Author Topic: Kollicoat MAE100P, were fucked!  (Read 18594 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

wareami

  • Guest
Agreed...
« Reply #60 on: March 06, 2004, 07:22:00 PM »
UncleFester: I wholeheartedly agree with everything you say above as I also agree with Chuck-E and many others facing these dilemas concerning OTC pills.
Ibee might finally be at a stage to advance toward the more advanced other synths but had he just joined this crusade of OTC kitchen chemistry....he'd not even attempt any of what was being proposed if somebee wasn't contributing methods of aquistion from the easiest available source.
That source being OTC pfed and ephedrine.

Even if it were a one time shot while following a nano rxn write-up, I'd hope that the information the elder bees are providing would spell success for that newbee.
It is sooooo tempting right now to abandon pills all together and give up on them as a high risk endeavor considering the stricter crackdowns on aquistion at the point of sale!
And Ibee may just be fighting a losing battle in wanting to provide newbees with a chance at something they've never thought could be accomplished.
I know Ibee never thought he had it in him and that was at a time when water extractions of OTC pills worked. The rxn was the biggest hurdle for him.
The hardest parts for him at the time was in understanding aquisition of the precursors (RP and I2)and their extraction.
Now bees have a sure fire failsafe in rxn with the LWR but the pristeen cleanliness of the feedstock is shakey at best and that compromises success!
Neverending battles on this front.
These newer complications may teach the newbees some more advanced processes and act as a springboard toward the more advanced synthing that is described in your book as well as discussed here!
Ibee is ready to move on....but he hates like hell the thought of leaving any bee beehind especially the ones that have been battling with this and haven't tasted success for all the hardest efforts put forth!
Ibee may stay behind on the learning processes....he's always been a little slow an-E-ways.... ;D
It just sux thinking that any bee would be left behind because all the bees started dropping out on the only source some may have available!
I'd hate to think ware Ibee'd bee if ya'll gave up on him after his third month beeing here!
I just can't see it!
The newbees need to use their imagination on the aquisition front if they don't relish showing ID.
There are still some last resort places that won't require an ID...
Some places still provide more bang fer yer buck and they will carry thelast of the mohicans with the least gaaks and expiration dates prior to 2006!
Ibee found one and walked out with 10boxes 24ct sixties in one buy! They have 80 more boxes ibee has his sights on all for $1 a peace! exp 09/04 and 09/05!
It ain't over til the.....well let's just hope there's enough d stuff left to GO around and we'll have none of that fat lady stuff! ;)  8)  :P


Scottydog

  • Guest
What's next?
« Reply #61 on: March 07, 2004, 11:12:00 AM »
"A preferred copolymer of methyl methacrylate, butyl methacrylate and dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate is Eudragit-E.RTM."

Thanks for the specifics on the GASSING GAKK foxy2.  :)

Now that this "supposed" super gakk has been defeated, what's next? I certainly hope THEY didn't spend a small fortune on this now worthless patent/invention.  ;D

Maybee the next assault will bee what Wareami was discussing previously quite some time ago, the type of pseudoephedrine that leads to an overall inactive meth end product? Or will it even convert to meth?

What was it, the chirally (-) pseudoephedrine?  :(


WmPerry

  • Guest
anti alarm thought
« Reply #62 on: March 08, 2004, 01:03:00 AM »
Not even two whole cents from me,just a pennys observation, Look at the shelf space for this shit! pseud must bee the 3rd most popular over the counter drug in america-variations on the theme take up far more space than all the lone analgesics put together(asprin,tylenol,motrin, et al), and more space than the various digestive prods also (tums to laxaatives).
    It's never going off the otc market. it may be irreplacable,save maybe by actual amphetamines. MIllions of angry people with sinus headaches is sure to be an uneeded incentive considering the enormous power and greed of the pharm cos. "you want us to give up how much? money? so youo can keep some chick named charlene in iowa from makin a gram of speed!?!"
  Maybe i underestimate the public spiritedness of multinational pharmaeutical companies, and maybe the DEA actually has an iota of power in the circles where things get done. But thats not my read of it.
   money and politics aside, has anybody read th ingredients on other things lately? the shelf infront of my toilet is full of haircare prods and salves and all kinds of otc pharms and every single one of the fuckers has the same ingerdients except on or two.
really, go look. My guess is that if you worked up a selection of non-pseud pharms, yyou would find the very same gakks, and that the majority of them are there for shelf life, pilling machine efficacy, bulk, cosmetics, release rates, etc.
   Sure they're out to get us, but man they must be fucking idiots, cause for sure they could mess up match strikers way easier than a billions of dollars pseud industry. SHHH! dont tell them that! but really they could outlaw matches easier than pseud, after all most people prefer lighters anyway.
  Its not pretty , but thats my penny and i hope i'm not just talkin outta my ass.
As always, thanks everyone for your knowledge

CharlieBigpotato

  • Guest
how do you know charlene?
« Reply #63 on: March 08, 2004, 07:26:00 AM »
funny you mention match strikers.
they too are going down, and fast.

and the psuedoephedrine, as decongestant, actually has several replacements; argueably better ones, like oxymetazoline,which is even more profitable. i think it sells for about a dollar/mg otc in u.s.

i can't agree that most of the additives are in the pills for benign reasons. for one thing, they didn't use to have most of them. allthough, a pill containing 30 mgs of a medicine is going to need something to fluff it up to a manageable size.
last i checked,  a 30mg. pill weighed about 150mgs.

WmPerry

  • Guest
Charlene? She sold all my cd's & faked a break-in.
« Reply #64 on: March 09, 2004, 12:31:00 AM »
I'm a heavy smoker w/a deviated septum- oxymetazoline has got awfull bounce-back and over dosage probs-if i go too heavy on it, it feels likejumping nerves in my nose and it runs literally like a leaky faucet- a steady stream of water, yuck..Not scientific but it affects my wife the same way.

  Iv'e seen the patent pdfs at rhodium's so i know they're fiddlin w/pseud to bollox us up, but not with any thing like the focus of intent so often presumed in these circles. If the inactive is in your ibuprofen too, then its not in your pseud in order to fuck meth production.

   the more i think about it, the more ithink they hardly care at all, or they are WAY stupider than even we thought. Pseud is the hardest part of the rp/i/e method to corrupt into unusability- it has to be 'get-to-able' finally, or its useless. Not so, the other 2. Any Bee here could think of a way in half an hour to make the casual home brewer obsolete in america within 6 months.

   I just did while writing this, and i'm a flat -out chem dumb-ass. If makin iodine crystals was as hard as clean pseud. 95% of current rxns would newver happen- cause people (like me) are easily daunted, or plain lazy.

   And it would be childs play to make tincture hard to work with. Ive said too much already-but you can figger a couple ways out too.

  Which leaves us here: Am i so much smarter than every single person in drug enforcment and other interested parties(industry, fda, etc) that i  could do in half an hour what they still cant see to do?

 Not Effing likely. We are left to draw any # of even more paranoid conclusions then as to the purpose of intentionally futile efforts to hamper meth via pseud-fucking. Misdirection is a very basic psy-ops tool.

  Ha! Even i'm starting to feel i'm off the deep end here., I know i'm over my head. A little voice says, "but maybe not", though.

    Thanks for the knowlege, all.

   you row for a while, i'll bail

CharlieBigpotato

  • Guest
decongestant bounce-back factor?
« Reply #65 on: March 09, 2004, 08:52:00 AM »
wm.p;

swim also has some chronic congestion problems which had led him to psuedoephedrine long beefore he had any idea that it was a precursor. i'm beecame quite aware of that bounce back factor early on...like the label says, you don't want to use the stuff for more than 3 days in a row, or you'll end up way more congested than ever.

my question (apologies for slipping this in, slightly off topic):
have you found oxymetazoline to bee more likely to cause this problem than psuedo-e?

and, i wonder, if taking meth sort of counts as having taken a decongestant, as far as having that insidious reversal of the decongestant effect?

like, if a bee is having congestion, and also beeing a tweeker,will the legal decongestants cause that bounce-back much sooner?

SHORTY

  • Guest
Pseudoephedrine in a spray?
« Reply #66 on: March 09, 2004, 11:57:00 AM »
I thought only the spray type decongestants were the ones that should only be used for 3 consectutive days.  I have never seen pseudoephedrine in the spray type decongestants.

Anyways heres an unusual comparison of the 2 you guys are discussing. It seems that pseudo has more uses than just a cold or allergy medicine.  I also read that divers use it as well.

A double-blind comparison between oral pseudoephedrine and topical oxymetazoline in the prevention of barotrauma during air travel.

Jones JS, Sheffield W, White LJ, Bloom MA.

Department of Emergency Medicine, Butterworth Hospital, Grand Rapids, MI, USA.

To determine the efficacy of two decongestants (oral pseudoephedrine versus topical oxymetazoline) in the prevention of middle ear barotrauma during air travel, 150 adult volunteers with a history of ear pain during air travel were entered into a randomized, double-blind study conducted at two commercial airports. Each subject received 120 mg pseudoephedrine, oxymetazoline hydrochloride (0.05%), or a double placebo (capsule and nasal spray) administered 30 minutes before flight departure. After arrival at their final destinations, volunteers were asked to complete a questionnaire and return it by mail to investigators. Questions included the intensity and duration of otologic symptoms experienced while flying and possible drug side effects. A total of 124 subjects completed the study; 41 received 120 mg of pseudoephedrine, 42 received oxymetazoline nasal spray, and 41 received a double placebo (capsule and nasal spray). The three treatment groups were similar with regard to age, sex, medical history, and flight profile. Symptoms of barotrauma were reported by 34% of those receiving pseudoephedrine versus 71% of the control group, for a relative risk reduction of 52% (95% confidence interval [CI] 33% to 71%). In contrast, 64% of the oxymetazoline group reported symptoms of barotrauma, for a relative risk reduction of 10% (95% CI, 3% to 17%). These results suggest that treatment with 120 mg pseudoephedrine at least 30 minutes before flying appears to decrease the incidence of barotrauma. Oxymetazoline nasal spray is little more effective than placebo in reducing ear pain and discomfort associated with changing ambient pressures.



Rhodium

  • Guest
Apples & Oranges
« Reply #67 on: March 09, 2004, 01:50:00 PM »
Oxymetazoline nasal spray is little more effective than placebo in reducing ear pain

Just like smearing liniment on your scalp is a little more effective than placebo against headache.

Naturally a systemic decongestant like pseudoephedrine will be more effective throughout the otorhinolaryngological (ear-nose-throat) regions than a locally applied nose spray.

That article gets a C- in study design from me if they really wanted to compare equivalent medications rather than advertise for pseudoephedrine.


CharlieBigpotato

  • Guest
i'd say
« Reply #68 on: March 09, 2004, 05:46:00 PM »
120mg of psuedoephedrine is a whomping dose, at least for a temporary decongestant effect. i couldn't tell what the dose of the oxy-m was. did it mean 0.05% of 120 mgs?

anyway, psuedo ephedrine did use to come in a nasal squirty thing, and in fact, i used to buy the stuff for spells of congestion i was prone to. it was very effective, beecause if you couldn't quite breathe thru the nose at night, one little squirt would do the trick, in the closed nostril...and it would do it almost immediately, probably with 5 mgs of the drug, with the water.
a small bottle would last me a year.
as i was very aware of the rebound effect, i clearly wanted to use the minimal effective amount.

suddenly, maybee 5? years ago, i go to buy my annual $3.59 bottle of this otc med, and i can't find it!
i'm a label-reader; fine print only, and don't like to get robbed, etc, so, i had to look thru this mountain of other options that appeared on the shelfs to take the place of this stuff i used to use.

i honestly had no idea about the meth connection. crystal of my youth didn't start w/ psuedo-e.

i didn't want to switch to the little red pills, beecause i only needed the stuff at night, and i didn't want to wait for 1/2 hour to get back to sleep; nor did i feel that i needed the minimum amt...the 30 mgs.

i remember beeing utterly baffled by the weird list of crap in the new form of my deongestant.
and, by the existance of the same product (same name; same company, etc) except the psuedoephedrine had been replaced by oxymetazoline.

i finally had to get the new sray, beecause of the absurdity of the pill delivery limits, and found it acceptable. i still use it when necessary, seems to work fine;  costs $3.59, and so on.

but the mystery of the missing nasal spray psuedoephedrine , is what brought me here, after alot of googling.
the spray was gack-less, as such inactives would counter the absorbtion.

fucking war on drugs led an innocent guy with a stuffy nose straight to here.

apologies for historical anecdote, but it deserved a mention, and is true. in fact, in my innocent, yet forced switch to  oxymetazoline, which is effective, i couldn't fathom why the psuedo ephedrine was still on the otc market at all, if it was so much trouble.

tonight, while hearing (again) on the news, how obese americans are, it seemed obvious that part of the corresponding rise in meth use, is people trying to suppress their appetites. that's what amphetamines were about, back when they were common as prozac.
now, its unlikely to get pharmeceutical help for the # one health problem in america: fat-pig syndrome. the fen/phen is gone; ephedra is pulled; etc.

i don't know why i forgot that vain and obese fat people desperately want to bee un-fat. they don't even want to get high.

its easy to see how all of these trends fit together for maximum $ flowage.

but how to change it?


WmPerry

  • Guest
bounce back & cross tolerance
« Reply #69 on: March 09, 2004, 06:01:00 PM »
Oxymetazoline's bounce back is very bad- itmakes pseud's undetectable by comparison- as fer decogestant use vis a vis meth use, the only time i will use a sprayer anymore is to upen a passage to snort with, which must be really bad practice.

  However, even the bounce back from a line or 2 of meth isn't as bad as 4 or 5 squirts of aftrin, other peoples mileage may vary.

  one annoying aspect of pseud/amph though is cross tolerance. i can no longer take enough pseud for it to make a dent in congestion. I really need to research how long to stay clean to get my tolerances managable agin. As an indication, on my first dozen failed rxns, iwould end up doing my entire yeild in a couple of hours hoping for some meth, but only getting the pseud back out. Like 1-3 grams of pseud at a go. With nearly zero discernable effect, though maybe i was little angrier at my failure than i woulda been on the natch.

  Benzadrex inhalers work, but can be overly harsh (ie., bleeding causing, its thecamphor &lavender oil does that,maybe) and as they are so similar chemically to amph (iguess propylhexadrine is an amph, just a very unpleasant, paranoid one when i tried it) that cross tolerance is even more in effect.

you bail, I'll row a while

WmPerry

  • Guest
A perfect outcome
« Reply #70 on: March 09, 2004, 06:08:00 PM »
fucking war on drugs led an innocent guy with a stuffy nose straight to here

I love that.

CharlieBigpotato

  • Guest
you did 3 grams of psuedo e?
« Reply #71 on: March 09, 2004, 06:27:00 PM »
holy crud, man. are you sure it wasn't NaCl? (w/ 12 rxn failures, it seemed possible)
that's 100 (30mg)pills!

i've never had the rebound effect w/ oxy-m, but i never use more than i need (which is the incredible advantage of that route of administration, compared to orally, with goo)

but if you did as you say, w/ 3gms, i'll take your experiences in comparing decongestants, with a grain of salt.


WmPerry

  • Guest
its true, my system says 'tilt'
« Reply #72 on: March 09, 2004, 09:15:00 PM »
actually,  3grams into rxn, maybe 1.5-2 max out the other end. as i remember i was angry and sleepy enough that i took a nap. THat could be the od symptoms, too. sleepiness imean, i dont  know. But i've been takin massive doses of pseud for 15-20 years-sinuses + spiraling tolerance + personal tendency to double any recomended dose = 6-8 60's as a starter dose, all of this well before my adventures in personal dream manufacture

    But certainly iwould never use myself as an example of correct dosage on anything at all. Everything chem runs out of norm on me. But never in a helpful, $-saving way

I guess this has gotten a little too Couch-like, though, so i'll shut up before i'm told to.
thanks

   btw- you didnt have a shitload of failures? until i listened to geez(&evrybody else) about lwr, i was 90% failure. I've learned: cut a corner=failure. Lose your patience=lose your dream. Interesting lessons to pick up in a place like this, eh?

CharlieBigpotato

  • Guest
last one: success IS failure
« Reply #73 on: March 09, 2004, 09:52:00 PM »
wm; failure is my middle name, especially in success.
but i'm curious, in a way more relevant to this forum, about your history of psuedoephedrine use (or abuse) and the re-bound effect of decongstants, which is often mentioned right on the package, in small print.

are you saying that you were using '6-8 60 mg pills' for the relief of congestion?
or were you using it for some sort of stim-buzz?
(i'm not the morality police; this flies in the face of my own decongestant history, and i seek data)
i can't imagine that the drug would work at all, as a decongestant, with that sort of use.
in, fact, i'd imagine the opposite, with a hard to piss dick and a rough heart beat.

perhaps a thread on the couch would bee appropriate, to explore the nature of psuedo ephedrine's effects/vs alternates/ and in combo w/ meth, etc.
i'm also curious about freebase psuedo-e as decongestant.
as well as vaso-dilator's connection to appetite suppresion.
from anecdotal offerings of bees, if they have any.

goodnight


ChemoSabe

  • Guest
Benzedrex - Most Fun/effective Inhaler
« Reply #74 on: March 10, 2004, 07:10:00 PM »
Swim's buddy makes sure to have a few around when for some reason meth isn't. What is that benzohexedrine anyway?

Can help ease nasty edge after too long of a binge.

Last I looked price on them had skyrocketed.


dwarfer

  • Guest
re-visit the Tyvek (Condom) separation
« Reply #75 on: March 12, 2004, 01:57:00 PM »

Post 488593

(Osmium: "> Tyvek seems to work better because it has", Stimulants)

i said:
> Tyvek seems to work better because it has the strength to
> resist the osmotic pressure that develops.

Osmoid said:
Yeah, those MPa of osmotic pressure are real killers.

I say:

Give it a try, 'Moid.  If you put the salt in a condom, tie off the open end, and put it in water, the osmotic pressure will enlarge the holes (and the whole condom...) and make it essentially unusuable after a few runs.

If you use a condom (and maybe a piggut I don't know..)

consider "backing it up" with Tyvek so that the Tyvek takes the strain.

I think the issue is worth re-visiting.

=============

Bye the way, there are other separation techniques that have not even been mentioned here.


ChemoSabe

  • Guest
Salty Dog Bit the Dust?
« Reply #76 on: March 12, 2004, 08:33:00 PM »
Hey Dworph,

Whatever happened to that old salty dog of yours? Did it ever come to any sort of practical usage for you or did it fully bite the GUPdust?

My own counterpart of your Marvin has been stubbornly using tyvekkian strategies on extraction coming up on 2 years now and he doesn't think it's a regional thing but he at least claims to have had not much sign of most of the problems others commonly reported due to the OII additives. Like your Marvin he often speaks straight out of his posterier but in this case I think there might bee something to his flatulent claims.

How are birches responding to this new acrylic additive anyway?


gluecifer69

  • Guest
Re: How are birches responding to this new...
« Reply #77 on: March 13, 2004, 04:12:00 PM »

How are birches responding to this new acrylic additive anyway?




Swim has posed this exact question only to get no answer, would a birch bee pleez speak up on the issue? :-[




auntyjack

  • Guest
hey dwarfer
« Reply #78 on: March 14, 2004, 08:44:00 AM »
"Bye the way, there are other separation techniques that have not even been mentioned here."
 
...geez mentioned vacuum-assisted steam-distillation...rhodium reckons column chromatography...what techniques are you thinking of there dwarfer....(also, are you tall or do you hunt dwarfs?)


ChemoSabe

  • Guest
Suspicions
« Reply #79 on: March 14, 2004, 10:13:00 AM »
I'm starting to suspect two things.

1) Most birchers have been stopped cold in their tracks by either new tigher controls and surveilence over anhydrous ammonia or by hideous accidents having to do with acquiring it.

2) Dwarfer and Shorty are actually two of the tallest and hugest guys on this whole board.