First of all there is no need to use swim here as I personaly feel it insults everyones intelligence and will degrade the board to common tek type discussion which is unwanted. I feel that Meth tek has been done to death from every angle possible and I do not personaly feel the need to rehash old Rhodium text which have ruined the underground chemistry by making it the one and only pit stop for ideas...

Perhaps someone here can help you but I can not. Im interested in the mechanics as well but if you can please change the name of this thread to something other then just Glacial acetic acid because that is not what this thread is about. Its about the rate constant of the reduction of secondary alcohols in acetic acid using Iodine and red phosphorus.

Sedit:
 I dont try to insult anybody , only follow the rules of the forum:

I feel it would be in the best interest of everyone here to follow these rules, However if you think another list of rules would be better, please let me know via a PM.

Do not post sources (i.e www.thisplace.cxm)
Do not plan to, or do any of these actions using the forum:
- Trade,
- Sell or,
- Give Away any items
Do not give out personal information such as your identity, location, etc.
Posts should be timeless and impersonal

wizard x thanks a lot

Posts should be timeless and impersonal

Saying the word "I" hardly gives away any information on who you are...  Saying or providing personal information that gives away who you are would be your name, where you live, etc

But one way would be to not use I or SWIM, etc. Just word what is said differently if one is concerned.

Instead of saying "I added X to Y and began refluxing" one could say "X was added to Y and refluxed" er... something like that.

Just out of curiosity,is there any record or example of anyone (besides Stirke)having been prosecuted, in which statements made online and used as testimony,have had any bearing on a persons prosecution?

Does that make sense?

(removed irrelevant bs)

There has been some recent discussion in this area and since this thread was brought back to light I am going to split it and make a new topic.

I dont know why we have to discuss drug synth to be honest.
I like the idea that no1uno has discussing legit synth that you do your self is fine
theoretic drug synth well I have done this in the past and wish I had not.

the world is changing very quickly and with the web being archived if the laws change on
discussing the theory behind illegal activity we may all be in trouble.

even schedualed compounds I think might be a worry in the future but that at least
is not as bad as finished compounds.

maby instead of swiming for our own names we should be swimming the compounds them selves.
not saying swim mind you but useing no illegal compounds as our discussion topics.

I have made this mistake many times so I realy can not talk but I dont have the illusion that swim will save me.

examples of the way the world is going

http://resources.zdnet.co.uk/articles/features/0,1000002000,39454822,00.htm

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97134

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/27/imp_consultation/

I would say there not the only ones and that most of the world is doing it or will be.
they just havent had it uncovered yet.

even if the rest of the world is not doing this all you need to do is think of the
echelon project    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echelon_(signals_intelligence)

I like the idea of posting info on compounds that are not active for synthesis
and posting open info on pham on all compounds.

example of this would be instead of p2np napthyl2np I am sure the reduction and formation would
be the same.
though I may be wrong.

there seems to be no rp/i synths here so I would say the chemistry of the members is of a high enough
grade to know what can be done with a reaction with out it being spelt out.

Why doesn't everybody refer to their asshole neighbor,
like Nivram, who does all the dirty work around these parts.

i mean, if the fuzz came and asked where Nivram was,
I'd say    WTF?  am i my brother's keeper??

find him yourOWnselves.. 
sheesh

No it didn't help any of them for one main reason. To the best of my knowledge there has never been a single post made by ANYONE used in the court of law. Hence if they knew enough about you to want to use your post that is the least of your problems.

No it didn't help any of them for one main reason. To the best of my knowledge there has never been a single post made by ANYONE used in the court of law. Hence if they knew enough about you to want to use your post that is the least of your problems.

Was reading part of Strike's case - a couple of detectives showed up freindly like and Strike & co was showing them around.  The report makes note of the fact that when they asked Strike how much safrole in Camphor oil he said 20% and they knew he was lying because his book and web site said otherwise.  So yes it is used to make the case, just may not show up in the court of law.  And I believe all the web stuff was in discovery as well.

salat

Im a big fan on the idea that people should focus on obtaining precursors then writting about the synthesis of a drug when ever possible. Tell me where to get AcOH, AcO_{2 or how to make Li[NH3]n instead of talking about what to do with it. Anyone that has any business using any of this should know what to do with it themselfs without much further discussion.}

Most instances the entire MDMA writeup is well known by anyone that needs to know and if someone focused more on how they aminated propylene or halogenated E-?-butylene ect... then it leads to,

1: No need to incriminate yourself.
2: Higher level of discussion.
3: Confused LE woundering why people are aminating E-?-butylene.

Think about where the world would be right now if folks always discussed the reduction of a secondary alcohol to an alkane using HI/R instead of talking about how to make METH.