Author Topic: Short Questions Thread  (Read 10822 times)

Sedit

  • Global Moderator
  • Foundress Queen
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,099
Re: 4-nitro amphetamine
« Reply #60 on: July 24, 2009, 04:41:21 AM »
Im moving this to the short question threed where it should be.
There once were some bees and you took all there stuff!
You pissed off the wasp now enough is enough!!!

2bfrank

  • Guest
Re: Short Questions Thread
« Reply #61 on: July 28, 2009, 01:05:24 AM »
Hey peoples, I want change djvu files to pdf files and do so without to much drama. I lack computer experience, and their are so many programs offered. Just wondering if anyone knows of something free and good, and something that is easy to set up.

Thanks in advance for any help.

Frank

heisenberg

  • Dominant Queen
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
Re: Short Questions Thread
« Reply #62 on: July 28, 2009, 01:11:54 AM »
Hey peoples, I want change djvu files to pdf files and do so without to much drama. I lack computer experience, and their are so many programs offered. Just wondering if anyone knows of something free and good, and something that is easy to set up.

Thanks in advance for any help.

Frank

http://www.ehow.com/how_2167208_djvu-file-pdf-file-free.html
I spent all my money on booze and hookers, the rest I wasted - Charles Bukowski

2bfrank

  • Guest
Re: Short Questions Thread
« Reply #63 on: July 28, 2009, 02:49:10 AM »
Thanks Heisenberg,. It says their is a link for a free converter. I cannot find it on that site. If you are familiar, and have time, would you mind suggesting where it is.

F

2bfrank

  • Guest
Re: Short Questions Thread
« Reply #64 on: July 28, 2009, 03:13:31 AM »
I think Im good with this.

2bfrank

  • Guest
Re: Short Questions Thread
« Reply #65 on: August 03, 2009, 12:38:49 AM »
re:   NaH2PO4      I am not that up with inorganic, and CBFTUTFSE an twas wondering if

 (1) H3PO4 + NaHCO3  >  NaH2PO4 + CO2 + H2O  ?? (a guess)

  I have read that

 (2) H3PO4 + NaCO3 > Na2HPO4 + CO2 + H2O  (Confident)  

perhaps if (1) is a lazy dumb ass no go, then the later  Na2HPO4 could perhaps react with something that would appreciate a Na in exchange for a hydrogen. Perhaps an ion exchange resin, FUCK this, theres too much to much to learn for 2b's brain. See. Oh that reminds thee, anyone here know of OTC ion exchange resin. I have seen an article discussing it in use of home water softerners, and havent as yet looked, perhaps someone has and could denote to the 2b brain improvement scheme.

MUCH thankyous

2b
« Last Edit: August 03, 2009, 12:41:54 AM by 2bfrank »

Enkidu

  • Global Moderator
  • Foundress Queen
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
Re: Short Questions Thread
« Reply #66 on: August 03, 2009, 03:44:42 AM »
Yes, both 1) and 2) are correct reactions, as long as you know that the NaCO3 in 2) should be Na2CO3.

2bfrank

  • Guest
Re: Short Questions Thread
« Reply #67 on: August 04, 2009, 03:59:50 AM »
AHH, that is good 8) I knew 2 was good, as I copied it (inaccurately) as pointed out, and thought 1) was logical, but often logic isn't always the precursor to this mistress name chem. This is very good indeed.

Enkidu

  • Global Moderator
  • Foundress Queen
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
Re: Short Questions Thread
« Reply #68 on: August 04, 2009, 07:32:03 AM »
It's a simple acid base reaction...

2bfrank

  • Guest
Re: Short Questions Thread
« Reply #69 on: August 04, 2009, 10:52:48 AM »
yeah, I can be at times, but you dont have to rub it in   ;D 


Vesp

  • Administrator
  • Foundress Queen
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,130
Re: Short Questions Thread
« Reply #70 on: August 06, 2009, 02:42:38 AM »
Quote
N,N-Dimethylation of the commonly available tryptophan with paraformaldehyde and oxalic acid, followed by the above treatment with cyclohexanol would afford pure DMT in high yields.
- that one thread.

Is it really that simple? Seems way to easy, and so I'm skeptical of it.
 You just mix and heat paraformaldehyde, with the hydrated form of oxalic acid, and tryptophan at 100*C for a few hours, to get the N,N-Dimethyl tryptophan, which can easily be decarboxylated to DMT. I always thought DMT was going to be way more difficult then that!
I don't think I am missing anything, but like I said, that is just to simple..so is there a catch?

Bitcoin address: 1FVrHdXJBr6Z9uhtiQKy4g7c7yHtGKjyLy

2bfrank

  • Guest
Re: Short Questions Thread
« Reply #71 on: August 06, 2009, 07:03:33 AM »
a bit of topic from DMT, which 2b knows SFall about, but does anyone know for certainty what the isolectric point of N-methylalanine. Ive been looking, but haven't as yet found it.

2b.

Mr.Murphy

  • Guest
Re: Short Questions Thread
« Reply #72 on: August 06, 2009, 12:24:50 PM »
a bit of topic from DMT, which 2b knows SFall about, but does anyone know for certainty what the isolectric point of N-methylalanine. Ive been looking, but haven't as yet found it.

2b.
I can't provide a definite number, but the pI is calculated for the simple amino acids, i.e. the ones with just 1 carboxylic function & 1 amine, as: (pK1 + pK2)/2.
For alanine, this would be (2.35+9.87)/2 = 6.11. As a secondary amine is a bit more basic than a primary one, I would think that the pKb of a R-NH2 is higher than of RR'-NH. pKb = 14 - pKa.

Th rest is simple math.... pI of N-methyl alanine should be a bit higher than of plain alanine, ca. 6.2-6.3.

Murphy

2bfrank

  • Guest
Re: Short Questions Thread
« Reply #73 on: August 06, 2009, 03:15:48 PM »
So you reckon the methyl group is just going to raise it slightly. I think so to, as it would be similar effect to an alkyl group and be donating, hence more basic but very slightly. The pI  I got for alanine is 6.01  from my biochem book, and your figures differ slightly so I will confirm, I am looking into the N-Methyl alanine prep via the Tet letter article. I cannot see why it cant be followed to the letter, I feel also if the pI is known and got, then on standing one would likely get better results, Hopefully it is very close to 6.01, and not much higher, The closer to 7, the more likely other salts in solution will precipitate, escpecially if it gets an edge on the crystal of NMA. Speculation and guesses of course.

Vanadium

  • Larvae
  • *
  • Posts: 48
Re: Short Questions Thread
« Reply #74 on: August 06, 2009, 06:34:53 PM »
the N-Methyl alanine prep via the Tet letter article.

I'm interested in this; which article are you referring to?

2bfrank

  • Guest
Re: Short Questions Thread
« Reply #75 on: August 06, 2009, 06:41:55 PM »
See enclosed. Fair bit at WD, but But I think things can be improved.

Vanadium

  • Larvae
  • *
  • Posts: 48
Re: Short Questions Thread
« Reply #76 on: August 06, 2009, 06:53:18 PM »
See enclosed. Fair bit at WD, but But I think things can be improved.

I recall someone at SM performing this reaction and getting horrible yields because of the difficulty of removing precipitates from the solution. No wonder the paper measured yields directly IN the solution rather than extracting the products. Perhaps steam distillation a la P2NP==>P2P via Fe/HCl would work, but I think they tried that on SM too.

2bfrank

  • Guest
Re: Short Questions Thread
« Reply #77 on: August 06, 2009, 11:39:25 PM »
Yeah a fair few things have been explored, plus whether or not a mix, that one may ultimately end up with, if not able to separate, whether such a mix would ultimately be detrimental for ones uses. I am just thinking this a little more, rather than throwing out ideas.

Vanadium

  • Larvae
  • *
  • Posts: 48
Re: Short Questions Thread
« Reply #78 on: August 07, 2009, 12:43:59 AM »
Yeah a fair few things have been explored, plus whether or not a mix, that one may ultimately end up with, if not able to separate, whether such a mix would ultimately be detrimental for ones uses. I am just thinking this a little more, rather than throwing out ideas.

I would say not being able to separate waste product from desired product would be pretty detrimental to one's uses no matter what they may be! :D I don't frequent WD, has anyone had real success with it (I'm mainly wondering about the separation at the end)?

2bfrank

  • Guest
Re: Short Questions Thread
« Reply #79 on: August 07, 2009, 09:24:54 AM »
I hadn't even heard of the place, other than it being refered to at SM, and I thought it was some form of weird yet sarcastic/mild form of abuse, and telling the person to go and get somewhat sexually relieved, i.e. go and check out wet dreams, WHy dont you, Or listen pal we aren't that sort of place,  check out wet dreams, 2b isn't always up with the latest lingo, and didn't think that highly of it, 2b thought it was abit harsh, fancy Telling someone to check out a wet dream, and all they did was use the swim word, VERY VERY Very odd, ding ding ding ding.  ;D