Main Index Search Profile Send Private Check Private Who's Online FAQ No Encryption Logout
	21 Online, 2964 Registered	You have 0 new messages

	Methods Discourse	Forum index Threaded Next thread

	Posts 21 - 34 of 34	Previous page Show all

	Subject	Re: Detailed Methods for Non-chemists .	Reply
	Posted by	ikb3 (Stranger)
	Posted on	07-11-00 17:52
	Post No	27384
	thank you for taking the time out and making the access that easy. I've been busy going through those resources and I must say that it is reminiscent of a kid in a candy store! However, curiosity got the best of me and I must ask you a question. I understand direct proportionality in chemistry, as well as in other things in life, but why use such large quantities in the "methods for non chemists" post? I mean you are talking about 16L-18L of Safrol, etc. Again, thanks and I'll be in touch in August!
	Subject	Re: Detailed Methods for Non-chemists .	Reply
	Posted by	LaBTop (Moderator)
	Posted on	07-12-00 13:38
	Post No	27707
	Because you can scale them down, but also infinitely UP ! I also gave the quantities in grams in at least one synth, but take your calculator and multiply all figures by XXX, or divide them by XXX. At least all my methods, Beaker stated that his method doesn't scale up more than ~50 gram, and I bet you that he/she tried more grams. LT/ FUCK FUCK FUCK, just had a FUCKIN MAJOR EARTHQUAKE here. Many walls in my house are ripped, lucky it did not go down. Learns you some dignity and respect for "Mother Gaya" !!! Shit, it's still wobling, better go outside again. Had to login via another ISP, the other one is down and out, will be a lot of damage everywhere. Is now 10 min ago. A shocked LT/ WISDOMwillWIN
	Subject	Re: Detailed Methods for Non-chemists .	Reply
	Posted by	Semtex (Newbee)
	Posted on	07-12-00 13:42
	Post No	27711
	A very wise man once said that if one were to choose a certain profession, that one should make as much as one could in as short a time as possible and get out of the biz... Try and take into consideration, hindsight IS usually 20-20... Mean People Suck
	Subject	Re: Detailed Methods for Non-chemists .	Reply
	Posted by	Beaker (Stranger)
	Posted on	07-12-00 16:11
	Post No	27756
	"At least all my methods, Beaker stated that his method doesn't scale up more than ~50 gram, and I bet you that he/she tried more grams." No I didn't(exactly), and no I haven't. But, perhaps I was not clear in exactly what I meant. What I literally meant is that 50g is about the max you could reasonably process in one batch in a 2L flask. Scaleup should not be a problem, but due to the rather low product loading that you can obtain with the method as written, it is rather impractical at >50g scale. Bigger than that and I would suggest that one look into catalytic hydrogenation a la KrZ's mescaline writeup or finding a way to cut the amount of solvent back quite a bit. For most people, ~80g of 2CB out of 100g, or $60 worth of 2,5-dimethoxybenzaldehyde is more than enough. However, since you have gotten this impression, I will correct my lack of clarity in the original thread.
	Subject	Re: Detailed Methods for Non-chemists .	Reply
	Posted by	CHEMMAN (Hive Bee)
	Posted on	07-12-00 22:42
	Post No	27878
	Good your back LT. Ive just learnt a lot by mixed successes and fuckups . Yep the big ways are what we want hahaha. Keep up the good work, and next time I mightnt have to learn the hard way..:)
	Subject	Re: Detailed Methods for Non-chemists .	Reply
	Posted by	LOONYTOON (Newbee)
	Posted on	07-13-00 20:51
	Post No	28253
	Thank You Thank You Thank You THANK YOU This is exactely the kind of information i've been looking for. For some reason everyone assumes that just because you want to learn how to make drugs you either have to get a phd or you'll kill yourself. Everyone assumed i just wanted to be told how to it step by step, when all i really wanted to know is what i have to know and what i don't have to know, you know? I just didn't want to pour over tombs of knowledge that have nothing to do with what i want to learn, at least until i can find the time to do so. But i didn't want to go about it blind either. You gave me exactely the kind of shortcut i needed, which really isn't a shortcut at all, just cutting through all the bs. Stupid people have it easy. (I made that up, aren't i clever? Don't answer that)
	Subject	Re: Detailed Methods for Non-chemists .	Reply
	Posted by	sunlight (Newbee)
	Posted on	07-14-00 00:40
	Post No	28318
	LabTop, in the cryystalliztion mehod, you mix the amine with acetone, may be MDMA difficultly form the imine with acetone, but with MDA it seems easier, so we are afraid this crystallization method can yield imine. HCl instead of amine HCl, what's your opinion ? does it work sure ? Recently we have tested bubbling HCL in acetone before, as you told time ago, using the acid acetone soon, it degrades quickly to a yellow/green solution froming some kind of chloro subproduct, and we found this very volatile (as we supposed) and very very toxic and nasty. We didn't like it, although it's a good option.
	Subject	Re: Detailed Methods for Non-chemists .	Reply
	Posted by	Shambhala (Stranger)
	Posted on	07-14-00 03:39
	Post No	28357
	In reply to: hank You Thank You Thank You THANK YOU This is exactely the kind of information i've been looking for. For some reason everyone assumes that just because you want to learn how to make drugs you either have to get a phd or you'll kill yourself. Everyone assumed i just wanted to be told how to it step by step, when all i really wanted to know is what i have to know and what i don't have to know, you know? I just didn't want to pour over tombs of knowledge that have nothing to do with what i want to learn, at least until i can find the time to do so. But i didn't want to go about it blind either. You gave me exactely the kind of shortcut i needed, which really isn't a shortcut at all, just cutting through all the bs. Stupid people have it easy. (I made that up, aren't i clever? Don't answer that) Who has that WTF happy face? I don't think this thread should be filled with ________ posts (fill your descriptive word for the above post on the line).
	Subject	Re: Detailed Methods for Non-chemists .	Reply
	Posted by	LOONYTOON (Newbee)
	Posted on	07-14-00 13:12
	Post No	28521
	You know what? After reading your post a little more thouroughly, i think i overestimated this info at first glance. If this is supposed to be for non-chemists, then you must have something against them. Pretend for a second you have no knowledge of chemistry. Then read your post. Stupid people have it easy. (I made that up, aren't i clever? Don't answer that)
	Subject	Re: Detailed Methods for Non-chemists .	Reply
	Posted by	LaBTop (Moderator)
	Posted on	07-15-00 07:00
	Post No	28797
	Don't start ANY chemistry then, you will fail. If you can't understand chewed out proposals like these, then you better start a career as a barber, having the advantage that you see a lot of people (a cook does/must not), and you can talk a lot, to amuse your customers. Think about it, it's a good, solid profession ( This all must be taken lightly, btw, did I tell you that I hate tags? ). LT/ PS: posts like the above even more hardened my desire to write-for-the-masses, what a relief, one less to worry about. PS2: Au contraire, this post is exactly meant to post all replies in, the original locked sticky thread is at the Newbee forum at the top. It gets periodically updated and cleaned from all barbershop-talk. PS3: Nevertheless, thanks for the first enthousiastic response, but it shows (in your own words later) that thoroughly reading is not a barbers strongest point. Behold, no harm done, it's even an advantage for that trade. Never saw a barbershop blow up, never read about it either, must be a safe haven from the malice of modern society. hehehehe arrrr fuckin hilarious reaction arrrh... PS4: By far not ready yet, next one is Methylman's synth, that should be an easy one for analfabetes. PS5: If you feel in any way harassed by these words, save your breath, I probably saved your life and/or freedom, and gave you some solid free advice for a thrilling career, nearly forgot that. (All advice given in a modestly hilarious mood btw.) WISDOMwillWIN
	Subject	Re: Detailed Methods for Non-chemists .	Reply
	Posted by	LaBTop (Moderator)
	Posted on	07-15-00 09:29
	Post No	28867
	The imine is formed when you mix MDP2P with 10% w/w MeNH2 / MeOH,Edit 15/07( so then allready you must have added the 20% w/w pre-dried silicagel beads, to directly take up the water formed by the imine reaction mechanism)End Edit not when you crystalize, mixing acetone, that you do with the pure distillated base. No imine left there. The imine is hydrolized with the flooding with water (ev. mixed with 5% NaOH or KOH, as you happily found out for the MDA One Pot route. I will fill in a picture of the total mechanism soon into the MDA route, with molecular drawing of the imine, many seem not to know what the exact mechanism is, I'll help you out. Yep, if you make the acetone/HCl mix in advance, you must use it as soon as you can, or it will even become red, depending on how much HCl you bubble in. Edit 15/07 And add the acetone/HCl mix then slowly to the MDA (or MDMA or MDEA or Meth)-base while medium stirring, not the other way round, that would decompose at the start a part of your base, due to too acidic conditions. It has been seen that vigorous stirring results in very fine crystals, medium and at the end slow stirring results in more voluminous crystals, which is a logical effect of giving the crystals time and a more undisturbed medium to grow together. End Edit The best is to keep your percentage of HCl fairly low, to avoid early decomposition. LT/ WISDOMwillWIN
	Subject	Re: Detailed Methods for Non-chemists .	Reply
	Posted by	zooligan (Hive Bee)
	Posted on	07-25-00 05:19
	Post No	32604
	In reply to: Never saw a barbershop blow up, never read about it either, must be a safe haven from the malice of modern society. From http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/albertan1.html "Back in 1957, crime boss Albert Anastasia was gunned down as he got a shave in the barber shop of New York's Park Sheraton hotel. The murder of the bloodthirsty Anastasia, who was alternately known as the "Mad Hatter" and "Lord High Executioner" of Murder Incorporated, was never solved. Here's a selection of documents from the official investigative files on the Anastasia killing."
	Subject	Re: Detailed Methods for Non-chemists .	Reply
	Posted by	LaBTop (Moderator)
	Posted on	07-29-00 04:41
	Post No	34234
	Repaired it myself, thanks. LT/ WISDOMwillWIN
	Subject	Re: Detailed Methods for Non-chemists .	Reply
	Posted by	sunlight (Hive Bee)
	Posted on	08-25-00 20:28
	Post No	45035
	LabTop, our first test with am acetate and NaBH4 yielded 50 % +, but next tests have produced low yields, 25 - 30 %, and it is not a problem with the work-up as we thought the first time with low yields. Finally we realized that our first test was done with conservative proportions of am. acetate-ketone, using the amounts of TSII, and by the way, we don't remember the amount of NaBH4. It should be studied better, our experience is that using your proportions yields are around 30 %. Even using your exact recipe for MDMA, usual yields are 78-80 %, and adding a 20 % more of NaBH4 (may be a 10 % could be enough) yields are 84-88 %. It's what we have seen.

	Pages: 1 2 All	Jump to Acquisition Forum Chemistry Discourse Crystal Meth General Discourse Methods Discourse Newbee Forum Novel Discourse Serious Chemistry The Couch Tryptamine Chemistry

	https://hive.lycaeum.org	hive@lycaeum.org
The Lycaeum The Vaults of Erowid Rhodium Contribute!