cutting edge new psychedelics being hunted for, if not found!
 
I think the differences are not major, but are still very significant. For example, 2C-B and 2C-E are worlds apart, there is more different there than similar. It is very difficult for me to imagine that I could not tell them apart.

Now, if you double blind gave me some random psychedelic, and asked me if I could place it? Very unlikely. Could I tell the difference between LSD, mescaline and mushrooms, if I knew it was one of the three? 100% yes, for sure. An irrefutable example is DiPT, which, instead of visual hallucinations, produces extremely wild audio hallucinations, it causes an inner ear movement, it's physical as well as mental. Men's voices sound like frog robots, birds sound like wire tension snapping... it's otherworldly and bizarre. That is a variation on DMT that has drastically different effects. So is it just DiPT that's different and the rest are the same?

I think expectation is part of it, sure. But I've thoroughly explored these things and even if you couldn't tell the difference in a double blind, it doesn't mean there aren't differences. A trip is complex and can pretty much go anywhere. But when you start to notice a trend, when every time one of them is much easier on the body than the other, or one of them is always extremely immersive with music and another isn't... it begins to stretch the imagination that all of that is because I'm telling myself it will be that way. Just because they can all go to the same place doesn't mean they are all identical.

And why is it so hard to believe that differences in receptor activation from different psychedelics wouldn't account for differences in subjective effects? They've mapped out receptor affinities for just about everything now, there is a huge range of differences. The brain and consciousness is so complex, surely differences in receptor activation are likely to lead to differences in subjective effects? Even if minor (or major)?

Anyway hey man nice to see you post. :)
 
specialspack said:
When something like this happens: initial glowing reports, followed by others confirming them, of the "unique" nature of this particular PEA - doesn't it really hammer home the huge amount of expectation/placebo effects going on here?

And given this timely reminder - do you think to question that maybe some of the time, it's good old set n' setting that accounts for a significant part of the variance, rather than the different molecular structure?

Many experienced psychonauts claim that tryptamines feel one way, the halogenated 2Cs another, but subtly different to the alkylated versions, etc etc...

This has, I'm afraid, always struck me as rather unlikely. Given the number of other variables in a psychedelic experience, the tweaks to the molecules might well get washed out by other factors. I have a strong hypothesis that doing a double-blind test, with an experienced user, choosing drugs of similar duration, that they would not be able to guess better than chance which substance was which.
Click to expand...

Some interesting thoughts there. I (believe I) remember reading Shulgin, in either pihkal or Tihkal, stating that when introducing a new compound to the group he had to be careful not to lead them on too much.... as the words we (he and other creators, not I lol) use to describe the subjective experience of a new substance give it part of its character....

Tho I’m with @Xorkoth . I believe the subtle differences are what keep all the alphabet psyches around.... if they were all so similar I don’t think the novelty alone would be enough to keep them around..

Also the differences in receptor affinities is why I believe all the lsd pro-drugs shouldn’t be called “acid” ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top