Epistane testing results
- 04-11-2007, 04:23 PM
- 04-11-2007, 04:29 PM
The burden of proof has been met. The burden of rejoinder is now on IBE's shoulders.
- 04-11-2007, 04:31 PM
04-11-2007, 04:32 PM
I'll ask my professor tomorrow if it is likely to do so.
I actually don't know how 288 is explainable, to tell you the truth. That would be the number he would get if he removed an S-H from the total MW, and not the -OH. -OH almost always falls off during GC/MS as H2O (-18), which yields 270 M+ (molecular ion).
I don't know why PA would say otherwise, honestly.
Well, I'll take it to my professor tomorrow (Ph.D Ochem) or Friday. But, I know FOR A FACT that alcohol would come off as water (-16 for the O and -2 for the two protons).
04-11-2007, 04:35 PM
As an excuse for exiting this thread, it stinks.
04-11-2007, 04:39 PM
MW of epistane is 321.
At the 17th Carbon, oriented axially, there is an alcohol functional group -OH. During mass spectroscopy the -OH pretty much always leaves and takes a proton with it. That's -18 AMU from the total MW of 321. That would be the first thing to go, period.
That leaves 303 AMU remaining.
Sulfur, located directly underneath Oxygen on the periodic table (and therefore possessing very similar chemical and physical properties) is also likely to leave (as evidenced by PA's numbers himself, 288 being 321 - 33.) Epistane has an epithio group at 2a,3a. This means that carbons 2 and 3 are bonded to a single sulfur equitorially.
Sulfur has an MW of about 32 and it would strip a proton as well, making the total MW removed 33 AMU.
303 - 33 = 270 AMU for the M+.
Epistane contains two functional groups that would likely leave under GC/MS conditions. On is an epithio group and the other is an alcohol. When the alcohol leaves, it takes a proton with it making the total MW loss from the parent molecule 18 AMU. The epithio group would strip a proton with it as well, that takes another 33 away.
So, methyl-epithiostanol = 321. - SH, -H2O = 270.
An M+ of 288 makes little sense. He would have had to leave the -OH functional group on to get that weight, and -OH leaving and stripping a proton (coming off as H2O) is pretty much a given- I guess its "possible" for it to stay on, just very improbably from what I know.
Last edited by kwyckemynd00; 04-11-2007 at 08:30 PM.
04-11-2007, 04:40 PM
I have a feeling that whether this discussion remains open or gets locked right now - that we're all going to be in the same place no matter how many pages this discussion goes on.
Save time and make your decision right now.
Either continue to buy from IBE. Or don't.
But don't waste any more time on this discussion. It will not go anywhere.
Mark my words.. Remember page 3 and refer back to here next year when on the anniversary of the "lab results" thread comes upon us - still going on...
04-11-2007, 04:41 PM
I just think its ironic that you can follow one man with blind faith, but will chastise others for doing the same. That and you pretend to know something about the chemistry of all this, but drop a nice cop-out when you are called on it. Good luck on your quest to rid the world of all that which is IBE. I'm going back to my real life for a while, maybe even go workout, but who does that on a bodybuilding forum anyway?
04-11-2007, 04:41 PM
Ones morals are there own, and need not be shared with any other individual, for that is their inherent nature.
If i buy a product and i yeild positive and safe results, that is what matters to ME.
All i want to know is if whatever is in epi(ibe) is workin better then whatever is in HavoC for the purpose of gyno reduCtion, even from if only an anneCdotal standpoint
I will ask my question elsewhere as i am not one to engage in arguments, and this thread is going in a direCtion that is no longer of my intrest
I will leave on a positive note sayin i hope this is resolved pleasantly and this whole situation was a big mistake as i do respeCt both Companies as well as every member on this board
aspire where did you find that avatar?
04-11-2007, 04:42 PM
04-11-2007, 04:44 PM
04-11-2007, 04:44 PM
04-11-2007, 04:45 PM
04-11-2007, 04:52 PM
Well now things are just totally ****ed. Your explanation makes perfect sense, so why did you have to be the one to make it? Couldn't D have rattled that off in his first post? And if you're right, then was PA being ignorant, incompetent, or malicious?Dr.D is right on this one. I'm actually a bit appauled that PA would lie about it. An M+ of 288 makes absolutely no sense. He would have had to leave the -OH functional group on to get that weight, and -OH leaving and stripping a proton (coming off as H2O) is pretty much a given.
04-11-2007, 04:53 PM
04-11-2007, 04:54 PM
D didn't rattle it all off because he did in the other thread...but most people ignored it because they don't understand chem.
04-11-2007, 04:55 PM
04-11-2007, 04:58 PM
04-11-2007, 05:05 PM
"Let's think about results for a minute. For example, take a compound with a molecular weight of 321 that possesses an episulfide and a hydroxyl function, which are it's two most libel groups in a GC/MS fragmentation. When injected into a testing system (reference my GC/MS tutorial on p.10), what would be the most likely result? The parent less the hydroxyl less the episulfide which would strip a proton with it (320.53-17.01-32.07-1.01=270.45~270) leaving an ion which would resemble the non alcoholic version of DMT (2-ene). Also, imagine that this product is 99+% pure and that the results and logs are stellar by almost all who try it."
04-11-2007, 05:05 PM
My assessment of the situation is that neither 270 nor 288 is a terribly suspect MW. I'm not sure what impact this has on the 3.8mg of active per cap situation --- my guess is not much --- but that's far less serious.
Where this goes next I have no idea.
04-11-2007, 05:07 PM
Whitedevil stay off the ad hominem attacks.
04-11-2007, 05:08 PM
04-11-2007, 05:25 PM
04-11-2007, 05:31 PM
04-11-2007, 05:48 PM
It just got uncharacteristically quiet over at BB with your ar***** Kwycke.
04-11-2007, 05:48 PM
Thanks a lot kwyck.
I was gonna ask what this means for Havoc & Hemaguno, since they had 288 according to PA, but I don't think we can take his word for anything right now.
04-11-2007, 05:51 PM
You know what sucks though? PA and Carcinogen are much more knowledgeable chemists than I am. So, regardless of the fact that I may be right, if they decide to make me look stupid--they can. hahaha.
There is a grad student (Ph.D student, chemistry) over there, whom I believe would be honest about it all, beejis60. He's already confirmed the 270 M+ is legit.
I'm just waiting for PA and Carcinogen to get on and start trashing me, then it'll turn into a km00 gangbang on bb.com.
04-11-2007, 05:53 PM
So if Epistane has the right stuff --- albeit underdosed --- then what the hell does Havoc have? Even if both products contain the same active, and even if that active is finicky about losing its hydroxyl in GC/MS, why would Havoc consistently yield a MW of 288 and Epistane a MW of 270?
For ****'s sake, what the **** is in my pills!?
04-11-2007, 06:04 PM
Epi is what is had been since day 1, but some people have shown their chemical makeup in the process, this thread and the others, have only succeded in one thing name calling.
04-11-2007, 06:08 PM
From my "limited" knowledge, it is VERY UNLIKELY that an M+ of 288 would result because the alcohol SHOULD leave.
There are tons of steroids with MW's of 288. Could be one of many things--and still, its STILL possible that you can get a result of 288.
Nothing has been "proved" here, other than epistane WAS NOT disproved.
04-11-2007, 06:08 PM
I just thought Id throw this out there, if anybody has got MD magazine of may 2007 on page 338 there is a page and a half article on havoc and epistane. Pretty informative.
04-11-2007, 06:09 PM
I can't comment on the chemistry aspect. I've sent PA a link to the bb.com post. What KWY says makes perfect logical sense. That has been the issue and why I've asked, how do you get 270 when others had 288. I simply said I would get the results and post them, I have.
With the MW solved, I'll be curious what is said about the content issue. The lab says that number is within 20% of being accurate. That makes those pills almost 5mg. If that was done, that would allow a company to make twice as many bottles from the same amount of material.
04-11-2007, 06:14 PM
Now, you're accusing them of purposely under-dosing? Will this sh!t never end???
04-11-2007, 06:15 PM
All of a sudden, epistane is starting to look like the control, not the variable, at least as far as the MW goes.
Kwyck, chem is for masochists. I'm trying to decode this IUPAC nonsense so I can calculate the theoretical MW for my damn self. Insanity.
04-11-2007, 06:16 PM
I'm not ACCUSING them of anything. I'm looking at an independent report that says their product has 3.8mg per cap (with an accuracy within 20%). That is looking at the facts in front of me and making a statement. Such that if a cap was to contain 5mg, instead of 10mg, you could double your production.Now, you're accusing them of purposely under-dosing? Will this sh!t never end???
04-11-2007, 06:21 PM
From my interpretation of the results, MM has a valid reason to suggest looking into the measured actives. It does clearly say that 3.8mg was recovered and 10mg is claimed.
That, however, IS A VERY MINOR quality control issue in comparison to having the wrong compound altogether.
04-11-2007, 06:22 PM
Very interesting turn of events here. Kwyck well done.
04-11-2007, 06:24 PM
04-11-2007, 06:26 PM
Luckily my part here is done . I said I'd get the results and post them. I have. In closing (as there is nothing more for me to do at this point), I'd like to tell Neo, poopster and friction to please kiss my white hairy ass. I know we aren't supposed to attack people on here, but you dudes rode my ass for 2 weeks about posting results. I said I'd post them and I did.
04-11-2007, 06:27 PM
Similar Forum Threads
- By 1Fast400 in forum SupplementsReplies: 41Last Post: 04-11-2007, 12:04 PM
- By WATERLOGGED in forum AnabolicsReplies: 34Last Post: 01-29-2004, 10:28 PM
- By ex_banana-eater in forum SupplementsReplies: 14Last Post: 10-19-2003, 06:22 AM
- By TheTom in forum AnabolicsReplies: 6Last Post: 09-16-2003, 01:31 PM
- By GangstaJDog in forum AnabolicsReplies: 1Last Post: 08-24-2003, 04:26 PM