Pages: « 1 2

Author Topic: New meth formula avoids anti-drug laws  (Read 366 times)

Douchermann

  • Dominant Queen
  • ****
  • Posts: 397
Re: New meth formula avoids anti-drug laws
« Reply #20 on: August 27, 2009, 05:30:51 AM »
Haha you're making progress, rocketman.  I can't even make chloral hydrate from ethanol.  That takes SOOOOO much chlorine.  I eventually exhaust my chlorine source.  Try chlorobutanol isntead ;)

rocketman

  • Larvae
  • *
  • Posts: 40
Re: New meth formula avoids anti-drug laws
« Reply #21 on: August 27, 2009, 05:51:50 AM »
thanks lol :-*

My chlorine source was spectacular- one of those chlorine tablets with HCl kept shooting chlorine for hours. The real failure was bubbling the chlorine into 40% vodka instead of pure ethanol :P
« Last Edit: August 27, 2009, 08:15:25 AM by rocketman »

jon

  • Foundress Queen
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,883
Re: New meth formula avoids anti-drug laws
« Reply #22 on: September 06, 2009, 12:46:13 PM »
pretty funny about that simple oversight you mentioned.
although i've read somewhere chloral hydrate could be prepared from a simple carbohydrate and hcl i think it was glucose not sure.
 never was fascinated with it but that seems a lot easier then fucking with chlorine gas.
just curious sedit why did you want to deprotonate dmso?
and rocketman could you please try to balance those equations?
i hate reading shit like that.

Prepuce1

  • Pupae
  • **
  • Posts: 96
Re: New meth formula avoids anti-drug laws
« Reply #23 on: November 30, 2009, 05:04:01 AM »
This "news" release is typical of the type of disinformation spread by the government and the media. Like the rest of you, I think the most foolish part of it is the implication that you somehow get more meth using this method than you would using alternatives. Of course I shouldn't neglect the days of cooking, the poisons and explosions they always talk about.

One of the worst I ever heard came over the radio 2-3 years ago, on NPR even. In Chicago a house that contained a meth lab had to be cleaned to the point where dust that might rub off the walls had to contain less that 1 millionth of a gram of meth before the house was considered safe to re-inhabit. I worked through the math back then and discovered that you would have to eat something like three kilos of wall dust just to get the minimum dosage for a five year old child: 5mg. Needless to say, the companies hired to do this work were cleaning up in more ways than one, and heartily agreed with the interviewer about the awful hazards of his job.

I used to puzzle over it, thinking someone must be profiting from all this, like organized crime who may want sole distribution rights. Now I think that most of it just comes from LE trying to justify their budgets/levels of personnel. They've always seemed prone to exaggeration about anything having to do with their work.

The government, OTOH, often uses the "drug epidemic" to divert attention from things they wish no one would notice. The ploy often works. The other reason, or one of them, is fear mongering. It gets everyone stirred up and presumably helps politicians to be re-elected.

One thing sure is that the subject of drugs is a political hot potato. The mayor of Baltimore (IIRC) was quickly removed from his position when he suggested that filling the prisons with drug users made little sense.

PP

refrawd

  • Larvae
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: New meth formula avoids anti-drug laws
« Reply #24 on: December 02, 2009, 04:21:43 AM »
Well, speaking from ignorance,
seems to me that the lithium would float on the ether,
separate from the water.

the pseudoephedrine . HCl would tend to fall to the bottom of the ether,
or maybe be partially suspended in it:

this is just a guess from densities:

the small amount of water it would take to start the base + fertilizer = ammonia plus more water
would be separate from the pseudoephedrine. HCl,
and the released ammonia would tend to freebase the pseudo.HCl,
and the freebase would dissolve in the  ether.

The ammonia would solvate the floating Li,
which is the least dense solid in the container.

whether it is Li bronze or e- directly that effects the reduction,
the proton source would hopefully come from the "H" in the HCl,
and the water should  stay  physically isolated from the reaction.

With that all said, the use of a 2 liter PET bottle is problematic,
"shaking" is not something I would recommend:

and although i have proclaimed my total real life ignorance of the protocol,
the testimony of respected third parties who have sampled the wares so created
makes me quite positive that the goods can be so derived.

Ask the Counseler at WD... :P

shroomedalice

  • Guest
Re: New meth formula avoids anti-drug laws
« Reply #25 on: December 06, 2009, 04:44:07 AM »
I get a 404 on that site :(

so let me get this right ......

ammonia nitrate and lithium in ether :).

makes lithium nitrate  and ammonia in ether. adjust ratio so as to make sure you still have lithium to do
reduction with.

well if that works I can think of a million and one better things to reduce than fucking psuedo.

birch is a good as LAH in most cases.
and in some its even better.

hey sedit got my electrodes there realy cool :).

I dont think its a good idea to use such a simple amine for deprotonation of DMSO as it will metalate as well.

the biggest problem with birch is it will reduce the benzene ring before some groups :(

otherwise you could just add it to phenyl alanine.

birch will still reduce and acid though to my knowlage.

I wonder if a ionic salt of some kind might cordinate it to the acid over the ring.

then again I wonder if some of my mussings do more bad than good :).


having said that heres and idea for ya sedit.

akabori the pepper you oxidised :)

shake shake in the coke bottle as there talking about.

MDA baby

much better than useing fucking psuedo.

it actualy makes the akabori a dream synth when you think about it.
Pages: « 1 2