I am uploading my unfinished Tek in hopes that I could get a few Nexians to help with editing. I want this to be more of a collaborative guide. I still have a few steps to cover in the guide so I was hoping for some meaningful input and perhaps a grammar Nazi or two to help as well. Thanks to all who read and proofread!

*I received some great input and I will be uploading a different text here soon! I no longer am writing a Tek. I will report on any discoveries in my upcoming extractions though. Hopefully, I can add something new to the Nexus.*

I'm somewhat interested. I actually teach English Composition for a university in the states, so I have indeed been called a "grammar nazi" a time or two. I don't have time presently to look over the document thoroughly, but I did skim your work and I like where you're going with it. I have no idea where I'm going to find time for this one with the billion other things that I have going on while I'm getting ready for the move later this semester, but I am indeed interested.

What purpose would you like the document to serve once it's completed?

For the purpose of an informal and entertaining look into extracting DMT from Acacia Confusa root bark. I did what I could to have this first draft be as grammatically correct as time permits but I kept it informal as so to make it easier to read. Here and there I use the informal "you" and possessive "your" to try and include the reader. In the procedure sections I even went as far as including myself and adding "we" or "our." So, to sum it up, I went for consistency in usage but I tend to be a bit wordy in my writing.

Thanks for reading and I look forward to any changes you might add.

I've yet to finish the steps towards the end but I feel like I'm reiterating or repeating myself a bit. I could use some proofreading. Any comment, suggestion, or demand will be helpful. I plan on finishing it up soon, maybe even adding some pictures or diagrams. What do you think?

Hey !

To be honest I can't see where you have added anything significantly different from standard A/B teks here apart from the professional equipment.

It's very long and will almost certainly put beginners off in my eyes.

On the plus side there is a lot of useful information in there and it is articulated relatively well, if not a touch repetitive.

Where exactly do you want to go with this ?

A good person to speak to about this may be 1ce he likes to use lab equipment you should speak to him, I'm sure he would like to help you

True, true. I haven't really added all that much when it comes to new information. I really don't think it all that necessary. I feel that the classic procedure, put forth by most all of the other teks is pertinent and useful. Not to mention, tried and true methodology is best when it is refined through practice. I have produced some very substantial pulls from using the old tried and true methods.

As I stated in the forward, I was simply writing up my own version of the A/B extraction. I feel that some of the other teks didn't really elaborate that much on some of the finer aspects of the procedure. Which can be a good thing no doubt, but as I also stated the beauty is in the details.

As for the lab equipment, it is truly not necessary. For many of my extractions I used old wine bottles and spaghetti sauce jars. Lab equipment such as the few things I mentioned are only for those who find the beauty in Chemistry and know the use that they could get out of specialized equipment. I added a lot of extraneous info simply to try and instill my frame of mind into the extraction. To try and fill in the gaps and make it feel like much more than just a recipe.

So to answer your question, I just want to go with my gut and try to add a hint of prestige and complexity to a seemingly simple laboratory experiment. Out of sincere respect and gratitude for the gifts I have received experiencing this insanely powerful drug, I just wanted to write a tek that would give DMT the credence, attention, and care it deserves. If it is too long then so be it. If those who feel there is nothing to be learned from it, then so be it. I also stated and relinquished all credit to the terrific teks that others have crafted. I am still fine-tuning the tek and I do appreciate your comments JustCurious. I hope I have answered your question and I will try and streamline it a bit to make it easier to read. That's quite a task when you're working with a 20 page wall of text!

Hi SomniumCupitor i to agree with JustCurios and I can also tell you care about this Tek and put quite a lot of thought and many many hours into this , but , its unrealistic , sorry , ppl want simplicity and when you've been around a while you see some members have a hard time following a stb let alone this very long and detailed essay , a A B acid/to/base or ATB a acid/then/base Tek's really only have 4-5 main parts and they are simple but the smallest tricky little detail can cause the most confusion amongst newbies ....

The beauty of organic chemistry is the simplicity of it if you ask me.

Hey EW I could do with speaking to you about something but I can't PM you because I'm still a plant pot Can you go on chat ? Going to start today I have a couple of quick questions

I see what you mean. Well I wanted some actual information to help edit the draft, I wasn't really looking for whether or not it will be read due to it's length. If people don't like reading or find joy in words, why are they reading a forum? No offense, I did ask for your opinions. It just seems as if you are closing the door on something you probably haven't even read. The length is purely a matter of opinion. If people don't want to read it all then so be it. I guess I will rephrase my question:

I would like some help editing the content and/or accuracy of the A/B extraction procedure I have added to. Beware: It is lengthy it's 20 pages and growing...

Hey,

I'm not sure what you are aiming for here - I seriously doubt this will be considered as a new tek.

If I were to edit this text it would simply end up as your standard A/B, so I don't really see a point.

I don't want to sound like I'm shooting you down here but personally I can't see this going anywhere.

The majority of the extra information you have in this tek is easily available on the nexus in small, easily readable sections from which members can pick and choose what they want to read.

As EW said you have obviously put a lot of time and effort into this manuscript so I commend you on your efforts anyway.

Thank you and I understand it's nothing personal. I'm not taking any offense. I agree with you and I also agree you are entitled to your own opinions.

The entirety of academia is based on someone researching and rewriting other peoples work or discoveries. Most is not based on new research. I did state and will restate that this tek is NOT a recipe or simple blueprint. There are other fine teks that detail a simple procedure. I also wrote that it is more like a dialogue with the extraction. For those who do like to read and may not be familiar with the extraction, I provided a more lengthy example. Throughout the tek I am trying to write it as if it is a conversation with the reader. There is a lot of extraneous information due to me trying to show my frame of mind during the procedure. It's showing how I obtain the Holy Spice.

I wanted to weave a personal touch into the extraction. Not to make it my own but to simply contribute like all have the opportunity to do. Learn. SHARE. Expand. Right? If you don't feel it will become a tek then that is your opinion. If you truly don't feel that anything needs to be changed or recalculated for accuracy, added to as in you know a trick or two, or feel it is not something that helps the procedure, then you don't have to read it.

I would appreciate it if you do not think it's worth reading nor would it be of any use, that you would leave nonconstructive, unwarranted, and imprudent criticism to yourself. If a thousand people think it's a waste of time, well then a thousand more people might enjoy it. I'm not going to jump ship now due to a few disagreements. I value your opinions and EW's as well. I would just appreciate less quizzical and argumentative banter and more prudent criticism.

I'm sorry if what I said came of as harsh I really didn't mean it to, I apologise if it did.

No problem friend! It is quite difficult to discern emotional meaning through simple exchange like this. I mean no offense at all and none taken. Thank you though for challenging my work. I will try and compress it a bit. It is still quite a rough draft and needs some work. I will make it more user friendly in the future because you guys do bring up some good points.

I think the simple question that should be answered as straightforward as possible is:

What does it add?

This is a question that the author of any methodology should be able to answer in bullet points.

For example:

BLAB
-No heat source
-Incorporates FASA/FASI
-Allows components of extraction to run "unattended"
-Utilizes limonene (eliminating petrochemical smell)

At the time the BLAB was written, most of these components (if not all) had not been formally incorporated into any written methodology. So these were things that were brand new to anyone who wasn't keeping up with the threads that had the most cutting-edge extraction developments, or most people outside of the Nexus.

I'm now going to respond to a few points that have come up in this thread. Please don't take this as an attack on you or your words, I just feel that a few of the points need to be addressed.


This isn't really a valid statement. And even if we view it with the most wide-open/lenient-reading to mean things like "Econ professors publish new editions of identical texts year after year and force students to have the newest edition in order to maximize their profits," that's simply not how the Nexus works. Novelty of information is important.

We have a preponderance of teks, many of which are the same principles applied to different types or amounts of plant material. That's not a different methodology...and if we are honest with each other, we should all be able to acknowledge it.


At the beginning of this thread, you asked for "meaningful input." Is it not meaningful that multiple people are questioning what this approach brings to the table? Does that not indicate something of worth to the author? Personally, I'm grateful to the people who wrote the original teks from which numerous facsimiles followed, precisely because it meant that was something that was not necessary for me to do.

The fact that there is a vast and overwhelmingly redundant body of extraction teks means that we are all "free" to pursue novel ideas and explore uncharted territories. To me, this is infinitely more exciting than rehashing the same information that's been regurgitated endlessly.

So, the most meaningful pieces of feedback I can provide are a few questions and some context

What does this method add to the body of extraction literature?

Why not write your dialogue with DMT as an experience report(s) or collected thoughts and present it as such, so that it has appeal to people who are not interested in teks and doesn't muddle the methodology for anyone who is interested in your personal approach.

How does adding complexity benefit anyone? You say you are adding complexity and prestige (which seems a bit odd, as one does not dictate the other) but neither of these things should be the aim of an extraction methodology, imo.

Why do you feel the critiques you have received up to this point have not been "prudent"?

Finally, the length. The length is an issue. As much as you seem to be dead-set on the length (please consider the comment about separating your thoughts/experiences from your methodology), there is no reason for an extraction methodology to be anywhere near this long. Especially not when I can write my methodology in under 12 lines (and have done so) and cyb's can be viewed as a single-image flowchart.

Good points. Perhaps I was truly misreading this input. I do see where you are coming from. In all honesty, I might be mistaking the purpose of a tek in general. I never thought about it in the way of a trip report. Besides, I have found it is losing it's personal touch the more I write.

As for my misguided attempts at explaining the purpose of the work, I have re-evaluated a few times with your advice. Perhaps I should re-write this as more of a tribute to DMT and a fun way experience it. Without the regurgitated extraction points. I just got so caught up in the excitement of it all I started veering off track from my original purpose.

My apologies for any miscommunication on my part and I truly appreciate that. I know I posted it on here for a reason! Thanks man! I think I'll simply write a tribute stemming from my "What is DMT to Me" introduction. I said it myself that the teks on here are priceless and great guides for beginners like me. There really isn't any reason to add anything.

As for those who did provide input I am grateful. I think I just misunderstood it's purpose. I'll rewrite this as more of an extended trip report or tribute to the importance of the Holy Spice, and leave the Chemistry to other posts. Thanks SnozzleBerry! That's just what I was looking for!

@SC
This is only a quick reply so I hope I'm not too blunt. Your writing is very lucid , but if you could edit the plants section to add that those acacias also contain the spice in the phyllodes. For the trees man thanks.