Author Topic: The Secret behind Potency of Meth  (Read 49117 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

geezmeister

  • Guest
Heme's point is well taken
« Reply #20 on: November 27, 2002, 09:52:00 PM »
Point well taken Heme. I have noticed that longer reflux does tend to give more of the euphoric effect, while shorter time-of-reflux dope does provide the stay awake and sometimes teeth grinding aspect of speed. My atributions to incompletely reduced intermediates may be completely offbase, and a good qualitative analysis of several batches certainly would be educational. I lack this capability, but I could speak with a former client who does just this sort of work for the state's regional crime lab...a little risky, yes, but probably not too much so.

Mostly harmless

SQUIDIPPY

  • Guest
old timers
« Reply #21 on: November 27, 2002, 10:34:00 PM »
Some time ago SWiSD remembers talking to some of the old-timers Most all of them would swear by 36 or 48 hrs.

SWiSD has been convinced by Ibee, Geez and others, to go with the longer reflux times, and confirms their claims. Thanx guys


Several claimed that the old pop-top in the RNX was the "way" SWISD tried that years ago but was never convinced of it's usefulness.

Can any bee comment further on what that is supposed to achieve?

And,.....Yes, that is my real eye !!

zibarium

  • Guest
zib is confused for a change
« Reply #22 on: November 28, 2002, 01:04:00 AM »
heme and geez? if you're still in the house, might you furthar an old fools education?

isn't the post rxn (rp/I2) goods in the form of meth-iodide?
and isn't that compound the normal, desired, fully reduced item that a  bee seeks?
and isn't it the a/b that allows said compound to bee freed of its iodine (during basing) so it can flee naked into the non polar? and when the acidified water is added (or HCl gassed into the np) the fb meth is able to pick up the chlorine? to beecome meth-HCl? which seems to bee its most usefull form?

is the iodo-meth a totally different molecule?

if not, i can't see how it could survive the a/b as an iodide salt...and go on to take up a home in a large crystal matrix of meth hcl?

(not razzing ya', geez...i'm at least as dumb as you and wareami put together!)

i'd bee alot happier about all of this discrepency in power of meth if i felt pretty certain that doses were dry and weighed beefore any weird hunches take it furthar than that.

in fact, given the wide variance in the way we feel, day to day, should say alot about the objectivity in this issue...zib's sure as hell experienced this daily difference in lsd doses of identical quantity and quality...
sometimes, i'd get all bloated and have gastrointestinal distress...as if the 200 micrograms was enough to poison my gut...had alot more to do with what i had last eaten, and how digested it was b-4 i elected to divert the flow of blood from my digestive system to my brain.
other times, the acid would "make'  me shake and shudder and bumb around hard...if i hadn't have been hip to the joke, i'd have thought that particular hit was "dosed with strychnine or amphetamines"...as i've heard so many times from trippers.

sorry to bore the fuck out of all of you...in conclusion: even drugless, or daily variance of experience is quite extraordinary. once in awhile, even straight, the world dishes you out a truly magnificent day.
should one also happen to bee tripping, tweeking, or rolling on that day, the tendancy might bee to think that that was the absolutely best mf.ing go-go ever!
and it would bee used as a reference point in one's mental inventory; thru which all other drug shall bee judged.
hopefully, some can see the inherent subjectivity of the analyses..even if its all weighed and measured.

but the only thing zib can fathom that could rest this debate is a real high-end labratory analyses of the 2 meth batches in question.

last note: as many seem to bee doing th vapours, it is easy to imagine that, during the crap-shoot of heating the glass, the molecule may break into some other things on the way into your lungs...that wouldn't necessarily bee perceptible with the taste buds or nose or eyes

Stonium

  • Guest
HUH?
« Reply #23 on: November 28, 2002, 05:42:00 AM »

however, racemic pseudo/ephedrine would, of course, yield a racemic product, hence the l-methamphetamine, as you suggested above...



Surely you know that is not true, PB. The reduction of either (-)ephedrine or (+)psuedo-ephedrine yields (+)methamphetamine.

I know you must already know this.


Of all 36 ways to get out of trouble, the best way is – leave

handsfull2

  • Guest
euphoric effect
« Reply #24 on: November 28, 2002, 09:58:00 AM »
Not long ago ' SWIHFT never had any cooks take more then 2 hours to full gogo mean ass shit'he's still working in hopes of doing those again.

Now everyone is talking 36 hrs' and while he wont argue this might bee a better end result' he's still not convinced it's time that really matters 'now he's tried the 12 and 24 hr cooks without much change in product.

he's done 8 hr cooks lately that actually seemed to bee better quality ' it's mostly IMHO beecause of how the reactions are handled and knowing what to look for'and how clean is the shit going in'''''''plus he thinks locking the rxn so it's air tight when finished plays a big role' some may argue' but these are his findings. 8)

  " Please do not feed "  


Hematite

  • Guest
Zib, the iode of eph or psuedo is the ...
« Reply #25 on: November 28, 2002, 11:44:00 AM »
Zib, the iode of eph or psuedo is the intermediate that is reduced to meth or one of several side reaction products when in HI, and can be present at rxn's end if the reduction was incomplete.
So logic suggests that I wrote that backasswards in the post a couple up from this, you get that.

Handsfull2, I believe I have at times produced the best possible combination of everything and the gear of utmost purity. Still it lacks in the particular quality I speak of here that I have only had from the reflux rxn......it's like a reminder of the first time you did meth in a small way, a taste of that element of inspiration or something. Iodocompounds are pshycoactive are they not? Perhaps it's just that lol.

Regards, Hematite.

cthulhujr

  • Guest
long or short reactions in relation to "potency"
« Reply #26 on: November 28, 2002, 12:57:00 PM »
Swim will 100% agree with the advocates of long reflux times, the high is better, "euphoric", and longer lasting overall.
In past days when a simple "aqueous" a/b extraction, or even an alcohol extraction would produce nice clean feedstock, and Lab Grade I2 and RP were bountiful, swim only dreamed of 2-3hr push/pull. And thought the product was great.
 Now swim has seen the light, longer refluxes, with added h2o, simply produce a much better product, period. The effect is of euphoria, energy and exhilaration. Instead of an over-focused, hectic confused buzz. Even when todays tainted feedstock is used.

Why? Being of weak chemistry knowledge, swim will assume it is simply more good old d-meth produced.
 What is the impurity in fast cook dope? It doesn't taste or smell like E(or Pfed). It's certainly not an E buzz. It seems to be indistinguishable from meth, and recrystalizes up to a large degree with good product. Swim is not positive, but entertains a simpleton's theory.
 Swims understanding may be wrong totally, so slap swim if you know better, however... During the reaction of Ephedrine HCL or Pfed (or freebase), isn't the feedstock changed at some point to idioephedrine HI? Then if the reaction progresses properly on to meth HI, or maybe meth HCL somewhat if HCL is in the mix? Is it then possible for idioephedrine to go right through an a/b and be titriated ultimately as idioephedrine HCL?
 

When ephedrine is heated with hydriodic acid, with red phosphorus (Caution,
Ref. 3) or without, initially the hydroxyl is replaced with iodine (to give
iodoephedrine).



 Swim has come to this conclusion from this statement found in the Meth Impurities document,  in the x-files, and he believes Rhodium's site as well. Swim may be off base though.
 Additionally, as many have stated, "dry" reactions should be more prone to all the nasty impurities caused by acid hydrolysis (acid dehydration), when there isn't enough water to go around, and temps get to high. Swim isn't sure to what degree these by-products typically find there way into the final product, but they must certainly be very meth-like.
 If someone is happy with product from fast rxn, go for it, if the feed is clean going in swim wouldn't turn down the product.  But swim is a refluxin' machine, from here on in.

 As far dose size goes, even when large amounts of the "fast reaction", type product is consumed, that lovely "euphoric" effect from "reflux" product just doesn't seem to happen for swim. Why? Don't know.


Iä-R'lyeh! Cthulhu fhtagn! Iä Iä!

handsfull2

  • Guest
reflux
« Reply #27 on: November 28, 2002, 01:50:00 PM »
Hematite''''I guess like everything else we long for that first time feeling.

I agree a longer reflux is much better then a dry rxn' time is the only problem here''SWIHFT don't have 36 hrs of patience everytime he puts his chef clothes on .

A reflux for 8 to 12 hrs seems to bee enough for some good gogo'' but he will give the 36 hr flux a try sometime just to see for himself what all the hip dip is about.  ;)

  " Please do not feed "  


Scottydog

  • Guest
Reading the tell tale signs of completion
« Reply #28 on: November 28, 2002, 03:46:00 PM »
Swis has found over the years that a rxn is either complete or it is not.

If the rxn fluid progresses from a black, to red color, to yellow, to clear liquid raining down the sides of the flask and no matter how much extra water, iodine is added or temperature increased and there is absolutely no activity remaining... The reaction is finished!

Sometimes these signs become apparent earlier then others.

Sometimes after 2-4 hrs and occasionally as long as 12-16hrs with MBRP that is reused multiple times.

Swis has gone as far as a 24 hr reflux when shy on I2 and noticed no apparent difference in potency then what can be achieved in 8-12hrs.

No disrespect to Geez, Wareami and the entire gambit of bees on this board.

Are there any tiny bubbles still surfacing in my flask that isn't just water boiling?

If the rxn is complete after 12 hrs what good is letting it reflux an additional 24 hrs going to do for Swis? Nothing... (IMHO)

Might as well have 3 flasks going every 8-12hrs and recover 3x as much "fully reduced" product within the same time frame... ;)

I firmly believe that every rxn varies. Even when keeping all factors constant, consistent results cannot be predicted. Its all in the tell tale signs of what should be evident in a completed rxn.

If 36 hrs of refluxing works for YOU. By all means run with it! Swis pushes the rxn to the limit every time and 36 hrs simply isn't necessary.

I would say that 8-12hrs should be optimum. A theoretical point of diminishing returns concerning potency.

There comes a time in every rxn where one must ask him/herself. Am I increasing potency or wasting time?
___________
Refuse/Resist

Osmium

  • Guest
It's kinda fun to read all that poetic waxing ...
« Reply #29 on: November 28, 2002, 04:19:00 PM »
It's kinda fun to read all that poetic waxing about "potency" and stuff, but that doesn't explain it clearly enough to the next moron who will read it and start some new urban myths in his area which will without a doubt spread and end up here again.

What we have is a reaction converting A (precursor) and B (HI) into an intermediate C (iodometh) and finally into the desired end product D (meth) and a whole lot of different side products and contaminants(e, f, g, h... etc):

A + B ------> [C] ------> D (A + C + e + f + g + h...)

A + C being mentioned on the product side of the equation means there will also be some unconverted precursor and intermediate present.
Amounts and distribution patterns of D and (A, C, e, f, g, h...) in your end product depend on a whole lot of factors, mainly reaction conditions, but also on the workup procedure, method of crystallization and method of recrystallization. Needless to say, if A isn't pure and contains other chemicals the product distribution will be even more complicated.

As every chemist knows, chemical reactions take TIME to go to completion. While there are a few incredibly fast reactions which take only milliseconds or less to finish, the HI reduction is unfortunately not among them!
And every chemist will tell you, that stoichometry is also very important. When one of reactands is present in excess then it will be left over afterwards, and the conversion of the reactand which was not in excess will undergo a more complete conversion. This also means that if there is an insufficient amount of a chemical present the reaction CANNOT be completed for the other reactand being present in excess!

A good example for that last case is the 'dry' fast rP/I2 reaction. There isn't sufficient H2O present to convert all the I2 into HI, so it is absolutely impossible that this one converts all precursor A into product D. The result will be a wild ass mixture of a little D plus a shitload of unconverted A, intermediate C, and the usual e, f, g, h... crap. Since the purification methods used by garage chemists are usually insufficient to properly separate the components that wild ass ugly mixture is what you will end up with. Proof: ref. on Rhodium's claiming 50 impurities present in such meth. Shitty taste. Peanut butter appearance.
Since it is close to impossible to completely separate desired product mixture containing D (meth ) from all the other shit in a garage setting, especially A and C (which happen to have very similar solubilities as D!), the amount of pure D in the end product will be rather low, and the amount of toxic side products rather high.
I guess most of you would call that stuff 'low potency' meth. Some morons will call that 'good' meth, because the taste and toxic action is what they expect meth to be like.
I call it impure, dirty, toxic and lots of unconverted precursor present.

So what to do to get a better end product?
I) make sure that there's enough B (HI) present to convert all the A (precursor) into D (meth)
II) for condition I to be fulfilled, you have to add enough water to the reaction! Because if there's not enough water around your I2 will not be converted into HI! Also: gaseous HI which is not in solution will not contribute to the reaction. Make sure that the HI has water to dissolve in! Common sense!
III) give the reaction enough time to complete! Fulfilling conditions I and II will still be useless if you don't give A, B and C enough time to complete their reaction to yield D!
IV) Since the cleanup methods available to most bees are rather limited in separation efficiency and since a high yield is desired make sure that the amounts and number of side products (e, f, g, h...) are as small as possible to begin with. Meaning: no flask fires! No excessive reaction conditions!

There is a reason why some of the old timers and bees with a chemical background have always been telling you to do it one way and not the other! It's inevitable that a bunch of wild and reckless youngins will keep challenging the status quo and come up with new ways and 'improvements', that's how progress is made. But not all 'improvements' are really what they claim they are, and all it takes is to start some group dynamics and the whole herd will stampede towards the abyss. Like someone claiming having done a dry reaction in 30 mins and the end product was "way potent dude!" Some wannabees repeating it, failing, and not wanting to admit to themselves and their bee-friends who they bragged  about their mad chemi skillz that they fucked up the reaction so they confirm the results. Then a bunch of inexperienced bees who read all that, try it out themselves, produce some weak ass mmmeth!, and publicly confirming the result that "this indeed works!!!"
Next comes a charismatic dude who loves to be the center of attention, talks shit about those who know some chemistry backgrounds and publicly claims that "tweakers don't need any of that scientific hoopla to cook some potent chili! Fuck yeah!". Add some easy to follow writeup for the morons and soon everyone is following the new shitty procedure, totally rejecting and forgetting what were once established (and working!) procedures. That's what happened to the A/B at the end of the reaction which once used to be standard procedure, and that's what happened to long reflux.

That's how rumours and urban legends are started. Offer an easy solution and everyone will love you for it. Doesn't matter if the easy solution will not work, it is what the people want to hear and want to believe! Works in politics, and apparently works among bees too. Sad but true.

I say: gently boil that reaction for as long as you can.
Boil for not long enough: you will end up with unconverted precursor and intermediate in your end product. Which you CANNOT separate from your end product easily. And those who manage that will bitch about low yield.
Boil for too long: nothing bad will happen. All precursor is converted. No intermediate is left over. Meth is pretty stable under these conditions and will not decompose. Yield of end product (*potency*  ;) ) is maximised.

I'm not fat just horizontally disproportionate.

Barium

  • Guest
I second everything Os said
« Reply #30 on: November 28, 2002, 04:53:00 PM »
I second everything Os said

Catalytic hydrogenation freak

Stonium

  • Guest
OH me TOO!' Os is the best. Os knows it all.
« Reply #31 on: November 28, 2002, 05:07:00 PM »
OH me TOO!'

Os is the best. Os knows it all. Listen to Os.


Of all 36 ways to get out of trouble, the best way is – leave

PoohBearium

  • Guest
Stoni
« Reply #32 on: November 28, 2002, 07:22:00 PM »

Surely you know that is not true, PB. The reduction of either (-)ephedrine or (+)psuedo-ephedrine yields (+)methamphetamine.

I know you must already know this.




But I said "racemic" reactant would result in racemic product, no?  I was very aware of the optical isomers resulting in d-meth. 

PB

edit: Oh, I see how that could have been misleading.  Where I said "hence the l-methamphetamine, as you suggested above," I meant it was in addition to the d-methamphetamine; my bad.  I seem to leave my sentences hanging in limbo these days...


To achieve, you must.
The answer will hit, like a big orgasm.
If you listen, they never lie.

wareami

  • Guest
Thanx Os
« Reply #33 on: November 29, 2002, 06:44:00 AM »
For the time and this confirmation which so many seem to balk at! Rhodium confirmed this very same thing months ago.
BenWiffen has been advertising the benefits to bee had for even longer than just a few months!
It's no real big secret that Ibee stumbled onto this by accident one year ago!
As you said, Most write-ups that are in laymans terms, directed at those starting out, emphasize ease and quick times from start to finish! It doesn't require a degree in Physics or Org. Chem to succeed!
But are they really succeeding? This was the challenge that Ibee proposed by suggesting a measly 24hour mindset!
He knew that a 3 or five day controlled reaction wouldn't be received as being beneficial, let alone taken as fact.
This is why when Rhodium posted "The Facts", Ibee was beside himself, because he knew that some smart bees would give it GO, that carry more influence than Ibee does. Subsequently posting their results!

Anybee without a chemistry background that would argue with a chemist will succeed at failing! 
The simple fact that no two rxns are alike should be evidence to all that there is more going on than meets the eye! And You Os make a clear and concise confirmation, that even the best skeptic couldn't argue with!
Ibee challenged bees to simply try to change their mindset to "High Patience"...and give the long reflux a shot!
We see how many have responded...
If Ibee had been misleading Bess for the past year and a half, It's HIGHLY unlikely that he'd be permitted to even bee here!
Bee's would be doing themselves a great service if they'd listen to this sound advice!
Ibee even challenged a post by Os about the levels of impurities and where this justification came from!
Os posted three links and Ibee read all three links thoroughly and completely, a few times each, until some of that information started to soak in.
Ibee still was at a loss in explaining why those amounts of impurities were clearly not present in his "End Result"!
Upon Rhodium posting those benefits in Chemistry Terminology, Ibee had all the confirmation and understanding he needed to start pushing this hard!
He did and still does push it, just as he pushes purity in starting precursors!
If Ibeeware posted something that would result in bees wasting Five days of their life, without any evidence or proof that it's benefitial, He'd have been the laughing stock here! Well he is anyway ;D , but that's okay!
They say laughter is the best RX
Thanx Os for this exemplification!!! And Thanx to All Bees that point others in the right direction.....
Toward a less toxic, more pure (and Potent)"End RESULT", through the efforts applied!!!
Peace of the REaction
Have FUN-Bee SAFE





Everything Ibee says should be taken with a Large Grain of Sympathomimetic Amine Salt
ô¿ôWareami

Prepuce

  • Guest
Buffers?
« Reply #34 on: November 29, 2002, 09:11:00 AM »

cthulhujr

  • Guest
buffer?
« Reply #35 on: November 29, 2002, 10:53:00 AM »
Swim is going to melodramatic now, so excuse him....

  Add a buffer to our Holy Salt...Blasphemy!!!!

Thank You for indulging Swim.

Iä-R'lyeh! Cthulhu fhtagn! Iä Iä!

zibarium

  • Guest
is this why biz claimed his dreams were boring?
« Reply #36 on: November 29, 2002, 05:41:00 PM »
and i thought he was just a pussy who didn't want to see any fireworks!

wareami

  • Guest
I hear ya
« Reply #37 on: November 30, 2002, 06:37:00 AM »
Hey Zib: Ibee's always been somewhat of a scientific voyeur. You know...watching molecules getting it on and creating matter of strange origins! Which by most would be considered boring...unless they could join in the fun! ;D  ;D  ;D
Wait til the couch potatoes start hearing those molecular screams in the throws of X-stacy!!! :P  :P  :P
IWare

Peace of the REaction
Have FUN-Bee SAFE


Everything Ibee says should be taken with a Large Grain of Sympathomimetic Amine Salt
ô¿ôWareami

Hematite

  • Guest
Handfullx2 Re: Hematite''''I guess like ...
« Reply #38 on: November 30, 2002, 04:04:00 PM »
Handfullx2

Hematite''''I guess like everything else we long for that first time feeling.




After 16 years..........you betcha! lol


Os, all of what you said is quite right (well at least right enough to avoid another debate, and experience tells me that's a good thing hehe.)
My angle on this is not necessarilly concerning the relative completeness of either reaction format, but more to do with a particular aspect of the high from the resulting product. This aspect has been noted very rarely in any gear I have had in the past 5 years, and when it was there it has always been from the reflux in HI for a long duration. I find it impossible to believe that only a lengthy reflux can produce a product with this aspect, and only through the more complete reduction overall of the feedstock. The reason I am so fixated on this is because years ago I spent a considerable amount of time reducing feedstock by reflux in HI, in varying degrees of completeness (read; It's lucky I have no reduction %'ages to quote believe me!)It is from those days that I discovered this aspect, even in the crap I used to ignorantly think might be ready to try after an hour or so, so to me there is something else within this reaction that is not present in any of the others that I've had the chance to sample from at least.


Regards, Hematite.

zibarium

  • Guest
aw, what the hell!
« Reply #39 on: November 30, 2002, 04:27:00 PM »
for all we know, there might bee a magical proton that buzzes around the universe, occasionaly gracing us with its presence...and we're left trying to explain magic as if it was science

;)