Question about Jungle Spice

[Brennendes Wasser]

Ok so I got some Questions about this stuff yyoo!


So this is what I am sure now: You pull with aliphatic stuff the DMT out of it and then you can get the jungle stuff with e.g. Toluene.
And this mixture is an oily thing which still contains a liiiitttle DMT.

Now my Question is:

1.) So it's psychoactive on its own, but is it *WORTH* smoking on its own ? I mean there is very little DMT in it. So only the DMT will not produce something near the experience of the same weight of the real DMT extract. When only regarding the Jungle, do you get something like a blast off ? Or is it more like a very weak shroom trip in strength ?

Because then I'd like to ask how people consume it - mix it with DMT again to get a strong trip again? Or is it solely more for a chilling relaxation, as it is far weaker than DMT ?


2.) How do you refine / recrystalize it ? So as DMT is recrystalized in Naphtha / Heptane / Hexane and this compounds don't bring any Jungle whilst extracting, I guess they are also not really useful for recrystalization.
Do you even recrystalize it ? Or is it only advised to use the oil straight forward ?
I'm asking because as DCM / Toluene might be a good solvent for other stuff, the Jungle Extract itself should be like 1000x more unpure than the straight DMT from the Naphtha, won't it ?

 

[SnozzleBerry]

I mean there is very little DMT in it.

How did you come to this conclusion?


See: Summary of jungle spice analytical work

 

[dreamer042]

Also see here for mass spectra results:

Mimosa hostilis and extract analysis thread (FASA, FASW, Naphtha, Limo, "jungle spice" etc - Plant Analysis and Substance Testing - Welcome to the DMT-Nexus

Long story short, Jungle Spice is almost pure DMT with only trace amounts of NMT and beta-carbolines.

 

[Brennendes Wasser]

Ok but this now starts some confusion ...

1.) So if it's also mostly DMT, then how is the dosage compared to the Naphtha Pull? Yes, I know it may feel different, but I think it's also easy to tell if a person did like 200 ug LSD, then how much Mushrooms will LIKELY be the same trip strength.

So a 50 mg DMT would be how many mg in Jungle Spice ?


2.) Why does the aromatic pull (for Jungle Spice) still yield DMT, if one has already pulled to the excess with Naphtha before ? I mean: 1. Pull like X mg, second Y and the last one Z. And Z may be very little to none DMT containing. How come that there is again a huge amount of DMT, when you start using the other Solvent ? Yes, it may be more soluble, but if there is STILL so much in it, then there still has to come more DMT at pull Z and even a sizable amount at another Napththa pull - wont it ? Oô


3.) A lot of people re-x their Naphtha pull for better purity. But as *Jungle*-solvents like DCM are a lot better Solvents, won't they produce even more impurities ?
I have never read anything about re-x of the Jungle Spice Oô or did I just miss it ?


Just asking those questions to know how to handle it with the maximum of efficiency ! ;D THX

 

[potato]

1) There is no definitive answer. The amount of DMT in jungle spice will vary depending on the concentration of DMT in the basic soup at the time of the aromatic pull. Furthermore, the additional alkaloids in jungle spice may potentiate the effect of DMT and may do so to different extents in different people. So, the strength of jungle spice relative to DMT varies among different batches and different users. If you want to compare the dosages, I recommend finding some jungle spice trip reports and take note of the dosages used.

2) The rate of diffusion of DMT from the basic soup into the non-polar solvent is affected by the solubility of DMT in the solvent and by the concentration of DMT in both layers. After several pulls, the concentration of DMT in the basic soup gets so low that DMT diffuses in clean naphtha at a very slow rate. If the naphtha is replaced by a solvent in which DMT is more soluble, say toluene, the rate of diffusion increases. If your basic soup+naphtha and your basic soup+toluene are equally homogenized for the same amount of time, more DMT will move into the toluene over that period of time.

3) If you want to pull jungle spice, then the impurities are desirable. If you desire an impure product, you won't attempt to purify it. Don't re-x jungle spice unless you want pure DMT.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

1) There is no definitive answer. The amount of DMT in jungle spice will vary depending on the concentration of DMT in the basic soup at the time of the aromatic pull. Furthermore, the additional alkaloids in jungle spice may potentiate the effect of DMT and may do so to different extents in different people. So, the strength of jungle spice relative to DMT varies among different batches and different users. If you want to compare the dosages, I recommend finding some jungle spice trip reports and take note of the dosages used.

This is a bit of a misleading assertion, based on the actual analyses conducted so far. With such minimal amounts of NMT and betacarbolines, it seems unreasonable to assert that one should expect a variance in potency based on the alkaloids present.

Rather, as with most assertions made about different "types", colors, batches, etc. of DMT, the most likely candidate for the experiential differences described in anecdotal reports is self suggestion. Even pure DMT can induce incredibly varied experiences from one trip to the next. Given the analytical evidence that exists at this time, it seems unreasonable to attribute differences in experiences to "other alkaloids."

 

[potato]

1) There is no definitive answer. The amount of DMT in jungle spice will vary depending on the concentration of DMT in the basic soup at the time of the aromatic pull. Furthermore, the additional alkaloids in jungle spice may potentiate the effect of DMT and may do so to different extents in different people. So, the strength of jungle spice relative to DMT varies among different batches and different users. If you want to compare the dosages, I recommend finding some jungle spice trip reports and take note of the dosages used.

This is a bit of a misleading assertion, based on the actual analyses conducted so far. With such minimal amounts of NMT and betacarbolines, it seems unreasonable to assert that one should expect a variance in potency based on the alkaloids present.

Isn't it true that the potency of full-spectrum extracts from mimosa can vary? That's all I was trying to say.

 

[Brennendes Wasser]

Ok so THANKS for your answers so far!

But now there are 2 final questions for me coming up:


1.) so Jungle Spice is used just as it is, no further re-x and just take, what has come from the Toluene pull. But if all those impurities don't affect the effets (for nonactive ingredients) or are even desired (the *jungle*), then why the hell is it common the re-x the Naphtha pull ? I mean as Toluene will catch more things, there are even more impurities in the Toluene pull. But for Naphtha there should be much less then. So if Toluene pulls don't need further re-x, then why do all the guys re-x their Naphtha pull ?


2.) So Toluene is a better solvent and the impurities are not that bad, so you can easily still use it for consumption. Then in my opinion the onliest conclusion coming up for me is:

Why use Naphtha at any time (!) if a) Toluene is better and b) the *impurities* are neither bad, nor unwanted.

So this sounds that there is completely no benefit of using straight Naphtha, a) getting less yield and b) missing out some stuff, which may even be good ?
Yes - it may be another experience, but you also just said that it is not really varying, as it both is mostly DMT and then why do so much extra work or miss so much of your spice ?


Because now as far as I understood I would rather just use Toluene (no Naphtha at all) and evap completely and then just use this as it is.
Wouldn't this be the smartest thing according to my questions so far ?

THX !!

 

[downwardsfromzero]

Because now as far as I understood I would rather just use Toluene (no Naphtha at all) and evap completely and then just use this as it is.
Wouldn't this be the smartest thing according to my questions so far ?

It's up to you. There are arguments for and against each and any of the solvents that could be used for DMT extraction. Toluene, on the whole, is more expensive than naphtha - and you're proposing to evaporate it? It's also more toxic than naptha... (You can recover your alkaloid(s) from toluene with a vinegar wash and thus save the toluene for further extractions.)

Limonene is also said to pull a more 'jungle'-type spice.

Naphtha is used because of the convenience of freeze precipitation for some people and its typically lower price and more ready availability. It does the job quite adequately well.

 

[syberdelic]

delete me

 

[Brennendes Wasser]

Ok so thanks again for the answers.

But there is this last question, which I think is still unanswered:

So IF money would make no difference, it seems that Toluene is better than Naphtha in terms of Pulling. (yeah evap = problem)

But then my Question is still: If the Toluene-Pulls are NOT re-xed - because it is not necessary, as all or most of the impurities are those which you want to have it in,

then why do people re-x their Naphtha pulls ?

I mean: Naphtha is a worse Solvent regarding pulling. And if Toluene is a better one and the people DONT re-x the Toluene pulls, then why would there ever be so much unwanted (!) impurities to make re-x worth it sometimes for the Naphtha pulls ?


THXX

 

[syberdelic]

delete me

 

[burnt]

So IF money would make no difference, it seems that Toluene is better than Naphtha in terms of Pulling. (yeah evap = problem)

Its worth noting that toluene is carcinogenic. Naptha which contains mostly hexanes is also toxic but for different reasons (neurotoxic effects). Regardless unless you have proper evaporating equipment exposure to both of these solvents is a consideration. Naptha being easier to evaporate less will remain in final product.

But then my Question is still: If the Toluene-Pulls are NOT re-xed - because it is not necessary, as all or most of the impurities are those which you want to have it in,

then why do people re-x their Naphtha pulls ?

Its a consistency issue as well as purity. Jungle spice tends to be harder red material. So its easy to handle (weigh, scoop, smoke etc). Naptha extracts when evaporated down with no re-x tend to more oily. So its harder to weigh, scoop, and smoke.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

1) There is no definitive answer. The amount of DMT in jungle spice will vary depending on the concentration of DMT in the basic soup at the time of the aromatic pull. Furthermore, the additional alkaloids in jungle spice may potentiate the effect of DMT and may do so to different extents in different people. So, the strength of jungle spice relative to DMT varies among different batches and different users. If you want to compare the dosages, I recommend finding some jungle spice trip reports and take note of the dosages used.

This is a bit of a misleading assertion, based on the actual analyses conducted so far. With such minimal amounts of NMT and betacarbolines, it seems unreasonable to assert that one should expect a variance in potency based on the alkaloids present.

Isn't it true that the potency of full-spectrum extracts from mimosa can vary? That's all I was trying to say.

I find no issue with what you are saying. Some people just can't help being dismissive and negative at every opportunity.

I'm not being negative or dismissive, rather, I'm attempting to highlight an apparent flaw in the assertion that was made about alkaloid makeup and potency.

By what mechanism(s) are you proposing that "potency" varies, potato (or supporting this proposition, syberdelic)? Afaik, the only "measurement" of this by the average consumer is subjective experience. To which I would respond with the same link I provided earlier and emphasize the section on emplying a blind/double-blind protocol if one wishes to start making such claims without being subjected to the significant role that self-suggestion plays.

Otherwise, I think we're still back at the point in the conversation where self-suggestion is the most likely culprit. As I stated earlier, even smoking DMT from the same homogenous batch can lead to wildly different experiences, which could lead one to conclude there is a "potency" difference when there's simply a difference in subjective experience. When dealing with DMT, this variance appears to be part of the phenomenological nature of the compound.


And as to assertions about "selective solvents" such as,

Solvents like toluene and xylene are going to pull more spice as they are very unselective. They will pull nearly everything that is non-polar including a lot of garbage that you don't want. Naphtha is very selective and will pull less of everything including spice.

I'd refer you to this informative thread

Again, not being negative, just trying to emphasize accurate engagement/understanding, to the best of my limited abilities.

 

[dreamer042]

I'm reminded of this passage from Acid Dreams:

At first Owsley produced LSD in a powder form that could be doled out in gelatin capsules. He also sold it as a liquid ("Mother's Milk" ), tinted light blue so that distributors could keep track of which sugar cubes had been spiked. But it was hard to control the dosage with this method, so Owsley invested in a professional pill press and soon he started dyeing his tablets a different color each time he turned out a new shipment. Although there was no difference between the tablets (each contained a carefully measured 250 micrograms), street folklore ascribed specific qualities to every color: red was said to be exceptionally mellow, green was edgy, and blue was the perfect compromise.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

I was saying essentially the same thing as Benzyme in the thread you referenced but in a different way. I never said that anything was entirely selective or unselective as a solvent. I clearly specified that naphtha will still pull some garbage but much less.

Come on, now. You literally said

Solvents like toluene and xylene...are very unselective...Naphtha is very selective...

In the thread I linked, benzyme clearly states:

there is no such thing as a selective solvent.
some are more effective than others, but they will pull unwanted compounds.

Using the terms "selective" or "unselective" isn't accurate, which is all I stated. I even stated that my intended purpose in chiming in was to prevent the continued meme-ing of the whole selective/unselective terminology. It's the wrong terminology, and there was a concerted effort to correct this terminology after benz clarified that years ago (you can find a number of threads where the clarification was offered).

The potency of DMT could be all over the place as well as other chemicals from whatever plant source is used.

Can you elaborate as to what you mean when you say "the potency of DMT could be all over the place"?
I'm not clear on what you are suggesting.

Dreamer's quote highlights exactly what I've been saying throughout this thread, and (as I've also said throughout) offers a much simpler explanation for variations in subjective experience (beyond DMT's already significant variability).

 

[syberdelic]

delete me

 

[syberdelic]

delete me

 

[downwardsfromzero]

Not to mention that different consistencies of technically pure (>80%) DMT will affect the perceived purity/strength due differing rates of vaporization and possibly thermal decomposition along with speculated effects from 'fats' 'protecting crystals from heat' and acting as vaporization entrainers - to whit, largely physical parameters affecting the efficiency of vaporization.

Co-vaporized fatty material may enhance the absorption of DMT in the lungs, even.

Given the amount of variables at play, it's about as surprising that DMT is as consistent as it is as that it is as variable as it is!

 

[SnozzleBerry]

Ok, so maybe I should have used "more selective" or "less selective". I'm not sure of a better word to use than selective. I used the term "very" in front of selective in order to denote it as a descriptive adjective rather than a definitive adjective.

We all love naphtha as a solvent because it has a great deal of selectivity towards DMT and because it rejects DMT when cold.

This whole thing is purely semantics and I don't see why I should alter my language because a few morons can't wrap their head around the concept that a solvent is never 100% selective or unselective. Just to make everyone happy, if you can find a better word than selective that doesn't hit the same pitfalls, I'll use it. ... But only on the Nexus.

You don't have to do anything. Again, I was simply pointing out that it's not about a particular solvent "selecting" dmt out of a matrix, but rather about how effective a solvent is. One of the pragmatic issues that comes up is that for the effectiveness, a *less* effective solvent (such as naphtha) is preferred by some, which has been confusing for some folks, especially those new to extraction.

I don't really think it's accurate or reasonable to call people "morons" when they're trying to wrap their heads around new concepts.

And when I say the potency of DMT could be all over the place, I literally mean anywhere between 0 & 100%.

So you're talking about purity? Again, if you'd read my earlier post, my statement explicitly made reference to the analyses we've carried out, to-date. It's not every extraction, obviously, and there are flaws in the population from a statistical standpoint (it's essentially made up solely of people who self-selected to send in material, likely folks who are more concerned with purity in the first place). But that said, as we are having the discussion here, on the Nexus, the sample is likely not that skewed from those interested in this discussion/aiming for good purity. So given the analytical data that we have on hand, we have pretty good evidence that very pure extracts can vary significantly from one experience to the next, and that there is a relatively low quantity of "other" compounds in jungle spice.

downwardsfromzero presents another confounding variable in the equation that, imo, further drives in the direction of it not being about large variance in purity, especially given the actual analytical data that we've collected/seen.