Author Topic: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity  (Read 53594 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Worlock

  • Guest
Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« on: October 11, 2000, 02:11:00 AM »
I
n reply to:
Dunno if you're still using this acct.
but I have question regarding an emulsion the size of texas, this thingg took up
the whole polar....Get back to me::

positron@scientist.com

-mnm





Yep
Still use this

Just finished a big project on this related to a bees report that the methanol was causing oxidation in his product, and it led into emulsions and the caused a big stir among many of people.

I'll assume you are speaking about meth emulsions  because the
-OH on the E molecule makes it more water soluble than
Meth it tends to have a different look and other problems. And this method isprimarily a post rteaction technique.

Actually, both molecules are mostly made up of hydrocarbons which would be non-polar. but because of the nitrogen =NH they are capable of hydrogen bonding a very strong, ionic bond with water, mediated mostly by the activity of Chlorine, or sulfate,or whatever anion is being used.

The point is is that in addition to pH, the concentration of the anions is extremely important as to how water or oil soluble these amines will be.
The emulsions are usually a mixture of waxes,water, fuel and damaged ephedrine and meth molecules often  wrapped around an air bubble.
This is why many bees say there is nothing of value in an emulsion , yet others of us feel that there is something there, only it has a problem.

If the E or M molecule has been under the influence of an
oxidizing environment, such as hot methanol, ethanol, water , peroxide and other
things(we know it has) then there is a tendency to break apart the ring structure or form an alcohol on the carbon ends of the molecule.
or form a polymrer bridge between two nitrogens, or any of the dozens of potential break points can join to another molecule and form and an oxide side chain or link together chains of damaged molecules
 
In addition to making the molecule more polar, and generally making it useless for our purposes,  the formation of the  polymere of an oxygen bridging together to two molecules at
the nitrogen or almost any free end. Whatever the  case the molecules attract ions that make them more water soluble , producing a low yield and a larger emulsion.
 
This is even more evil because not only are these oxides
carcinogenic,  but they stink,  and blacken your pipe , and I suspect some actually counter act the effect of meth, and can make you sleepy, I am almost certain of this.
AS I have eheard of peoplem taking some Meth and then yawning and becoming tired.

Preventative measures then are the reduction of high temperatures when
evaporating solvents, by using the hair dryer to suppliment heat from below, and
simply taking more time to let the stuff evaporate.

Peroxide is a mixed
package, it may increase oxidation but it will also dissolve some of those
oxygen briges that are making your meth into what many would desribe as a simple
form of plastic. hehehehe
 
Primary to correcting this if it has already
occurred is  known as

ker plunking - I'll explain the name later.

Take the reaction mixture once complete,  filter out the phos.
Add a large  amount of naptha or toluine to the water based acidic
reaction mixture. By a large amount, I mean a lot, at least as much fuel as there
is water then add 20% additional fuel above the 100% you just added.

It is a game of concentratrations  of ions and chems and your in it to WIN.
Add a reasonable amount of  NaOH not enough to make the freebase but close to it say a about pH 10 of the water solution.

Bring the whole thing slowly up to a boil, add in a  few
 pieces of activated charcoal or small pieces of broken glass, this causes a much more even boil and is to prevent the bumping of big gas bubble forming.

This big gas bubble was how the technique became known as
ker-plunking , but it is best to avoid that ker plunk because it could blow out the flask


When you have a nice steady easy
generation of gas bubbles rising from the water moving up to the fuel layer (this is best with naphtha) then you will begin repairing some of the damaged molecules of meth they rise in the bubble and hit the hot naptha , this often
will free the molecule of the ion that is causing the breach in the ring or whatever  and absorbs the meth it into the hydrocarbon fuel layer,  where it is bathed in exactly what it needs, hydrogens and carbons without heavy ionic pull. tHE METH SOON GOES BACK INTO THE WATER SOLUTION, THAT IS WHY YOU NEED A LOT OF FUEL SO THE METH MOLECULE will spend enough time traviling throught the naptha to get fixed, naptha is a mixture of hydrocarbons, that mixture works best.

Ever so carefully add a few drops of peroxide now and theN

KEEP ADDING NAoh TO RAISE THe pH , this takes time (up to an hour).
You  can see the crap coming off the speed, sometimes , often it is an iodide atom attached or a chlorine, or some wax or
just two or more meth molecules stuck together that break free of each other.

AS you might expect the final product from this , will be much cleaner and a damn good buzz. Needless to say caution is important , eye protection is a must and
precautions to prevent fire are extremely important

Continue adding a liitle peroxide and some NaOH, until you reach the point where the lower water layer turns a milky white,
that is the meth finally becoming a freebase.

Stop

let it cool , a little bit

swirl in some more NaOH tO BE SURE YOU HAVE HIt A pH over 12.5, let is sit and separate,

You should  end up with a mirrored interface surface, emulsion free , and as a
bonus for doing this time consuming, hot and potentially dangerous proceedure
will be a great yield of some of the highest quality  dope imaginable.

By
using this method, and /or recrystalization and/or steam distillation , the
quality of the product goes right through the roof.

THis is what some of the old timers swear by,  but they are rarely sure why they do things,  they just do 'em,  cause that is how they learned







Worlockium
www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Runway/4986/two/start.html

Pyros

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #1 on: October 11, 2000, 02:19:00 AM »
Yes indeed, that pristine mirror is the stuff that dreams are made out of. And the 'dope' produced following the advice of The Great One (Worlock) is indeed the best to be had anywhere.

PVnRT_NC8

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #2 on: October 11, 2000, 08:07:00 AM »
Arrg I musta kinda screwup here umm but still [produced great dividends maybe evn less recovered...um nedd to figure out why that stuff balls up like a coloid, furthermore this reaction lacked the luster of the last........allthough it could be detected after a tone wssh and finally wasses kinda clean after a few hot washes w/ tone and meoh this meoh seems to pull the suggar off or something anys I now go by flavor....the aci salt seem to become pyrolysed and then become freebase??? due to ashes.

um so what I wana do is get repeat instead of cake i wana little balls to rool up so there is needed a great paln of conquest.


A010

PVnRT_NC8

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #3 on: October 11, 2000, 03:28:00 PM »
Kerplunking works:)

also used cacl then basified from meoh/yone into napatha

ummm well there was a bit less recovered the rea; interesting thing when going backwards is that it can snow in that np lkayer that is pretty cool.. :P


A010

SuNNySide

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #4 on: October 11, 2000, 03:45:00 PM »
Could this be dun on product that has alredy been finished?
To improve it. What would the prosses be ? just wana stop
yawning!!!!!!!


Put that in you'r pipe and smoke it. whats that noise?
sshhhhhhh!

Jacked

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #5 on: October 11, 2000, 06:43:00 PM »
I was just telling mnm about this and had no way to tell him why because I did untill now know what was going on, other than a few minor diffrences and the killer reason to why this is what to do.
I called it washing the HI, never would I have imagened the repairing of molicules was going on.
I'm glad he posted this problem to you, even
though it's not the emulshion he was refuring to, It was more than likley it was there too, I believe he had a polimer slip through from the few hours we talked about it. I'll let him discribe it scence it was the kids around there that seen it first hand.

I cant wait for you next post on incressing yield from P/P to 85%, you know with all these birch babys round here, they even got hillbillys doing it, hahahahahhaa

 Very good information, this should open everyones
eyes to yield's incressing. Thank you for this indepth look into the Unknown.

 




The End Result is Directly Connected to the Effort Applied. This includes Life,

notfman

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #6 on: October 11, 2000, 06:59:00 PM »
I think I must bee misunderstanding something (as usual) but, wouldn't this preclude steam distillation since the NP has already been added?

:P



PVnRT_NC8

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #7 on: October 12, 2000, 08:17:00 PM »
Steam dist not attempted yet....

Anyways the only feasable solution has been to wash prewash rinse with solvent of choice
????
if ya were to hot rinse in meoh how soluable is the stuff??
dex sulp dont seem to soluable???  um oh dear it is partly soluable so ya must crash it out with tone mixture so the basic thing would be to heat it up in a tone meoh mixture and then bubble this into a np then remove this np and remove all the soluable stuff then basify finalyy heating it up into the nonpolar layer, now the cool thing was when adding the cacl calst while so dreaming it snowed XTYL clear into the non polar solution and it was a beautiful xtyline latice looking like snowflakes.....however when poofing the freebase up and out w./ addation of lye to the steaming mix as previosly described a think viscious emulsion was removed easilly and it was positive for potency...however one could also just raise the freebase and gass and then evap or put into water, it just is not convient at this time to be thinking non,cyclotron device at this time.....so next experiments shall rely on these new dividends this need be next the magnesium/zinc salts? will these ball up propperly into the right configereation or did i miss something as per ussual, either steam distill or centrifuge i am guessing this centrifugation will solve these suggar problems now that they have been reduced and or elliminated problem number one susspect due to washing attempts to wash fiber and suggar only sucessfull at a loss percent of total possible yield this is bothersome, what about a electronic or membranous filter just to remove that fat buly fiber,,I know sand filter but the reactions are truelly micro.


A010

wayupnorth

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #8 on: October 12, 2000, 11:39:00 PM »
::)   Has anyone here tried deaeration as part of the extraction process.  I am curious as to possible benifits of using spinning vane with vacuumn deaeration in regards to increased managebility of all emulsions with near elimination of some.  As most would not have ground glass for stirring and vacuumn in a seperatory funnel, it would seem investigation of using a mag stirrer, with lets say, a top stoppered vacuumn flask filtration the strongest vacuumn one would normally have available might not be worth investigating.  Most the emulsion I run into seem to be, as W just said, real airy in nature.  To think of it so were the cottage cheese ones.      Lots more thoughts than available time.   ::)


Phed up, or MaHaung over ?  TODAY ONLY  Judge reeks havoc within !

Jacked

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #9 on: October 15, 2000, 09:22:00 AM »
Worlock, Followed the procedure you laid out to the mark. Currently pushing it back to the polar as
I post this. I might be posting the 85% yield write up judging by the amount of HCl added and the pH, I’m curious about the second or third pull. Do you even need one. It seems the second pull is very week with base.
The interface was a sheet of glass, It was just as you said. When a drop of 3% H202 hit it, debre displaced and bubbling was intense until a swirl displaced it. It would turn black and vanish in the lower layer, at one time I could have swore ribbons of smoke was spiraling up through the non-polar. Looking through the layer at first was waves of heat, towards the end it had that wrinkly look, loaded.

Any thing here out of the ordinary so far?



The End Result is Directly Connected to the Effort Applied. This includes Life,

SuperAssman

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #10 on: October 16, 2000, 05:31:00 AM »
Mirrorsville man! And with fucking Sudafed too! Can't wait to check the yield. ;D

Worlock

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #11 on: October 18, 2000, 12:12:00 PM »

The kerplunk is done with the filtered but crude acidic reaction mixture.

************

If you have refined product in HCl salt form,  that you wish to clean up,  a recrystalization is the way to go,


Take the meth salt , dissolve in a minimum amount of alcohol,
If it stays cloudy, first dilute it with more alcohol then filter it

Boil off some of the aclcohol until the meth just begins to show any sign of crystal formation,  add a little alcohol (drop wise) to make the meth fully dissolve again while still hot , add in 20 ml of acetone and put in freezer for at least 6 hours, 12+ hours is much better

Remove from freezer and filter ice cold as fast as you can, then while still in the filter after the fluid has been drained off lightly wash the surface of the crystals with a small amount of cold alcohol. Simply add enough cold alcohol to remove the surface residue and strip away the outer layer, of the crystal, it will have some conntaminents in it, This will produce some prime quality gogo.


The filter fluid and wash fluid  has meth in it, do an A/B on it to clean it up, it is some nasty shit


Worlockium



Worlock

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #12 on: October 18, 2000, 12:21:00 PM »

Correct,
 if you were to kerplunk then  steam distillation would not need to be done , unless you wanted to,

The Non-polar fuel would create a problem with the steam since initially various fractions of the fuel would come across one at a time, then fuel and  meth  mixed, I would imagine. A thermometer would come in real handy.

But I have never steamed out the non polar , so that would be only a guess, No big deal though,  the salt would be made as normal and it should be real clean.


The kerplunk  result in a very, very,  fine product.
You of course,  still must  use the separatory funnel
do a couple of water washes then
make the HCl salt by the adding the HCl/water and
evaporate,
and your done .
Some very sweet meth.


Worlockium



Worlock

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #13 on: October 18, 2000, 12:23:00 PM »
Jacked
yeah mnm had a different problem all together


Worlockium


Worlock

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #14 on: October 18, 2000, 12:54:00 PM »
Jacked
Intreresting with the color changes, that is a good indication of how much iodide ion is in the mixture, when the peroxide hits it.
The ker-plunk can be done with out peroxide and just using the NaOH
But a little peroxide seems to do something prtty wild.

2nd and 3rd pulls???
depends , I rarely get anything out of them, once the mixture is pH-ed below 8.0,  and you have shaken it well,  and the pH is stable, your not going to get a 2nd or 3rd pull. I will hit it with a good shot of HCl  , evaporate it , the fumes will kill you for maybe a gram of nasty mostly table salt, with a little meth in it.

But I have seen those that THE SECOND PULL IS THE MAJOR pull, and I guess it tells you something about the first pull, they did . It was superficial and will have pulled some of the cream off the top and should be quite good for personal stash.

There are as many ways to do it as there are cooks and many cooks never do it the same way twice.

The only people you can point a finger at , are those that screw up and get nothing.

But hell we never walked down that road...errr....duh.... willingly .


Worlockium


Jacked

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #15 on: October 18, 2000, 02:21:00 PM »
Quite right on the pull, -0- on the second pull.
I was impressed with that, alittle worried at first, but for nothing as it turns out
About the peroxide, I wasn't sure about the amount and didn't want to go heavy knowing of its power over E, now I know the meth molacule is strong but not understanding exactly what was going on I just added a drop every 5 mins or so, did not want to see how much it would take for a color change. Could you give some guide lines or ratios on the addition of the 3% peroxide. I say there is a lot more to say here concerning yield I believe. Wont say yet but let a few more go down like this one and I'll be rushing back to tell all what Jacked done. hehehe
 


The End Result is Directly Connected to the Effort Applied. This includes Life,

Jacked

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #16 on: October 18, 2000, 02:21:00 PM »
Radio Edit


The End Result is Directly Connected to the Effort Applied. This includes Life,

PVnRT_NC8

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #17 on: October 18, 2000, 05:17:00 PM »
Best of the best was very speedy and halucinolike, came on and disseapeared?  ever huff gas?

Um very much like huffing gass high transedential rush up and down to flatliner>...ver slight distirting visuals eyes closed, feeling of elevator musical overtures.......used pinkeye susspect this catalyst......ch3-cn-co added as per w/amine was heated and deprotected at the nh part ussing um stuff like iron stain remover made glass of it a few times allready.....now interested in si-B wo oxylate addations deprotected amine part  sulph apparently intact at para, proaly this is a vey small sample 1mg in regular mix total dose ten mg   I allways kerplunked it, I am looking foreward to the vacume actuated devices. thaks for the write up again.
thigngs happen here at nh
ring ring ring
\  s  ! s  /
  111-tri this part protected

a very strange transition state apparenty due to perixidation or ethrification or bolth....due to hooh/yp
thus the wanted tranformation is possible up upon the amine there which is not the ussual situation i susspect, um soluable into meoh supprissingly so very soluable from a fresh bottle very much so.

Makes pure d-meth i susspect:) caboxylate acid sulfite


Amethystium

gemini33

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #18 on: October 19, 2000, 08:52:00 AM »
Worls
You said, "... The filter fluid and wash fluid  has meth in it, do an A/B on it to clean it up, it is some nasty shit "

My question is is this "nasty shit" nasty in a good way or bad way?? I mean is it worth the effort to go back through the a/b  process considering the better product is already is crystals?? Just wondering sweetie...

xoxoxo
gemini

Jacked

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #19 on: October 19, 2000, 11:06:00 AM »
Yes every thing done is worth the effort, and nasty is nasty, I all goes into the pot for
purification & recrystalizing, The little things done = bigger yield ##'s.


The End Result is Directly Connected to the Effort Applied. This includes Life,

gemini33

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #20 on: October 19, 2000, 03:04:00 PM »
Jacked,

Thank you for clarifying that "Nasty is Nasty"...hehehe...I like that

I also have two additonal questions

1) Is there any advantage to using MEOH over ETOH?? If given the choice is there a preference?

2) Worls says 6- 12 hours in the freezer works great,...has anyone tried reducing that crystalization time by supercooling with either dry-ice, a -70 lab freezer (if available) or maybe even liquid nitrogen to form crystals??

just a wonderin

xoxo
gemini

ChimChim9

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #21 on: November 06, 2000, 09:31:00 AM »
Worlock, this is such a killer thread it just has to be brought up to the top again.

Now that SWIM has an audience here is a ? that may be pertainent to Ker Plunking.

This past weekend SWIM had the pleasure of meeting an elder dreamer who had been fixing chili for 40+ years.  During the course of our conversation/lab tour (WOW!) a 5 gallon carbouy was pointed out.  The 3/4 full vessel was filled with what appeared to be that annoying emulsion layer.  SWIM was then told that when the carbouy gets full his new accquaintance would either retire or take one hell of a vacation because ..."there is an absolute fucking shitpile of mighty mean rocket fuel in that thing."  That was exactly what was said.  Later, in passing the chef referred to the carbouy as a lye jug.

So,....my question is would that carbouy be Ker Plunked to get the Go, or is SWIM not tall enough to ride that ride?  Let alone understand what was being briefly explained to him.  Another question is, why on earth would someone keep that much fixings around only to add the special sauce at the 5 gal mark?

SWIM has Ker Plunked only as of lately, with glorious results, (Thanks, Worlock!!!!) so he has a fairly good idea of what's going on in his honeycomb.  As for the carbouy thing, SWIM has alot of unanswered questions he was unable to ask his host on account of common courtesy.  Yes, I believe it was couriosity that killed the cat.

Any light would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, CC9

  :P


Helping Bees Who Help Themselves

placebo

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #22 on: November 09, 2000, 03:45:00 PM »
Ok, SWIM hasn't done much of anything lately, due to pills being all but gone.
But recently aquired some to do a personal batch, 2.5oz.
Now, he was thinking of trying this kerplunking thing people have been raving about. But upon rereading the procedure, he realises that it is a fix for the problem of emulsions upon working up the post-reaction mix.
So apparently it serves no purpose if ones post rxn mix already displays a seperation like glass.

Yes?

I can only imagine that most emulsions would be caused by impurities from pills that have followed thru reaction. Which brings us back to the importance of proper cleaning of pills for better, higher yielding rxns with easier work-up.

I imagine the emulsion being due to damaged molecules being pretty rare, and even then... What causes it?

Worlock?


Wanna do the rumpy pump?

Jacked

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #23 on: November 09, 2000, 03:48:00 PM »


SWIM has Ker Plunked only as of lately, with glorious results



 Share with us the results you have gotten.

 Jacked is working on doing a write up on this a
is curious as to your findings.
I think this extra step is well worth the extra time it takes and if its calculated time it takes no extra.



Have No Problems, only Solutions

Jacked

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #24 on: November 09, 2000, 11:23:00 PM »
Well now placebo, Tell me this. 90% moler yield,
90%, why in a PUSH PULL is the yields so much lower, Hell 80% yield on the long reflux, Were is the ballance.

I have been dealing with NO emulishions But have incresed my yield from advarge 55% to 60% to a steady climing 73%, and it seems to pick up every time its done. I do believe switching to FB and a little more refining I will see a 75+ % yield (By Weight)within the next few cooks. not bad for a 1hr cook is it. 

There is more to this than dealing with an emulishion, But untill you see for yourself I suspect nothing will change your view. I just wish it was made up of something other than reading a post, Like trying it.

One more thing, I rembember when a simple water extraction was all it took for factory clean E.
Pre Gack.
Why was this a method of those days, I don't see
it as a problem fix, but one more tool to incress yield.

The one pull monty.




 


Have No Problems, only Solutions

mnm

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #25 on: December 04, 2000, 08:07:00 PM »
Funny thing, think kids may have localized the problem to the NaOH used. This time around it was "Red Devil" rather than the regular ACS GRADE, this was "BRAND NEW" devil from the store. Theory is that they've added some sort of emulsifier to the NaOH. Seems that the minute it comes in contact with NP it produces this jelly.

Any reports on similar situations to verify this assumption would be appreciated...Though not required, since kids will be using good ole' ACS GRADE from here on out.





-mnm

fudgemonkey

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #26 on: December 05, 2000, 11:03:00 AM »

Funny thing, think kids may have localized the problem to the NaOH used.


I SERIOUSLY doubt that to be the case.
The "jelly" in the NP would be a sodium/iodine complex emulsion, most likely.

An emulsifier added to NaOH would cause serious problems with caking in the lye. Besides, NaOH is about 350 bucks a containerload, I dont think they are gonna adulterate it with something costing them 1000 times as much by volume.

Nice try though.

This post in no way demonstrates Fudgemonkey's recommendation of any RED DEVIL brand products. Fudgemonkey uses and endorses only PELS brand food grade 100% Naoh Prills. Pricing and availability upon request


Mystic

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #27 on: December 05, 2000, 07:37:00 PM »
Most emulsions simply come from people shaking the sep funnel too hard...  Shake it lighty and it will take longer to mix it but it'll be less of a pain in the ass.. IMHO


It's all relative my dear Watson...

Jacked

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #28 on: December 05, 2000, 10:53:00 PM »
hahahahaha, I don't think your gonna wanna shake a hot flask with a bubbling naphtha layer to much,
But you are right, thats not the reason for going through this process, in my book anyway.
Like the man said

If the E or M molecule has been under the influence of an
oxidizing environment, such as hot methanol, ethanol, water , peroxide and other
things(we know it has) then there is a tendency to break apart the ring structure or form an alcohol on the carbon ends of the molecule.
or form a polymer bridge between two nitrogens, or any of the dozens of potential break points can join to another molecule and form and an oxide side chain or link together chains of damaged molecules
 
In addition to making the molecule more polar, and generally making it useless for our purposes,  the formation of the  polymere of an oxygen bridging together to two molecules at
the nitrogen or almost any free end. Whatever the  case the molecules attract ions that make them more water soluble , producing a low yield and a larger emulsion.



You know what else it does, It holds down the polymer emulsion that will mask your interface completely by inches. This will hold it into the polar completely allowing all of the fuel layer to be separated.



Fuck with the best, Die like the rest.

redtail9

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #29 on: December 05, 2000, 11:13:00 PM »
been reading this post alot and I have a couple of quick questions, some of them might
seem dumb but I wanted to make sure I have a real good understanding of what is going
on here before I recommend to my friends to try this.

1. Isn't naptha a non polar and if it is wont the 1st part of the a/b be complete? or will ther
be a need to seperate the three layers, np, water and meth?

2. If the meth is in the naptha can't you just gas the meth out?

Thanks for the clarification

fudgemonkey

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #30 on: December 05, 2000, 11:37:00 PM »
i have been watching this thread becaus it's just like  what the trainer taught us to do (in between bananas..). The H2O2 is new to me though. It seems to me that the stuff could do a good job of destroying ephedrine preferentially. I tried this out on a 180g RP/I batch that was given to me after the cook got 55% yield, and I said what the heck, I got nothin better to do (no tire swings in site) so I dumped the colemans fuel ,which had been gassed,back onto the crap soup, shook and PHed, which came to 10.8. I heated slowly while adding peroxide ( I calculated that there was possibly 162g - 89g, or 73g left, theoretical. with 15 tied up simple in the aqua layer, that left 58g, or about 1/3 mole. So I figured the max h202 I could use to get freinds out of soup was <1/3 mole, or 11 grams. about 33 ml of 3 %, which seems like a lot of damn droppoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Sorry, sleepytime. Anyway, LOTS OF DROPS!!! How many big W?

Jacked

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #31 on: December 06, 2000, 02:14:00 AM »
redtail9 ?????? Don't recommend, Read again.
Good this time.


Fuck with the best, Die like the rest.

PVnRT_NC8

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #32 on: December 06, 2000, 09:09:00 AM »
due to lack of enthusiam I will suggest cold kerplunking then perhaps ya will infact like this statment.....Given the astoundingly simple synthetic process required to produce these compounds, and the fact that the 4-halogen substituted aryl derivatives would require precursors unlikely to titillate the interest of law enforcement agencies, these compounds will most probably be made in future clandestine syntheses.

A nice cold kerplunk might be more in mind perhaps muratic acid would work or perhaps instead of heat/gas phase try perhaps try it cold in liquid phase??  Um these really are beginer stratagies are they not?  lastly beware of strange addatives in the mix specificially antagonizing your nervous system ever hear of being innoculated aginst your knowledge?
------------------------------------------------------------

Worlock RU there??

pleeze tell these folks what ya really are trying to do because it seems they do not get it yet, perhaps i willa again try to help them along without making them fall on their faces then?

I belive the Man sayts like he wants some go fast and funky type steff, see if ya add stuff like halogen cold crating para ortho addations as in gassing it, then adding the oh grouops, then this makes stuff like oh addations to where the haloids were attached so now that ya have oh groupos ya might in fcat end up with omethy attached to them in a real easy simple procedure, even though this all sounds simple its more like being one the darkside of the moon without a space suit behaps beaming them upo would be a good idea at this point?



Amethystium

PVnRT_NC8

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #33 on: December 06, 2000, 09:14:00 AM »
try to rember we are not ussing brand names rember the accuasition bord statment?  do not reveal sources,,,um the synenomous response could be included um white gas petro napatha um um other stuff specificiallly revealing any um lighter fluid its non polar right???

by the way these all work and further more if cold the phases reverse, thus water floats and oil/nonpolar stuff floats, now it might be interesting to start discussing density profiles concerning clorosolvents in such I have seen thus multiple layered configeration and transitory states,etc etc

really who mentioned adding water anyways???  I thought the whole idea of cooking it was to basicially easilly remove the last few bothersome traces of water easilly and quickly after having had done and acid base clean up?


Amethystium

PVnRT_NC8

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #34 on: December 06, 2000, 09:45:00 AM »
gee gosha olle i hate to ruin a great day but in all there are problems associated from going from meth to the more interesting halciono compounds much better to in fact start such a procedure from plain old amphetamine.  One could easilyy methylate stuff with increasing tempatures perhaps one could go dirrect from the amphetamine hcl salt to easilly methylate that to the meth but perhaps instead one want to use freebase then para halogenating that previousl;y then one would simply try the same and expect different resultants alltogether not atainable from meth propper, thus ussing the amphetamine freebase one goes for the para halogen freebase thus methylating tht in kerpluk or modified kerplunk see adding hoho does in fact do stuff after all sometimes good sometimes not good either way youy can bet yoyur  doollars ya will more than likely get something different every time unless your a purist and or a record keeper?  the methyoxyparaamphetamine is proally four to ten times stronger than mescaline anyways the methy counterpart is not halucinolike at all seems or less so than mescaline perhaps though this gets you high?


Amethystium

Jacked

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #35 on: December 06, 2000, 01:02:00 PM »
Its easer to understand your post when I drop an F-Man translation tap,
give me a half hour and I'm sure as always I will agree with what your saying.
 Stand by Houston, T-20 minutes and counting. All go for throdle up. All Reserves to maximum & pressure is holding steady.


 


Fuck with the best, Die like the rest.

fudgemonkey

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #36 on: December 08, 2000, 02:57:00 AM »
Perhaps my question got missed, or maybe I only DREAMED I asked, but how about adding some QUALITY to this post by expounding on the QUANTITY your talkin about.

How many drops
Interval between drops
etc

I saw a fascinating thing when trying the perox. at a certain point the freebase looked like it was "crawling" out of the aqualayer, worming up the sides of the flask and erupting from the center like the naptha was to saturated to hold any more.

Another point of interest, FM will continue adding lye till the whole bottom layer locks up upon cooling. When peroxide was done, the layer became quite thick BUT IT WAS STILL LIQUID!

oPEN THE HOOD on this one W. Inquiring minds wanna know.

AM/Fmonkey

Hematite

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #37 on: December 08, 2000, 04:17:00 AM »
That's how I always found naptha to be regardless of surroundings. It's the laziest solvent I've seen, is that a chemically accurate way to describe a solvent I wonder ?



Regards, Hematite.

PVnRT_NC8

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #38 on: December 09, 2000, 11:46:00 PM »
well, fm does has done such w lye but ther are preferential methods and he dont prefer ussing that regent naoh, he continues to add ca cl to it untill it locks up alas forming after gassification some sort of heavy solvent to wich the rocks float upon these are simply removed poured out and or filtered any excess salt now assumingly it being in the form of caoh? well anyways it is stuck to the bottom .  What fm really thinks of course knowing personally having spent some time getting to know eachother----this is how ya make gogo or"MONSTER"  there is in fact a monster guarding that treasure over there. 8)


Amethystium

fudgemonkey

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #39 on: December 12, 2000, 05:02:00 AM »
I thought I was FM....

BTW: pnvrt_nc8, I am onto your isomer. Having produced such in a fair quantity, I know where you are at. Zwitterion definately, why change you know your right there!!

But mine was PINK!!! Perhaps that is where the isomer shows itself. When floating above, it was TALKING to me, AND IT WINKED!!!

Really, I got it!
FM (II?)

Jacked

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #40 on: December 15, 2000, 09:11:00 AM »
[/quote]Perhaps my question got missed, or maybe I only DREAMED I asked, but how about adding some QUALITY to this post by expounding on the QUANTITY your talkin about.

How many drops
Interval between drops
etc



I can tell you what CM seen. He drops a couple and sweril the flask, as soon as the black breaks up and disapates he does it again Maybe 2 min between, add little more Naoh, swerl around abit, start driping 3% H202 again until eather PH starts milking or the black on contact quits, witch ever comes first, most of the time it's the Ph.


Another point of interest, FM will continue adding lye till the whole bottom layer locks up upon cooling. When peroxide was done, the layer became quite thick BUT IT WAS STILL LIQUID!

Quote


Your turn, Tell me what your yield was, & tell me
what the "BUT IT WAS STILL LIQUID" means. I don't understand. (Not a solid would be an assholes remarks) what would yours be FM?



[shit]Http://Gofuckyourself.com[/shit}

Worlock

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #41 on: December 15, 2000, 10:32:00 AM »
XS peroxide will tear up the molecule. It is worse in acidic solution.
The NaoH  is slowly added at a rate that prevents it from shooting out the flask.
The peroxide use is minimal, or dispense with it totally, maybe 10 drops / oz 
Some claim toluene to be superior to naptha.

Re-crystalization done at rapid speeds defeats the whole purpose, which is to form a crystal devoid of trash.
It is the slow digestion, that remodels the crystal and perfects it.
If recrystalized rapidly the crap gets trapped in the matrix of the crystal, and nothing is gained.


The fluids left over from the recrystalizing process are saturated with meth , but also contain high levels of toxins.
I have found that if the fluid is evaporated away, the dry material may be added to the next batch of meth to be steam distilled and this will clean it up.

It seems that steaming the meth is SWIMs standard approach , the purity is great, it takes more time(few hours), requires additional setup of equipment, but the result is well worth it.


Worlockium

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Runway/4986/two/start.html



Jacked

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #42 on: December 16, 2000, 03:18:00 PM »
If starting at 10 pH its not acidic so that's not a factor.
 
 Why do you answer the questian now, I asked it when you first posted this. No responce ?????  

 Why is toulene better, It doesn't even act the same, meth desoliving easer in toulene, never gets the movement through the repair liquid.

 As far as naptha being lazy, Heat makes it work better, I would use toluene if no heat was applyed

 20 or so batches later you answer a questian. I am happy with what I found out doing this on my own.
 
Were does recristalizing enter into this. ????



[shit]Http://Gofuckyourself.com[/shit}

fudgemonkey

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #43 on: December 17, 2000, 12:55:00 AM »
What I meant by "STILL LIQUID" was:

WHen extracting via A/b procedure, monkeys are very free with NAOH and stingy on dope. We heat the whole flask, slowly adding NAOH (dry, 1/4 tsp at a time, stirring till disolved) and looking for the "full indicators". With colemans, that means a thick refraction layer on top, an almost pea soup green color (the wall behind my fun with chemicals set is EXACTLY this shade, heh heh). On the last pull, the aqua layer will be quite obviously oil free (color once again) and THAT is what I was talking about. Upon cooling, the layer will lock up solid with sodium Iodide chrystals. After the same PROCEDURE, BUT ADDING H2O2, the layer remained liquid till I disturbed it, when it went Immediately to lock. I am wondering if this is the reason for the H2O2.

As for the tol being better thing, Monkeys suspect that local supplies have been tampered with. Monky set up with tol from reg supplier, and upon opening can, monkey smelled soething that shouldnt'a been there. Tol also left ash and what looked like tar on foil. bad batch ruled out as two other suppliers showed the same type of impurities.

Anyway, while the idea of adding h202 IS an interesting one, it seems that the reasoning behind this one still remains a mystery. The emulsion free layering is obtainable simply by using better filtration previous to this step.

Step up to the fudgemonkey.

fudgemonkey

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #44 on: December 17, 2000, 01:31:00 AM »
rats, missed a couple in my haste.


& tell me
what the "BUT IT WAS STILL LIQUID" means. I don't understand. (Not a solid would be an assholes remarks) what would yours be FM?


Not a solid, of course .... :P

As for yield, monkeys stay in the early 70's on RP/I pretty consistently. Typical yield of 3 Oz + a few monkey treats from 130. Didnt really see a lot of difference in the YIELD, but I think I may be on to something about this one, and I dont think its about yield. Gotta tap the ancient repository of cooking lore. Right down the street from Pop-eye.... hows THAT for coincidence....?

Jacked, e-mail me "myname"@ziplip.com, I got a private 411 for ya'. You DO remember my name, doncha?

Monkey added the perox gradually, didnt count drops, but would estimate  about 70 or 80 (works out around 20 per O)

As stated, you keep adding those drops for a while and it dont look like much is happening. Then you add that final couple drops and BAM! All hell breaks looose and the dope JUMPS into your naptha. It's really quite a show.

Jacked, I'll answer other ? for you in PM.


*  Rollin' , in a stolen,
Five point O. (mustang 'vertible)
Top down LOW-
'cause his homey's got B.O...



copyright 2000, funkymonkey productions


Jacked

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #45 on: December 17, 2000, 02:52:00 PM »
I get it now FM " not a solid " hahaha, the rest was not ment for you but thanks, I do notice the same thing you have so I guess I'm in the groove.
The outcome is cutting the groove, thats for sure.
I'm tyired of this already need to start making bills themselves, no forum for that & its too easy.
 
 


In the beggening there was man, God seen man needed a partener, so God made Speed

SuperAssman

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #46 on: February 14, 2001, 08:50:00 PM »
in reply to:
___________________________________________________
because of the nitrogen =NH they are capable of hydrogen bonding a very strong, ionic bond with water, mediated mostly by the activity of Chlorine, or sulfate,or whatever anion is being used.
___________________________________________________


SWIM is messing about with Pfed sulphate and would like to know if the sulphate moleceule is OK to have in thr rxn.
Most bees using sulphate use the freebase, and SWIM was advised that advise had been given by Worlock in some old thread, not to use sulphate in the rxn.
In the above excerpt from the famous "Kerplunk" tome, Worlock would seem to assume that the sulphate might bee used in the rxn. Is it OK or not??


Aint chemistry FUN?!

Jacked

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #47 on: February 15, 2001, 07:03:00 AM »
H202 kills off the unreacted E and weak broken molecules from the RXN, It obvious does not hurt the meth molecule at a Ph of 9 to 10 because of yields of excellent gear recovered.

Toluene, does not work as well as naphtha, Kids have tried it out, Now the kids do use toluene on the 2en & 3rd. pull because they are done cold afterwards.

I herd that the sulfate ion interferes with the production of HI. I don't know though. I guess you know about A/B'ing and making an Hcl out of it. Its nice to do an A/B with the sulfate, I have never seen a more cleaner, or easer A/B with this stuff sense there is no deterrent added as of yet in this area.


The Underground Hive lives on "UH"

SuperAssman

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #48 on: February 15, 2001, 11:02:00 AM »
in reply to:
_________________________________________________
I guess you know about A/B'ing and making an Hcl out of it. Its nice to do an A/B with the sulfate, I have never seen a more cleaner, or easer A/B with this stuff sense there is no deterrent added as of yet in this area.
________________________________________________

Well yeah, in theory, however SWIM has never had satisfactory results when A/B'ing Pfed. Probably just the small scale he does things on.
Anyway, SWIM wonders if the HCl salt could bee formed directly from the sulphate by adding Calcium Chloride to aqueous Pfed sulphate?

Would the sulphate bond with the Calcium and crash out as insoluble Gypsum?

Would the HCl salt of Pfed then form in the solution?

And if so, would the same processes take place when done in methanol?


Aint chemistry FUN?!

mr_pyrex

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #49 on: February 15, 2001, 12:23:00 PM »
The following is only a educated guess and may not be entirely correct, but I am fairly sure that wouldn't work...re-Calcium Chloride, etc..  You can use any form of Psuedoephedrine as a source for your precursor,in the case of Sulfate...neutralize the sulfate salt by dissolving in H20 and then bring up the ph and extract and lastly reform the HCl salt by your preferred method.  And to answer the question as to whether or not you could use sulfate in the rxn....If it is a reaction involving HI as in push/pull....NO it can't be used in that reaction, if you want a successful reaction.  I don't remember the exact scientific explanation, but I can defintely remember that it WILL NOT work.  But you can gather pfed from any beginning source and then just use the freebase form or form the HCl salt.  Pyrex out

SuperAssman

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #50 on: February 15, 2001, 01:16:00 PM »
in reply to:
_____________________________________________
neutralize the sulfate salt by dissolving in H20 and then bring up the ph and extract and lastly reform the HCl salt by your preferred method.
____________________________________________

Erm, yeah, SWIM knows about A/B'ing, but like I said he just ain't very good at it with pfed at his scale.

in reply to:
___________________________________________
whether or not you could use sulfate in the rxn....If it is a reaction involving HI as in push/pull....NO it can't be used
___________________________________________


Yes, this is SWIM's predispostion too, the thought of rotten egg gas etc. However SWIM's curiousity was piqued by Worlock mentioning sulphate in the Kerplunk text in the context of originating from Pfed sulphate.
Searching the archives for info on this matter would bee a mammoth task, maybee Worlock could clear this issue up?

Oh, and regarding the CaCl2 precipitation of the sulphate/formation of the HCl, SWIM is confident enough to give this a go. His interest in this method was initiated by an old post by Osmium where it was stated that mixing CaCl2 with Copper Sulphate in solution would precipitate CaSO4 and create Copper Chloride.
SWIM is still reaerching this a bit but thinks it would would happen as a metathesis reaction.
Shall keep you updated.


Aint chemistry FUN?!

SuperAssman

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #51 on: February 15, 2001, 01:57:00 PM »
Update:
Haven't done experiment yet but SWIM is now 99% certain it will work. He went to www.chemindustry.com and searched for Metathesis.
Yippee, all the info in the links are singing the right tune so far. ;D


Aint chemistry FUN?!

mr_pyrex

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #52 on: February 15, 2001, 10:17:00 PM »
Well if indeed it does, just goes to show ya that there is always room for improvement to one's knowledge.  By one's knowledge I do mean myself.  But I just couldn't see any kind of reaction with just those varibles mentioned.  I'll be interested to see if things do work out, good luck.  Pyrex out of knowledge

PVnRT_NC8

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #53 on: February 15, 2001, 10:29:00 PM »
well most excellent posts this is worthy of a print out first though I shall study all this data thankyou this all looks very very helpfull, I ma very very pleased with the direction this thread is most worthy of some study' man if we could get to this point every time we could start selling moon plots to developers?  GOOD WORK ALL!!!! ;D 6-1221


Amethystium

PVnRT_NC8

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #54 on: February 17, 2001, 11:08:00 AM »
Allrighty have comprehended the dir of the thread......um this bee uses um dexsulfate um pharmo ussually sticking to the thirty mg reaction per ussual, this he does um ussing no water ussing instead meoh tone and white gas he thinks there is something in this gas to mainly copper and some ammonia making this gas look bluish, other than this there may in fact be added to this whit gas some a largish amount of co it seems this also will turn to a bluish hue.  Anyways ussing most dry salt mainly cacl the idea is to basicially issolate the amine from the garbage binders etc to create the cl ssalt if this even be possible.  Now upon reading he dare not differ from the advice or recomendation only to say hoho is used in very small amounts not big ammounts rembering this is a small reaction 30mg in about four cup reaction vessel.  thus anyways he starts to do a basic "CURE" prewashing the junk, then and this be done hot, accidently sometimes the other solvent is used on ocassion.  Anyways the is rinsed in hot meoh then hot tone sometimes these are used rather together to keep the amine from going into the meoh, anyways the dex sulphate is supoprisingly insoluable in just about anything and alas a new easy water extraction is perfected more on that later.....anywas then hot gas is ussed to rinse, um all this is saved in threee bottles, and further use is sometimes used rectcled the dirt is removed by freezing the stuff a wax like shit comes out and also simply letting it sit then some crap sometimes falls out simply pouring of the top seem to clean it up[the solvent] anyways it is desicated dry crackling dry a few times, it never is done the same way twice

so there is a mixture of tone and meoh to this is seem to be added a bit of lye maybe a few grains mostly though threre is a goodly amount of cacl added throughout even durring washing steps, anyways it is heated up until it does in fact snow down from the np layer in nice snow flakes, then it is allowed to cool and slight swirling seem to lap up the good stuff into rocks, there is before this final stage, it the entire reaction is cooled before the final addation of a few grains of naoh, what happens in this prefinal stage is that the entire is gassed per foil and cacl and salt/muratic thus it the stuff is gasses and allowed to stand overnight, this is when the milky layer results it is semi solid looking milky and smeels different sweetish, this heavy solvent is "loaded" then anyways it is reheated up a bit of lye or most preferably I hate "lye" I prefer to use washing soda made from baking soda thankyou!

Anyways upon reheating the soup maybe adding a bit of fresh solvent, the stuff like laps up into the non polar layer the emmulsion clears the stuff the bottomerost layer mixxing compleatly the phases begin to become one solid phase except for a tiny film that being mostly salt on the bottom and a tiny film of oily looking stuff upon that on the bottom the rest basicially bubbles and compleatly mixed it is now that it is turned off removed from heat this is stirred by hand to....now swirling the entire it happens just like a commet smashing to earth, slam the stuff heavy stuff the clorosolvent hits heavy laden with salt first, as this heavy solvent hits the amine can be see popping out flating boyant upon the clorosolvent looking like popcorn, or wax like, yes it grows clumping together like a magnet attracts metal fillings, never the less the lower layer gets biger and bigger not turning milky cause it is hot still, ya add cacl untill it is saturated hot, maybe adding a bit of naoh to salt it out I think not shure, it is not a fussy procedure to figure out it will though take at minimium ten times to perfect to any degree of perdictiabality]
good luck!


Amethystium

SuperAssman

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #55 on: February 18, 2001, 03:32:00 AM »
in reply to:
______________________________________________
add cacl untill it is saturated hot, maybe adding a bit of naoh to salt it out
______________________________________________


Damn, it's hard to decipher your posts FMan.
Anyway, SWIM did a little experiment with Pfed Sulphate and Calcium Chloride. He did a water pull of the Pfed pills and added DampRid(Calcium Chloride). Problem was, he was a bit "tired"(like 3 days tired) and made slight molar miscalculation of amount of CaCl needed. He added about 100 times too much!
Precipitation of presumably Calcium Sulphate was observed. This was filtered out and certainly exhibited the physical properties of Gypsum.
SWIM knew at this point that he had overdone the CaCl, so he decided to do an A/B to remove excess CaCl.
When NaOH was added massive amounts of fluffy white marshmallow stuff precipitated. He assumes this was Calcium Hydroxide. This really glugged things up, so SWIM abandoned things at this point.
SWIM will try again with correct amounts of chems when he gets a chance.


Aint chemistry FUN?!

GED

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #56 on: July 27, 2001, 05:24:00 PM »
For the Bee looking for "Ker Plunking", here it is.
Shit Howdy, Everyone :-)

readyeddie

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #57 on: July 27, 2001, 09:26:00 PM »
Swim would have to agree with placebo.If the starting material was clean and pure to start with why mess with something else that would not be needed.Swim steam distills his pseudo in his hydrodistillation setup.The end results is no gakk when extracting the meth base only a mirror image everytime.The yeild and the quality of the product is outstanding.The answer to the gakk problem is steam distilling the pseudo nobody likes adulterated product.

The only way three people can keep a secret is if two of them are dead!

Jacked

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #58 on: July 28, 2001, 12:57:00 AM »
It's the answer to more than meats the eye.....

Paid in Full

Jacked

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #59 on: July 28, 2001, 09:04:00 PM »

If the starting material was clean and pure to start with why mess with something else that would not be needed.Swim steam distills his pseudo in his hydrodistillation setup.The end results is no gakk when extracting the meth base only a mirror image everytime.The yeild and the quality of the product is outstanding.The answer to the gakk problem is steam distilling the pseudo nobody likes adulterated product.




No one likes shitty yields either, You must be doing pretty good with steaming pseudo, what's your yields and maybe a method of steaming, Last I knew there were 5 or 6 good bees working on steaming pseudo with, In my openion not satisfactory results.. One more thing were do you think one using this presedure is getting an adulterated product, 
I'll put it like this. SWIM is getting 70% from pill extraction that is clean but not that clean, Now SWIM could A/B after that with an 85% recovery of the 70% mind you. After that get a 60% return after the RXN "STEAMING" I might add...
As it stands SWIM starts with his 70% and after the RXN and this method of extracting gets as of yesterday 73% return, The product is METH, nothing else nothing adulterated, Just plane old product, You can agree with anyone you like, But don't sit there and tell me I have an adulterated product when you have never even tryed the process out. That's just plane stupid, I know you are smarter than that.


Paid in Full

readyeddie

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #60 on: July 28, 2001, 09:51:00 PM »
Never said you had a adulterated product Jacked.Swim was just trying to say that the steamed pseudo deals away with all the bullshit.

The only way three people can keep a secret is if two of them are dead!

Jacked

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #61 on: July 29, 2001, 01:29:00 AM »
No you never said I had, but the way it was
written implied just that..
Yes, steaming will give clean results but
this is about yield's as well, If two people
started with the same amount of pills, one
steamed and one used this method, I would lay
money on this method producing a higher yield
and sense my standards of quality are high, I
would not accept anything other than top
quality gear.... Besides all that it's only
an extra hour to complete and is not hard to
do.. I don't understand why there is such a
negative response to it before it is even
tried, If you don't like it don't do it. Why
try and shoot it down because you do things
different. Believe me if Swim could get the
yield's up from steaming pseudo he would be
steaming all the time. Swim still try’s
different things in the effort to get
steaming standard in his lab, He likes the
idea and thinks it will be a standard one
day, But yields will haft to come up a bit
first, mean while..........

Paid in Full

readyeddie

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #62 on: July 29, 2001, 06:30:00 PM »
oh swim has tried the ker plunking Jacked it does work never said it didn't.I'm sure their is alot of other bees out their that will say it works but it's just not for them the same for the steam distillation you know.Swim doesn't like all the solvents laying around and doesn't like the waste and smell of them during extracting.Anyway to get pure clean gear is a good method though.

The only way three people can keep a secret is if two of them are dead!

dwarfer

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #63 on: July 30, 2001, 12:36:00 AM »
;D WHASSUP, Jacked:

drop me a line if ya got the time.

One of these days I'll actually buy a scale and take ya on wid' me vision-ware-in-the-microwave set up.

'Course 12 to 24 gms. feedstock is C/S amount by some standards:

If i DON'T get it all on the first micro-steamed batch, I don't worry about it.

Hell, it will still be there waiting to come over  the NEXT time the heat-vibe hits it.. 

Hot water extract, filter, throw it in on top of the last batch leavings: maybe a bit of baking soda to be sure...

Set the sucker on 40 minutes, high:

come back, A/B, gas, viola: done.

========

Being an eternal optomist, and a slob besides, i have saved in various containers miscellaneous liquids over time: most of which have dried out.

At least ten were combined, heavily based, and extracted into xylene.

That was put in the micro, on top of the water and baking soda.

It came over first: all condensed with little odor, amazingly,  and provided the NP for the A/B afterwards. (A "free" salvaged ??12 to 16??  grams..
This was far groovier than the same process from the pressure cooker, which was QUITE hard on the rubber seals...

Loosen up!  ":<)    ;)

Jacked

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #64 on: July 30, 2001, 08:31:00 AM »
Well I'm still excited with it. I hope you have good results no mater what the method.

Paid in Full

Jacked

  • Guest
Re: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity
« Reply #65 on: July 30, 2001, 08:38:00 AM »
Finaly an old hero drops in and just in time....Man that's close to 70% not shabby at all friend. Enough for me to catch up and give it a try. I see the

Paid in Full

cheeseboy

  • Guest
huh?
« Reply #66 on: March 28, 2002, 10:18:00 PM »
So is it true about what Worlok said regarding meOH harming the pseudoephedrine molecule? If one can get pills like the good 'ol "gakk free" days, then one would assume a water pull is all that's needed and with meOH being a 'harmful' substance towards it's structure then fuck it eh?! So what's up then, is methanol really damaging to sudo?

Cheeseboy- a whiteboy with soul, like a black guy without soul
May De Source Bee Wit Chu...Always

ChemoSabe

  • Guest
did you really read it carefully?
« Reply #67 on: March 29, 2002, 02:05:00 AM »
Worlock didn't say that methanol harms psuedo molecules  but he did say that he did some research on emulsions based upon someone who _suspected_ that methanol was oxidising something somewhere that maybe, supposedly caused emulsions.

He simply used that as a stepping off point into speaking of emulsions in general but nowhere did he state that methanol was actually harmful to psuedo.

I think this idea is actually a fairly moot point in regards to this thread as the thread tells you how to effectively deal with emulsions no matter what their source might be.

or so swims opinion might say.

Jacked

  • Guest
To Day's reason
« Reply #68 on: March 29, 2002, 01:51:00 PM »
Yes you are write about that, After almost a year sense Swim has been doing this there are big benefits other than taming an emulishion, H2O2 if used at all only needs to be around 3 drops per oz of expected yield. If you are confendent about conversion from the reaction then don't use it. The main thing is the yield is in the 70% range and only one pull is needed but two is done for shits and giggles. Today Swim does not bring it up to a boil he only gets it hot and the time taken is only 30 min at the most, 1/2 ot the NaSO4 estamated is used right off the bat and the other 1/2 is added in two final additions after the naptha is good and hot. seperating the naptha is done hot and couple of cold H2O washes helps cool the naptha down followed by a final warm H2O wash your done, The HCl is derived in this case by pushing the meth to the water layer with 30% HCl. If gassing hold the nozzle just above the naptha enough to push the gas through the upper surface..

The sound of a chain after 1,000 miles becomes hypnotizing and feels like home

Flinger

  • Guest
Mega discovery?
« Reply #69 on: March 29, 2002, 09:28:00 PM »

Jacked

  • Guest
At least you named your post right
« Reply #70 on: March 30, 2002, 07:43:00 AM »

TBJ494

  • Guest
Knowledge is power
« Reply #71 on: April 04, 2002, 01:36:00 AM »
Well I guess you learn something everyday. SWIM sits and racks his skull to find a better way to do things every day. He has only minimul expierience but still sees posts to add to his memory bank. I am sure this is one he'll never forget! One thing SWIM has learned though, if you put out the time and effort, your product is rewarding. But before SWIM tries anything this difficult I am sure he'll do a few more hours studying.Thanx for the info,I am sure it comes from a very reliable source.

mnkyboy77

  • Guest
Level of Ease = Simple
« Reply #72 on: April 04, 2002, 02:13:00 AM »
Worry not about reading for more hours...(Well, at least not on this topic).

This is one of the easiest parts for one to carry out. 
1.  Basify post-rxn solution to ~ 6. 
2.  Add Naptha, (3X vol of rxn solution). 
3.  Place on hot plate. 
4.  Add NaOH every so often until a ph of ~ 9.5 - 10 is reached. 
5.  Let contents lightly boil. Add, (As Jacked noted) ~3 drops per oz.  Watch all sorts of funk appear. 
6.  Carry out for awhile longer (5 - 60 min). 
7.  Take ph up to +12.5. 
8.  Remove from heat. 
9.  Once cooled abit, carry on with next step. 

Time is the only major issue in this process.  Now, that freed up a couple hours of research on this topic.  Now SWIU can spend their time researching more important issues/topics, i/e "How do they pack all that fruit into 6 feet of fun"? Or coming up w/ 3 examples of a universe.

--Why '77', You get "Eight" more!!!--

coglib

  • Guest
swim is at the final stage of her first nano rxn.
« Reply #73 on: May 03, 2002, 08:00:00 AM »
swim is at the final stage of her first nano rxn.
after eading this thread, something hit her.  During her rxn (wiFFen's 12 hour nano) when it came time for her to add dh20, a few drops to kick in the rxn, she added h2o2 instead of dh20.  She now worries that she totally fucked up her rxn.  The rxn went aprox 13 hours and she never ended up having to add a shitload of h2o at the end to quench as her balloon was "sucked up".
Anyways, she believes from reading this that kerplunking is the way to go- the process as described by worlock was a little confusing (by the way in which it was worded) until she read the post above.
question(s):
-number one: is her rxn fucked 'cause she added h2o2 instead of dh2o throughout her rxn? swim was under the impression that the 3% h2o2 would just quickly degrade into o and h2o because of the heat, and besides- the h2o2 did kick things off and get the rp/I to fire
- if she decuides to kerplunk now, should she completly avoid adding h2o2 as it has already been addded throughout (and on top of that, this is for a 1.25 gram nano rxn)
-she didnt need to quench the rxn (add alot of h2o at the end) should she still go ahead and do that for this procedure?
- can she follow this procedure and leave in her rp until closer to the end (she knows theres so little gogo in there that filtering out the rp first is prolly gonna hurt yeilds, even if she decides to wash the rp
-and finally, is it even worth it to do this procedure on a nano? should she just do a simple a/b instead?

AllSeer

  • Guest
Re: 5. Let contents lightly boil.
« Reply #74 on: May 03, 2002, 11:55:00 AM »

5.  Let contents lightly boil. Add, (As Jacked noted) ~3 drops per oz.  Watch all sorts of funk appear. 




Can I assume this refers to H2O2?

On the same subject, SWIA tried kerpluunking for the first time recently and watched as the yellowish cum looking stuff in the water layer turned  reddish brown when hit with H202 (10 drops).  Was this due to over use of H2O2? 40gm pseudo feedstock.

Yeilds were lower than expected too.

?
:(  :(


There are none so blind as those who will not see

VinnyC

  • Guest
coglib
« Reply #75 on: May 03, 2002, 12:17:00 PM »
In answer to your questions:
1) no
2) it won't hurt anything to do it
3) no, ALWAYS filter out your rp
4) yes, always add a volume of dh20 when rxn is done

What size nano? Everything you can do to increase yield is worth it, but nano's simply do not yield well.

"Have we descended to the level of dumb beasts?" Fear & Loathing
Be loved and blessed hp and cg!!

mnkyboy77

  • Guest
As the Man Said--
« Reply #76 on: May 03, 2002, 08:52:00 PM »
Some of the advantages to this method are:

1.  Excess I2 is oxidized and hopefully removed from the final product.
2.  The bubbling through the Naptha kind of acts like little scrubbing bubbles and helps to strip away some of the crud.
3.  SWIM has added anywheres from 3 drops of H2O2 all the way up to a few cap fulls.
4.  The re-crystalizing of the product in the 'Burn-Test-Chamber' looks  far cleaner, and has almost no harsh taste even if scourched.

The whole reason SWIM started doing this was because of a bad funk taste.  While SWIM was increasing the ph one time, SWIM noticed a very large volume of NaOH had to be added to get any change in the readings.  At around ph 2-3 the solution was milky white.  After allowing to settel for some period of time (a few minutes to even over night), SWIM noticed a layer on the bottem of the beaker.  Apon removale of this bottom layer, the smell was noticed to be the same as that of the gaak taste in earlier rxn.  After this layer was removed, the ph of the remaining solution was easily adjusted to ph 8 and the kerplunking was then carried out.

Analysis was carried out on the bottom layer that was removed...Had a suspission that the fowl taste was either Polysorbate 80 or Polyethalyne Glycol, the later being what the layer was.

The product seemed only partially reacted, even though every tell-tell sign said different.  Several drops of H2O2 was dropped into the mistry layer...LOW AND BEHOLD...It was cram-packed with massive amounts of I2...That explained everything that had been stumping SWIM for some time.

Sorry for straying from the topic, but kerplunking help solve one mistry if anything.

On a side note:  Does any bee know how to rid the feed stock of Polyetholyne Glycol...Checked chem finder, and it is VERY vauge on its solubility properties.  (Gearing up to try the ol'microwave and see what turns up, but would still like a back up, just incase)

Good to see ya back VinnyC 8)

Its 3 o'clock...Do you know where your Matrice-Back is?

coglib

  • Guest
ok- swim is a little confused.
« Reply #77 on: May 04, 2002, 07:06:00 PM »
ok- swim is a little confused.
granted this bee a nano- ~1.25 grams pseudo were used mind you.
she added some dh2o to her post rxn.
filtered out the rp
brought ph to ~6 and added heat
added ~ 3X vol of toluene (looking back thru threads she now realizes she shoulda used naphta- but, what is done is done)
gradually raised heat and while doing- continued to add naoh (dissolved in h20)
shit got to boiling
she removed from heat and saw ph ~10 added a drop of h202
more heat and alittle more naoh and an extra drop or two of h2o2 are added
hard to see, but notices slight color change from honey yellow/orange to peachish yellow
saw a few little globs of white in the polar layer (water/rxn layer that is)
once ph up high she completly removed from heat
-oh yeah, she refluxed instead of just boiled 'cause she read somewhere above that freebase would jump into np and she wanted to make sure there was alot of it there
nothing jumped anywhere
she sees a bunch of orangeish crap that has settled in the bottom of her rxn/water layer, and no white crap anywhere....

her question is to where does she proceed?
IF the ph ~ 12.5, shouldnt the goods bee in her np at this point?
will she see anything in the np beeing that this is a nano (a teeny one at that)
what to do from here?
 she guesses that she should assume that the goods are in np, so she should put everything into sep funnel, drain aqueous and add acidic water then evap polar layer to yeild gogo?
she is unexperianced in gassing and would like to skip that part for now if it means she is gonna bee more likely to have something to try in the end (she doesnt wanna take any bigger risks with the rxn beeing inexperianced and semi-anxious to...ahhh dream about what it would bee like to take something she made for herself)
advise?
flames with links?
anything?
thanks for the help!

ChemoSabe

  • Guest
Post Ker Plunk Procedure
« Reply #78 on: May 04, 2002, 07:38:00 PM »
Hi coglib,

Your goods (meth freebase) should be up in your tolly now. And since it is transparent and thoroughly mixed with the tolly it's OK if it's all clear. Addition of rock salt and some extra lye to the water layer can also assure that max freebase has been pushed up to your NP layer.

Next step. If you've got a sep funnel get both water and NP layers in there (remember your gloves and goggles for lye protection) and let all of the water layer drain out. Swim usually lets some of the NP back into the flask with the lyewater to assure that potential gakky emulsions go back with the lye water and to also assure that he has some later pulls to do the next morning from the remaining NP.

Next Step - 3 DH20 water washes of the NP. Swim does 2 big 50/50 washes and then a final 25/75 smaller one and does not add this wash water back into the lye water mix.

Now you're ready to "salt out" with HydroChloric Acid. Swim uses pool grade muriatic from some place that rhymes with "Dome Heepo".

Add 20ml DH2O and then 6 drops of HCl acid for every expected gram of product. In your case I'd suggest that you try no more than 6 drops. Maybe 4 to start. Swirl well in sep funnel but do not shake. Let sit for 1/2 hour. Drain water into pyrex bake dish (or other heatproof glass vapping vessel of choice) and evaporate on medium heat. Don't vap on too hot of a setting or you'll lose yeild due to steam distillation. A hair dryer can greatly aid in drying without using too high of a hotplate setting. If you smell HCl acid as the last of the water vaporizes then too much HCl acid was used. But that's not a big deal 'cuase the excess will wash out with acetone.

Post vapping - scrape prduct out of dish with new razor blade. place in coffee filter for cold, dry acetone wash.

Swim now separates some for initial bioassays and the rest goes straight to his favorite recrystallization process.

Good luck. Sounds like your knocking on the door and about to step thru the doorway.

coglib

  • Guest
thanks for the help bee's!!!!!
« Reply #79 on: May 05, 2002, 02:10:00 AM »
thanks for the help bee's!!!!!
swims lookin at a very shit poor modest yeild, but hey-
yeilds can bee improved with further dreaming
first 'pull' yeilds (eyeball, no scale)~200-300 mg
now swim just sits here tryin ta go through all them posts at the couch/gen tryin ta figure out how shes gonna meet her new friend ;D

ChemoSabe

  • Guest
Congrats
« Reply #80 on: May 05, 2002, 03:40:00 AM »
Hey coglib,

If this is one of your first attempts and you got any yeild at all doing that small of a nano then consider it a smashing success. Next time at least go for 10g run. With the ker plunk you should at least get around 5g's back and maybe more. Once you are getting larger amounts of yeilds then you can make the move into "recryst" which gets you to the real candy.

Persistence and diligent work are the keys to success with all of this and don't forget to practice safety measures. This stuff ain't worth ending up in the hospital or jail over.

mnkyboy77

  • Guest
# of NP Washes
« Reply #81 on: May 05, 2002, 10:27:00 AM »
SWIM will usually do more than 3 NP washes(SWIM also puts this wash water back in with the lye/rxn/water, to reduce # of containers and to KEEP EVERYTHING until finished).  If the ph ~12.5, 3 washes may be sufficiant. The higher the ph, the more washes one should do, but stop washing if the ph =~10.  (SWIM will wash the NP until the wash water = ph 10. 

Another good idea, if kerplunking or anything, do a COLD dh2o wash, followed by a HOT dh2o, and then COLD wash, ect.

The reason for the Napatha in the kerplunking is because of its long-chain hydrocarbons.  (Also, its been SWIM's experiance that more and more gaak is becoming Tol soluable, where as very little is sol in Xylone and Napatha. (SWIM only uses Tol in the cleaning of feed-stock, not in the post-rxn workup).

The color change of the lye/rxn layer from the h2o2 is unreacted I2.  When refluxed, or cooked longer, one will notice less color change, if any.



Its 3 o'clock...Do you know where your Matrice-Back is?

Steamer

  • Guest
5% Final Product .....!!
« Reply #82 on: May 13, 2002, 10:58:00 PM »
Here's how it was:
                   70 gr. E  Good clean stuff
                   100 gr I  Rocks chopped into powder
                    40 gr LGRP
Push/pulled as usual, done this size of batch 3 times before, same pills,I,E  etc.. Good steady reaction,actually the best yet, ground the RP and E up good and fine powdery.Took off on it's own, added 6 mls of water half way into the reaction,nice pull...seen better but the apparatus is losing it's sealing capacity.
Tried the kerplunk this time but the gawk never went away,so said the hell with it and dripped with HCL. Only got 4 gr of product. The only unusual observations were thhat when water was added to Rx at the end, a foamy white layer formed, I figured from the neck crystals.Used Tol instead of Naptha.
Regardless, now I sit and stare at the jug and contemplate my next move, reheat(its been sitting a day... NP and lye/freebase) and see what happens maybe try skim the gawk layer which maybe hanging up the meth from moving up, or shake the jug gently for a while, or pull the Tol out and try Naptha. Need some advice....momma's not too impressed.........

Honey........why are the kitchen walls so yellow ??

mnkyboy77

  • Guest
Used Tol instead of Naptha.
« Reply #83 on: May 17, 2002, 07:40:00 PM »
Used Tol instead of Naptha.

Naptha is all that SWIM has used for the last several months, ever since he/she noticed large amounts of emulsion going into the Tol.

Take your jug of 'failed' goods.  Add some more NaOH and rock salt.  Drop in a stir bar and place on a mag stirrer. Turn on the stirrer and walk away for abit.  Carry out your A/B as usual.  (Save your wash water and NaOH layer for another rainy day).  You might be able to get several pulls out of it.

Naptha works great for this method for many reasons, one being that Naptha has to be WARM before it will start excepting the goods.  (This works to your advantage as it starts cooling.  If there is some FRESH dH2O w/ a few drops of HCl added to the Naptha when its put away, the next time its pulled out, one will find more goods in the water)

Its 3 o'clock...Do you know where your Matrice-Back is?

Steamer

  • Guest
Naptha vs Tol
« Reply #84 on: May 17, 2002, 09:58:00 PM »
Agreed , most posts reccomended Tol and SWIM agrees it seems to "pull" faster than Naphtha but SWIM also notices more emulsion with Tolulene compared to Naptha. SWIM has learned to be patient with Naptha as it seems to be rather lazy and needs to be warmed up. Put some starting fluid in the Naptha and this really seemed to pull the goods fast with minimal heating. SWIM is really begining to be sickened by the smell of Tolulene, and the shit is very bad for you. Naptha seems to clean up easier, less gawk and less suspitious to purchase and have around the house. Alot less fire hazard too. Ya, SWIM did pull 22gr out cooked and recovered 63%....the strongest go-fast SWIM has ever tried. Ended up with alot of solution from the extra tweaking (5 liters). Was thinking why not evaporate, MeOH wash to extract the E ? Should be possible as the majority of chemicals are either E or NaOH, with a small percentage of salt. Anyhow.........life is good again !! Thanks for the help.........!!
..What's the deal with the spell checker ? That must be the reason for some really f**ked up posts here....I thought it was the drugs.

C:/DOS C:DOS RUN......RUN DOS RUN

scatter_brained

  • Guest
red looking bubbles
« Reply #85 on: July 09, 2002, 08:01:00 PM »
Swim tried ker plunking for the first time.As soon as he added,the naptha and the layers seperated,their was a red glob of bubble layer between the two.Should this be filtered before going on with the rest of the method.The naptha looks clear and the water golden.

Calibron

  • Guest
Yes
« Reply #86 on: July 09, 2002, 08:09:00 PM »
Filtering works wonders to combat stubborn emulsions. Was the NaOH already added? If so chances are that some "E or M" may be trapped in this (inbetween layer) Whatever dries in the filter can be, in theory "pulled from" at a later time to release any trapped goods.

mnkyboy77

  • Guest
More Info Needed
« Reply #87 on: July 09, 2002, 09:07:00 PM »
More info is needed in order to help...Want good answers-- Need good details, (Steps, what has been done, quanities, as many varibles and knowns as possible)

But to take a SWAG (Scientific Wild Ass Guess), here goes.

* If the NaOH was added via metal spoon, the redish/pinkish tint is from that (More than Likely)
* To be honest...More details are needed to answer

Check the bottom layer's pH...If the pH is 2-4, pour off as much NP as possible,  Place a funnel into a recieving container.  Place enough crushed ice in a coffee filter to fill the funnel at least 1/2 way.  Pour the post rxn layer over the ice.  This should remove most of the emulsion that is of the waxy naturer.  Place a new recieving container under the filter and rince the crushed ice with dH2O...Save till later,

If the redish emulsion started to move into the NP, use fresh NP, if not use the previously poured off NP.

Place make onto a heat source.  As the temp increases, SLOWLY increase the pH as it startes bunnling.  Add ONLY A FEW DROPS of H2O2 to the mix...If too much H2O2 is added, funky tasting honey may form!  Let the solution bubble around a pH of 10. 

The emulsion could also be due to not properly cleaned feed stock (reds from the red-hots).

Easiest way to avoid any possible faults/problems is start off with the cleanest feed-stock as possible.  (Shit in = Shiter Shit out)


He who dies with the most toys, still dies!

geezmeister

  • Guest
attack the emulsion first, then filter
« Reply #88 on: July 10, 2002, 10:02:00 AM »
One of the reasons to "ker plunk" is to fight emulsions which otherwise interfere with the A/B extraction. The method allows you to work with heat, peroxide, salt, gradual increases in pH, additon of acetone or other solvents,  and filtration if you wish to add it. The enhanced solubility of heated non-polar solvent and the fluid motion and activity at the interface caused by heating the lower layer facilitate the movement of the freebase to the non-polar layer without contributing to the emulsion. Filtering out a "red glob of emulsion" would be advisable if other measures, such as adding a few drops of peroxide or alcohol, heating, salting, stirring, etc... do not suffice to eliminate the emulsion or reduce its density to a level where migration of the freebase to the non-polar solvent is not impaired. If the emulsion persists and is of such density as to block the interface or impair the migration of the freebase, filtering the emulsion out and extracting the product from its separately would be wise. 

Mnkyboy comments: "Add ONLY A FEW DROPS of H2O2 to the mix...If too much H2O2 is added, funky tasting honey may form!"
  
When this thread was fairly new there was a running discussion about whether to add peroxide at all, and if so, how much to add. Some concern was expressed that peroxide might damage the meth. SWIG in his early ker plunking experiences added 35% H2O2 to the ker plunking pot. He kept this on hand as an oxidizer for sanitizing a pool and spa. A single drop would create intense bubbling and reaction at the interface-- as much or more at times as the addition of dry NaOH (SWIG no longer adds this dry, but only in prepared solution). It was "fun" and occasionally "exciting" ("scary" may be descriptive to some). SWIG had success with ker plunking from his first try, and never noticed a "funky taste" he attributed to H2O2. He can't say the use of strong peroxide affected yield, as his yield increased with the technique. He could not detect damage to the product, which seemed qualitatively better with the technique than without its use. The strong peroxide, used as a sanitizer, was only kept on hand during the summer.

As SWIG's lab skills improved, he experienced less of an interface problem. He became accustomed to a mirror-like interface and usually added only a few drops of 3% H2O2 to see whether an observable effect could be noticed at the interface. Sometimes a thin reddish stain appeared, then faded, and occasionally a dark stain would appear and fade.

In his experience, the strong peroxide helped clear the emulsion and did not appear to be counterproductive, although he cannot say it is or was necessary. He has not encountered a smell or taste problem, and is curious as to whether it may be related to pill gakk of a type he has not encountered.

 
           

An education is what's left when you've forgotten what you learned.

dwarfer

  • Guest
kerplunking for MAGIC
« Reply #89 on: July 10, 2002, 10:21:00 AM »
No, Kerplunking is to allow the
"damaged meth molecules"
to attain their
True Destiny as Meth
by passing thru naphtha over and over,
 giving them the opportunity to express their
Inward Spirit
by grabbing from the
Alkane Bonepile
those needed parts
to
MAKE THEM WHOLE

cAN i HEAR A
hALLELEUJA??


dwarfer

geezmeister

  • Guest
Hallelujah.
« Reply #90 on: July 10, 2002, 11:26:00 AM »
Halleujah!Halleujah!Halleujah!Halleujah!Halleujah!Halleujah!Halleujah!Halleujah!Halleujah!Halleujah!Halleujah!Halleujah!Halleujah!Halleujah!Halleujah!Halleujah!Halleujah!Halleujah!Halleujah!Halleujah!Halleujah!Halleujah!Halleujah!Halleujah!Halleujah!Halleujah!Halleujah!Halleujah!Halleujah!Halleujah!Halleujah!Halleujah!Halleujah!Halleujah!Halleujah!Halleujah!

Hall EEEEEEEEYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEE LLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO YAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Don't you wish it really did?

An education is what's left when you've forgotten what you learned.

readyeddie

  • Guest
Sounds good to go
« Reply #91 on: July 10, 2002, 02:01:00 PM »
Hey dwarfer glad to see you still around.Been gone for sometime and it looks like the boards hear are doing and looking good also rhodium.geezmeister sounds like your trailing Worlock from the posts and replys that i have seen keep it up good work.The red bubble layer maybee a oxygen block large bubbles of air right.Filter it out are suck it out with a baster and then ker plunk the shit out of it.If by chance your non polor is turning a solid red are yellow color either wash it out with non polor until it clears are add sodium thiosulfate to knock out the excess iodine in your solutions.As soon as the thiosulfate is added and stirred you'll notice that the red are yellow stain will vanish.The bubbles may still remain but i bet you that they will not be red are yellow any longer.This is a great thread and Worlock and Jacked you guys really did a good job with this one.


The only way three people can keep a secret is if two of them are dead!

wareami

  • Guest
Halla-lu-lu-YAH!
« Reply #92 on: July 10, 2002, 03:54:00 PM »
Hey Ready....welcome back! As you can see the snow is still deeper than the
And just incase....Ibee keeps his HIP-WADERS on under his HALLOWEEN costume....

Geez and Dwarfer: Ibee has to agree with the benefitial effects of repairing the damaged meth molecules using h2o2 in very small amounts! He's never been as bold as Geez in wanting to start a whole visual display of glass shattering proportions....but the tinybubbles are fun to watch while waiting!
Ibee has never experienced an unpleasant taste from the addition either. But he adds all kinds of Kinky stuff to the torturechamber in an effort to whip things into shape and get to the goods, so that may not be a valid account!

In addition to the ker-plunking...Ibee has used tetra and ether using naptha as the main NP solvent and he always walks away a happy camper saying to the stubborn molecules""????!!!!!

Peaceof the reaction
Have FUN-Bee SAFE
 


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

Jacked

  • Guest
Ok man, so pull a little rabbit out of the hat
« Reply #93 on: July 17, 2002, 01:03:00 AM »
Dwafer, you clued me in on this a long time ago but it's been blessed by the meth gods now, if ya smear it in there faces they are lobble to hex your next few batches or worse crack your acetone pipe when you aint looking. Don't worry I told them you were just kidding and didn't mean anything by it... In reality kerplunking today is only a hot naphtha pull after a quick basing, it only takes about 15 min and is over before the mystery even starts, yields are consistent around 76% by weight.....

Rolling Rolling Rolling keep them doggys rolling RawHide!

geezmeister

  • Guest
still on top
« Reply #94 on: July 17, 2002, 07:05:00 AM »
Good to see Jacked back around! Still the master at 76% yield! (The North Rim is at it finest in late September).

An education is what's left when you've forgotten what you learned.

shineon

  • Guest
some questions?
« Reply #95 on: November 05, 2002, 03:04:00 PM »
wow super cool right up,if you have the time I hoped you could anser a few questions.(1)when boiling are you using a condenser,(2)what kind of peroxide,(3)how long should you be boiling for befor you start adding your peroxide,(4)if you first add NaOH to a ph of 10 then won't this base the rxn mix it seems high to me like it might seperate(5)have we stoped the boiling to raise the ph to 12.5,(6)when doing this over an hour are we adding a Naoh in a Dh20 mixture,or strate from the can.if you could help this bee out it would be a big step to saving the human race.Just PM me

geezmeister

  • Guest
answers?
« Reply #96 on: November 06, 2002, 08:18:00 AM »
1)no condenser is needed

2) 3% peroxide is what Warlock had in mind.

3)Add the peroxide as the non-polar layer begins warming. It is added in the early part of the heating. The polar layer should be warm, but not boiling. Add a little peroxide (which is of dubious benefit) when you first see gakk at the interface between the two layers.

4)Do not base all the way to pH 12.8 at the start, but do bring the polar layer to pH 12.8 or above before you stop.

Bring the pH up over the period of time the naptha heats up. Start heating before adding any NaOH solution. Bring the pH up in steps as the naptha heats. Add NaOH solution a little at a time until the small bubbles eluting into the naptha indicate the pH of the polar layer is high enough to freebase any remaining meth HCl in solution--i.e., until it is above ph 12.8-- When the naptha is hot and the polar layer above pH 12.8-- (you can observe an increased and steady flow of tiny bubbles rising through the naptha) turn the heat off and let the mixture sit until the bubbles cease.

Bringing the pH up over a period of time lengthens the time the non-polar solvent has to absorb the meth freebase. It also keeps the interface relatively cleaner through a good part of the basing process. "Ker plunking" is a method of combatting emulsions and gakked interfaces. Waxes and gakk solids appear at the interface as the pH level of the non-polar increases. This "trash" impedes the efficiency of the interface. The meth freebased by contact with concentrated NaOH solution will elute before the pH of the polar layer itself reaches 12.8  When the entire polar layer is pH 12.8 or higher, almost all of the meth HCl will be freebased. The freebase meth is polar soluble-- regardless of the pH of the polar layer-- unless and until it combines with a HCl molecule. A good part of the meth will elute before the reaction fluid reaches pH 12.8. Most of the trash and gakk that appears with the addition of NaOH-- and which clogs the interface-- does so as the pH reaches and exceeds 12.8.  Raising the pH slowly keeps the interface cleaner, allowing the freebase meth to elute. (If you doubt this, stop adding NaOH when the polar layer is at pH 10 or 11. Separate the non-polar layer, wash, and extract by gassing or titrating. You will get a nice quantity of very clean meth HCl. You will get more when the pH of the non-polar solution is above 12.8 and the rest of the meth HCl is freebased.)

5)no need to stop the heating to raise the pH to 12.8 or higher.

6) Adding dry NaOH to the mixture can cause an energetic reaction and bubbling that pushes the entire non-polar layer out of the container. This is a good way to lose the meth you just made. This is also an excellent reason to use a NaOH solution, since it avoids this partiuclar problem.

 

Mostly harmless

ChemoSabe

  • Guest
Das Ist Der Kerplunker
« Reply #97 on: November 07, 2002, 01:05:00 AM »
I visited swim's buddy today and he let me scan a pic out of his rare book titled The Great Book of Ker Plunking.



This picture shows but one of many setups one could theoretically use for this esoteric process.

The book stated that with this setup that the amount of NaOH solution used to slowly base it up was 50ml.

The recommended duration of adding the NaOH is one half hour. Worlock said a Ker Plunk could go as long as an hour. And that's correct. Jacked said it couldbe done within 15 minutes. That's correct too. But this book takes the middle ground.

The NaOH drips at a steady rate of approximately 2 drops per second from the sep funnel.

If anything is to be added, hydrogen peroxide or various forms of sodium chloride, it's sent down the side neck of that Claisen adapter on top of the 1000ml flat bottomed flask. The open Claisen neck also acts to equalize the pressure within the flask environment.

I also took a peek at swim's buddy notes and he said that he's given up the hydrogen peroxide due to seemingly as good results without it.

Here's another photo from that rare book showing the boiling stones suggested. This stuff make nice fine tiny bubbles that will have the process in no danger of erupting like old faithful. Nobody likes a big lye/naphtha/freebase geyser. The boiling stones are actually a quite common variety of silica sand.



PS. If you look closely you can faintly see the ghostly form of the great goddess of ker plunking hovering in the upper right of the top photo and giving this particular batch her blessings.

I may be dumb and ugly but I make up the difference with my lack of personality.

geezmeister

  • Guest
on peroxide
« Reply #98 on: November 07, 2002, 09:54:00 AM »
Chemosabe makes the consensus comment that using H2O2 is probably of no effect or importance. I agree with the view for the most part. I suspect the truth of this conventional wisdom may be based on which inerts make it to the reaction fluid. When alcohol extraction was the norm and few pills required the full turps cure assault to clean them, the H2O2 seemed to have a noticeable effect on clearing the interface and cleaning the product. The lack of that effect now may be party due to the changed composition of the pill formulations and the presence of different adulterants.
All the same, the peroxide adds little to the process.

Mostly harmless

MnkyBoy78

  • Guest
Oh Contrair Geez
« Reply #99 on: November 07, 2002, 05:50:00 PM »
1)  Of the things that the H2O2 does is to destroy the unreacted pseudo.  H2O2 will distroy organic matter...E happining to be organic.  End result, less, if no unreacted feed stock in the final product.

2)  Iod*-pfed/meth will react with the H2O2...What it exactly does, swim is unsure of, but believes that: (This is only a SWAG)

     The H2O2 breaks off the iodine off of the e/meth molicule.  Iodine and Naptha will form HI.  The partial reacted feedstock then can or has the opertunity to become fully converted throughout the boiling.

Thats just SWIM's theory though.


Why 78...I just dont know? But the voices said it sounded good

geezmeister

  • Guest
maybe so, maybe not
« Reply #100 on: November 07, 2002, 09:32:00 PM »
SWIG had real fun some time back when he added 35% H2O2 by drops into the ker plunking pot. Furious explosion of activity! Toss in a little more salt! Add a little more NaOH! watch it bubble!

Then someone posted in this thread and suggested peroxide destroyed meth by oxidizing it. That sounded like something SWIG would just prefer to avoid. He recalled that peroxide did reputedly damage the pseudo molecule, and one should not add that capful of peroxide to the reaction. He thought that peroxide in the ker plunk might destroy the unreacted pfed. He did several reactions, he told me, with the 35% peroxide and on each use noted no loss of yield and had great, clean meth with each reaction.

Problem is that he got very similar results with 3% peroxide, and with none. And he is hard put to say that the amount of unreacted pseudo was a problem at that time anyway.

He did recall how the addition of peroxide would have a color change effect on any gakk residing at the interface. The peroxide would cause a purplish to black stain in the gakk that dissappeared with stirring. The color reminded him of iodine, and he assumed the peroxide was acting on sodium iodide in the still fairly acidic polar layer and he was seeing some I2 precipitate then dissolve. The color change never seemed to happen after the polar layer became basic. It only happened at the start, when he first started basing the polar layer. At times the addition of H2O2 would result in a red coloration, which sometimes lasted for most of the ker plunk.

As to your other hypothesis about peroxide reducing iodopfed,etc. Geez would prefer to say nothing and be thought a fool than to post something which would remove any doubt.  ;D  

Mostly harmless

Jacked

  • Guest
noticed
« Reply #101 on: November 08, 2002, 06:30:00 AM »
From what swim understands it destroys unreacted gear, the meth molecule is stronger and can withstand the small amounts added. Swim notices with the addition of 3% the gear is snow white after the evaperation. A noticeable difference from drab white, almost like the difference between flat and glossey paint
That is realy the only thing noticed with the final product when it is added.

The end result is directly connected to the effort applied

methium

  • Guest
With KP duty
« Reply #102 on: November 26, 2002, 04:40:00 AM »
The key point in the H2O2 additions is a drop here and there, NOT a capful, or any multi drop additions, just a drop now and again. I love the KP! 8)

Oh sweet spirits of camphor! Can't a man get any NOURISHMENT around here? Now go away!

Xavl2

  • Guest
How does Ker Plunking apply to a birch where...
« Reply #103 on: June 13, 2003, 04:21:00 AM »
How does Ker Plunking apply to a birch where Toluene is added a post-rxn mix to dissolve the hopefully converted meth freebase and then washed with water. Swix is suffering from horrible emmulsions when the Tol is shaken with water. Could this emulsions contain the goods? Last attempt got Swix about 25% return in unreacted pseudo after the emulsion was discarded and the rest of non-polar was gassed. Could Swix have discarded the goods in the emulsion somehow?

Osmium

  • Guest
> Could Swix have discarded the goods in...
« Reply #104 on: June 13, 2003, 04:45:00 AM »
> Could Swix have discarded the goods in the emulsion somehow?

Yes. You threw out your product.


crympaz

  • Guest
replying to:
« Reply #105 on: June 13, 2003, 08:35:00 PM »