We've Moved! Visit our NEW FORUM to join the latest discussions. This is an archive of our previous conversations...

You can find the login page for the old forum here.
CHATPRIVACYDONATELOGINREGISTER
DMT-Nexus
FAQWIKIHEALTH & SAFETYARTATTITUDEACTIVE TOPICS
Re-X is less pungent than the original product Options
 
TheQuantumSoul
#1 Posted : 2/17/2021 9:30:02 AM
Greetings

My Re-X has been safely stored for the last few months. I recently opened the vial and noticed that the odour is very faint now compared to what it once was, pre-ReX.

Do you think the potency might have been reduced too or is it simply because the impurities/plant fats have been removed?

In addition, is Re-X more potent per mg as a result of the process?

Thanks in advance for your input

TQS
 
downwardsfromzero
ModeratorChemical expert
#2 Posted : 2/17/2021 7:35:53 PM
Presumably by "RX" you mean recrystallised product ("re-x"). "Rx" can also refer to prescription medication so I would suggest you stick with a less ambiguous abbreviation for clarity's sake.

Recrystallisation removes impurities like indole and skatole which are the principal odour molecules responsible for the "DMT" smell.
Quote:
In addition, is RX more potent per mg as a result of the process?
There would only be a significant increase in subjective potency if the crude material contained significant quantities of inert or antagonistic material. That said, over the years some users have reported a greater subjective potency from some seemingly less pure material (e.g., "Jungle spice") and the reasons for this have been debated inconclusively. It may be that the impure material vaporises more readily, or that the effect is purely placebo, or that some improbably potent contaminant enhances the efficacy of the DMT by a yet-to-be-explained mechanism. Occam's razor goes some way to eliminating this last option, however.




“There is a way of manipulating matter and energy so as to produce what modern scientists call 'a field of force'. The field acts on the observer and puts him in a privileged position vis-à-vis the universe. From this position he has access to the realities which are ordinarily hidden from us by time and space, matter and energy. This is what we call the Great Work."
― Jacques Bergier, quoting Fulcanelli
 
TheQuantumSoul
#3 Posted : 2/17/2021 8:42:21 PM
Thanks for your reply. What's your personal preference, re-x or not?
 
downwardsfromzero
ModeratorChemical expert
#4 Posted : 2/17/2021 9:13:23 PM
I only ever had the recrystallised stuff but for different reasons (heavy solvent clean-up) so that doesn't really count as a preference, other than I'd prefer to avoid random impurities. In the interest of keeping this post brief, I'll just say that I could write several paragraphs on this but pretty much all the information those paragraphs would contain can be found on the forum already.

It would be lovely to go into depth on this were my time commitments to allow that to happen. This lands somewhere near the middle of my practically infinite to do list, tbh.




“There is a way of manipulating matter and energy so as to produce what modern scientists call 'a field of force'. The field acts on the observer and puts him in a privileged position vis-à-vis the universe. From this position he has access to the realities which are ordinarily hidden from us by time and space, matter and energy. This is what we call the Great Work."
― Jacques Bergier, quoting Fulcanelli
 
TheQuantumSoul
#5 Posted : 2/17/2021 9:17:39 PM
I would encourage to to reconsider!! I would really like to hear more?
 
 
Users browsing this forum
Guest

DMT-Nexus theme created by The Traveler
This page was generated in 0.011 seconds.