Author Topic: Brightstar vs Dr Drool / methyl man  (Read 1530 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

denny

  • Guest
Brightstar vs Dr Drool / methyl man
« on: November 08, 2002, 09:18:00 PM »
Reading both workup's Im finding conflicting differences in methods used. Brightstar removes the oxide off the al where Methyl Man does not. why ball up the al in a coffee grinder? other things like addition rates, heating, cooling, washes ect ect. Can anyone come up with a uniform work up that everyone agrees on will work flawlessly

DrBumpz

  • Guest
Most..
« Reply #1 on: November 08, 2002, 10:18:00 PM »
Most tend to choose the Methyl Man Tech. I believe the Brightstar Method was around first and alot of stuff in the Methyl Man tech was improvments that started circulating on the Hive

I used my glassware to make beef stoganoff. It was exellent!

Starkas

  • Guest
MethylMan's is a lot better, in my experience.
« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2002, 12:05:00 AM »
MethylMan's is a lot better, in my experience.  Grinding the al-foil make's it easier to stir.  It is damn near impossible to get the stirbar going in a BrightStar Al/Hg.  Especially if your dumb enough (as I was) to do it in a 500Ml RB as he says. 

I originally made my MDP2P via MM & thought I'd try a BS Al/Hg for shits & giggles.  I fucked up the Methylamine synth 1st 2 times I tried it & the BS Al/Hg was a joke (only tried it once & with the 500ml RB which wasn't stirring & had shit pouring out of it because the flask was way too small.  I succeeded using MM's Al/Hg 1st time.

Without a doubt these failures were also due to my poor lab-technique & lack of experience.  But MM's is written so clearly it's pretty hard for anyone to mess it up, even newbee's.

noj

  • Guest
Differences
« Reply #3 on: November 12, 2002, 09:02:00 PM »
The only major difference between the two are the methylamine source - methylamine.HCl verses nitromethane. Since using nitromethane will require more aluminum to reduce it to methylamine MethylMan figured using a coffee grinder would cut and compress the Al to make it easier to stir.

Both methods in fact amalgamate the Al2O3. BrightStar chose to flush and rinse the mercury amalgam out prior to the ketone reduction. Leaving it in will not hinder the ketone reduction, as MM did, but requires removing it after reaction is complete.

MM uses a drip rate to control the reaction speed. BS uses an ice bath to slow the reaction when needed.

Both methods produce the same result. They are just different methods, not conflicting at all.

Hope this helps your understanding.



there's a big difference between criticizing your government and criticizing your country

denny

  • Guest
many thanks
« Reply #4 on: November 14, 2002, 11:17:00 PM »
Thanks to all the bee's who helped make things clear.
my main concern was that of safty. also with respect to nitromethane, isnt pure nitromethane made for the folks who race funny cars? I beleave they mix their own fuel.
Ill have the answer from a local race shop latter on today.
Denny

carboxyl

  • Guest
You also may find it interesting to compare the ...
« Reply #5 on: November 16, 2002, 01:42:00 AM »
You also may find it interesting to compare the yields of BS vs. MM. I think of BS as a foundational document for some reason, probably because it was the first document I read on Rhodium's page.

The above post is purely fictional. Any resemblance to "real-life" is purely coincidental.