To be Hydrochloride, or not to be HCl, that is the ? - the Hive BB

To be Hydrochloride, or not to be HCl, that is the ?

profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Author	Topic: To be Hydrochloride, or not to be HCl, that is the ?
mrr pyrex Member	posted 10-09-1999 03:23 PM Or at least that is the question I give thee. For thou shalt only present knowledge to this thread for discussion that hast been gathered by way of actual reactions :->. For thee elders had knowledge of many reactions, but we shalt focus our attention in this thread to thee reaction known by thee elders as Thy Pusha/Pulla. What I present to thee for examination and interpretation are recent results which were observed when Thy Pusha/Pulla method was utilized. The Psuedoephedrine tablets that were used did not contain any form of micro-crystallinecrap. The manner in which the Pfed was purified was the same for all reactions observed, so the differences between reactions in theory will be as a direct result of the form of Psuedoephedrine used, which was either Psuedoephedrine Freebase or Psuedoephedrine Hydrochloride (we will assume that these are the only two varibles). When Psuedoephedrine Hydrochloride was used as the starting material it was observed that the reaction proceeded in a very manageable and doscile manner, and the results being sucessful conversion of the Pfed to meth. The amount or % return was within the 50% to 75% range most of the time. The Pfed and the Red P were mixed until uniformity was acheived. Then the I2 was added quickly, and within a few seconds the mixture started forming little growing/bubbling "balls" of reactants, little or no smoke. Reaction was shaken down to mix the reacting balls with the rest of the material, water added little by little, and then after say 10 mins the reactants were in a couple of big balls which when let sit grew bigger and bigger, next heat was added which made things happen quicker...basically it turned to mud then went to completion without any more noteworthy details. In contrast though, when Psuedoephedrine Freebase was used as the starting form and the I2 addition was made, no sooner did the stopper get put in then billows of yellow,green and white smoke poured directly off the reactants filling all the available air space within the tanks and made the water surge up and down big time. All the while brown mud splattering all over the inside of the vessel. Within 1 minute the fireworks display calmed down and water was added to the vessel to clear walls, which it did, and then heat applied to make sure the reaction went to completion if it had'nt already. When the extraction of product was attempted, results were either non-existant (meaning NOTHING was recovered) or the amount of return % was very low (Less then 40%), conversion from Pfed to meth did occur and quality was their, just not quantity. My opinion is that freebase is very reactive and can be used to get results, but more controlling factors need to be figured out or the results are too spotty and unpredictable. However, when the HCl form is used it is possible to control the experiment much better, and results alot more predictable, the down side being that when this form is used, it is easier to have reaction stop by itself or to flood it out and then not be able to get it to finish. And also it takes more time start to finsh to run exp with the HCl form (being slower reaction). Well that is what I can provide, what can you provide? The idea of this thread is to see if these are the same results that others are getting and whether or not improvements can be discovered and by pooling info maybe decide which form is best suited for this reaction. My first thought was, there needed to be better way then HCl form (reaction stalling was too easy) and when Freebase was tried...WOW...but it was short lived, due to reaction after reaction kept failing after that first success. Then after a feel for reaction both ways, it was my feeling that the HCl form was after all a better way to go. Pyrex out of thoughts
prickleberry Member	posted 10-11-1999 10:02 AM Fuck reading this post !!
Worlock Member	posted 10-11-1999 01:28 PM Interesting topic, I approached it last month from the point of view that iodine salts would be better, there is quite a bit on that in some of the other forums also. The final outcome was an increase in yields to 80%-90% using any of the E salts or freebase, it is a simple matter of controlling the reaction,. You see there are two possible reactions that will occur a mild one that produces meth, or a violent one that eats up everything in in the flask processing I2 to I- and back again over and over, gives low and inconsistant yields and lots of crap to clean out. Initiate and maintain a cool environment and you get high quality clean shit and one ton of it, last test run with crappy E got back 9-10 grams M from 12 grams E. Just did a 47 gram E run,have not weighed it all yet, but it will be to be well over an ounce, only have dried a little over a third so far, it weighed 14 grams, of clean white crystal heaven No acetone washing or anything needed see thread this forum "low yiedls->high yield.
mrr pyrex Member	posted 10-12-1999 12:59 AM Actually Sir Worlock it was the lo-->hi that gave me the idea of to post this. After looking over that I thought it might be useful to get specific info regarding outcomes of rxns due to the use of either the freebase or hydrochloride, with just those two varibles. And it does appear as you stated that excessive heat from the reaction is indeed destructive and results in low or no yeilds. Pyrex out

All times are CT (US)	next newest topic \| next oldest topic
Administrative Options: Close Topic \| Archive/Move \| Delete Topic
	Hop to:

Contact Us | the Hive

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.39a
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 1999.