We need a new nano synth!

[kris_1108]

Hi
I think The Hive needs a good LWR nano synth for newbees. I have seen candles at a local supermarket that will burn for 40hrs (well it sais they do, anyway.) I was thinking you could have the glass piece from your thermometer (just mark it with a nikko pen where the 100'c is..), inside a test tube, with a baloon on the test tube. You would have to be able to easily adjust the height between your candle & test tube for temp control. And maybe use a 'mini oil bath' for the test tube, to keep temps more consistent, or a sand bath, or no bath at all!

This may work, assuming that the size of your candle flame wouldnt vary too much over the 24hr period. As for the post rxn, maybe use a simplified steam distillation, with a long glass tube as a distillation condenser (wrap it with a layer of damp cloth and keep the fan on it to cool?), and some sort of 'elbow' or flexible tube to adapt the test tube to the condenser.

This could possibly be an easy way to reduce ~2gms of pseudo, with maybe 50% yield?

Is the 24hr candle idea rediculous? Would an A/B be easier than the steam distillation?
What does everyone else think? Has anyone got some of their own thoughts on a nano synth?

[geezmeister]

Take a shot at it. Try your ideas out, work out the bugs, report what happens, good or bad. Do that post that becomes the new nano method.

I dare you.  

[SHORTY]

Is it absolutely necessary to have candles and custom testtubes etc.?

I mean an electric hotplate, real flask, real condenser or ghetto one will do fine (as will a balloon for a small cook)can be obtained quite easily and inexpensively.

How can you have 2 synths for the same reaction using the same precursors anyway?

Why complicate the process of adding 3 chemicals and some water to a flask and placing on a hotplate set at 100C for at least 36hours.

Actually, i think that all these newbees want a writeup that can bee done in a few hours.  Unfortunately that is not possible with rp/i rxns.  No matter how you do it and no matter what kind of equipment you have, the time is gonna remain the same for high quality, good as it gets meth.

Unless, of course, you can get hold of some hypo.  Then you can make the same high quality in as little as 1 hour! 

So instead of trying to think of a new curbshot writeup, why not research and develop a process for making hypo?
For example, your own urine is a source as well as animal bones.  Although i personally wouldn't take part in the urine experimenting.  There are many other possible sources for making hypo. You just gotta find um!

[navarone]

well a nice long pyrex testube will work perfectly.
extracting rp from SWIDK (source which i dont know) its easy with some nice solvent and some coffe filters.
for many...iodine is a tricky thing to find. but google is ur friend in that....trust me.
a 24 hour candle is not needed...since the proportions of the e i2 rp are way smaller...the reaction should be much quicker..about 6 hours.
a tricky thing is the condenser.
the temp for a nice reaction is about 100c.
it wont take long until the whole testube will reach 100c so the baloon might melt.
but i came out with another way of making a ghetto nano condenser.
for this kind of synth u need the following things
1 long big pyrex testube
2 thin medium testube
2 clamps or something that would do the same.
dry ice
6 hour candle.
(the big and the small testube should have a close size diameter)

a thermometer is not necessarely needed
just test the apparatus with only water and see at what distance from the candle the water starts boiling.
the stand can be anything of course...i use one of those floor long lamp bars
a heat resistant clamp is easy to construct
now the big testube is placed and the E 12 rp was putted in.
the little testube was filled with big chunks of dry ice(big chunks takes longer to melt)
20 or more ml of water were poured inside the big testube.
the little thin testube with ice was placed inside the big testube exactly in the middle..like shown in the pic
the candle was lit and  slowly the reaction starts.
keep another little testube with ice in the freezer.
lit the candle and the bubbling will start
the dry ice will last for about 2 hours. when u see that the ice inside is all back to liquid again, quickly change it with the one in the freezer.
the removed testube was emptied and filled with dry ice and left in the freezer again.

remember to keep eye on the reaction...dont just go out or start watching tv or the ice will melt and the hi will escape.
just change the testube everytime u sees the ice has melted.
if u wanna keep the reaction going for more than 6 hours....buy some more candles.

there u go....u got a ghetto mini condenser.

i never tried this before since im having problems extracting iodine but im pretty sure it will work..if u do it carefully of course.
ill let u bees try it out and tell me if it works propely..ok??

hope this came in handy
sorry for my bad english

c ya guys

navarone

[ChemoSabe]

Like my recent post concerning curb's nano implied, as long as you are not a resident of the US or Autralia Curbs nano might still be a valid intro to the process.

Intro. Intro. Intro. Should I say it again?

But don't waste your time on it if you are from the US or OZ and your precursor source is that of OTC decongestant and bronchodilator products.

should I say that once or twice more?


Shorty's 10g LWR is the one to look at. It's definitely a nano recipe. Since it's even a challenge for veteran bees to now push it beyond yeilding more than 5gs of end product plus the fact that newbies will realistically initially net about half of that figure,.... would any of you argue against the fact that ending up with 2.5gs would qualify as a nano amount?

That final amount just barely gets you enough to make recrystallization a practical endeavor.

And now with the arrival of the newest acrylic supergakks you'll be damned lucky to even end up with that.

I'm not trying to be a partypooping bubble buster here, just being realistic.

You aren't being fed bullshit about this.

For those of you who haven't yet finely polished your search engine skills I'll spoonfeed you a clue to the location of Shortys recipe. It's just a few posts away from this one.

Post 482573

(ChemoSabe: "Hit Single Version", Stimulants)

A further clue for those who somehow still couldn't find it with that first one.....  "this should work...".

Anyone who's still lost after that clue should just quit right now. You'll never succeed with all the real world hurdles you'll need to clear concerning all this.

PS - Someone please shoot me if I now start turning into Osmium as upon proofreading this I think I'm definitely showing symptoms.

[wareami]

The only typo I can find is in the diagram itself where it states to use 20ml dh2o for 2g of E. That's excessive.
Even though the rxn may complete in 6 hours, Ibee finds that longer cooking periods in the range of 36-48 are more benefitial in many ways...

But Nice Write-UP!
In return....here is a sure fire I2 Extraction method that Ibee uses and it works like a charm everytime.
He calls it

Ibee will use the 1 ounce 2% I2 tincture bottles for example. Scale UP as necessary.
If using 7% I2 tincture, increase amounts of ingredients used...
For example:
Every 1oz 2%tinc requires ¼ oz bleach
Every 1oz 7% tinc requires ¾ oz bleach

Materials Needed for 5 ounces of 2% tinc
•Quart size plastic jug with tight sealing cap(squeezable)
•Half Gallon size jug
•Panty Hose {with or without ho's}(Take the Ho's out first )
•Rubberband
•Funnel
•Coffee filters and/or paper towels

Ingredients needed
•5-1oz bottles 2% tinc
•1¼ oz household bleach
•1ml Concentrated sulfuric acid(h2so4)
•dh2o

1.Empty all 5 tincs into quart jug
2.Add bleach, cap and shake.
3.Uncap and add h2so4, cap and shake
4.Uncap and fill with dh2o, cap and shake.
5.Let set for 2 minutes then uncap.
6.Fold PantyHose so that six layers will cover the jug opening then fold down and afix securely with rubberband over the top.
7.Position funnel inside half gallon jug.
8.Turn Quartsize jug upside down and Decant liquid into funnel by gently squeezing the sides until all liquid is gone.
9.Undo Rubberband and Open top and flood with more water to about half quart line to wash I2 xtals.
10.Repeat step 6,7,8
11.With jug still upside down undo rubberband and pull away P-hose. The xtal ball should be either on the P-hose or stuck in the neck of the jug.
12.Transfer the xtalball onto 6 stacked coffee filters or papertowels and fold sides over onto top of xtalball and squeeze out excess moisture.
Open paper then transfer I2 xtalball onto new paper and wrap ball UP and stand on the wrapped ball to squeeze all excess moisture out!
There ya have it!

[wareami]

Allow me Chemo...
>would any of you argue against the fact that ending up with 2.5gs would qualify as a nano amount?
By loose definition, anything under 10g is nano

I tend to agree with Chemo about his concerns and the reasoning behind his philosophy on this.
The size of the LWR rxn is only limited/governed by ratio and flasksize.
Everything else should run identical.
Those looking for a nano write-up need only follow the guidelines as they were presented here time and again.
To reproduce a Curbshot style write-up will result in thesame problems those faced with applying those instructions right out of the box.
Many have tried the curbshot only to come UP empty handedon the first try and needed to incorporate other variables ripped from other write-UPs before they could make the rxn work.
On the Other Hand....those that followed Jacked's, Worlock's, or placebo's write-ups succeeded fine but those were just a tad more sophisticated to newbees.
All bees want a straightforward way that is fail proof.
That is asking alot.
Ibee was going to translate a new LWR write-up for me to post but it seems that the time would be better spent n unraveling the mystery's of the newest gaaks!
Without runnable feedstock, bees don't stand a chance even if they had a bee do a housecall and show them firsthand how to do it! So the answer isn't in a write-UP at this stage but one will come from Ibee's corner when other areas are addressed first!

"Burnt Leftovers...." Shhheeeeeeeeeesh!!!
Ibee's Humbled Chemo...

[SHORTY]

Post 482658

(SHORTY: "This should work...", Stimulants)

[moo]

Dry ice in the test tube acting as a condenser? Why? The area of contact between the dry ice and the test tube will be minimal, and the cold carbon dioxide escaping the "condenser"  won't do you much good either.

You are way better off with plain old ice water because the water cooled by the ice has maximal contact with the test tube and furthermore the ice has larger heat capacity (read: cooling capacity) than dry ice. It is simple as that.

[kris_1108]

SHORTY
No, the candles etc are not necessary. I agree, If you've got the equipment, why would you try to do it with a test tube etc?

Yes, an electric hotplate, flask & condenser can bee obtained easily and inexpensively, but doesn't that take out all the fun of doing a nano?! Ive done a few nanos, yielded a tiny 20% but I loved them! I made my own speed!

I just thought it might be 'cool' to be able to make a little bit of speed with a small, ghetto setup, minus the flasks and condensers and the hotplate.

>>Why complicate the process of adding 3 chemicals and some water to a flask and placing on a hotplate set at 100C for at least 36hours.

Doing it in a test tube with a baloon and a candle is complicating it? I disagree. You are right, it is off the beaten trail, however I do not think that is much more if any more complicated.

I do see what you and Chemo are saying. It just seems that plenty of bees are trying curbs nano, and having trouble. If it could be 'updated' then they will have more success.

I dont know what it is, but there's something thats a bit exciting about doing a nano. Maybee I'm just wierd, though   . Any way Ill have a think, and Im keen to have have a go.

[ChemoSabe]

The mian reason I personally would recommend lab glassware is that it's designed to safely handle the heat stresses necessary in chemically oriented labwork. Meaning quick fluctuations in temperature that would easily and sometimes explosively shatter or badly crack other articles of glass.

The open flamed candle issue, while it surely can be safely done in the duration of an hour (24 or 48 gets rather "iffy"), is something most would be better avoiding. It can never escape being some sort of realistically potential fire hazard plus the sheer overall usefulness of a decent hotplate should outweigh all considerations of using a candle as a heatsource.

But for those of you truly living like cavemen it might be your only option. how's that candle powered computer working out for you cavebees out there anyways?  

There are some who are still going to cause dangerous events to occur even if they've got lab grade everything so acquiring good lab glass and other lab apparati by no means completely assures your safety in the lab. But they certainly beat out nearly any ghetto setup in terms of general overall safety. 

I'd also never claim that acquiring good lab glass would always be the safest thing to be doing either. It can be and  often is a quite suspicious thing to do. But it's certainly not an impossible or necessarliy expensive or absolutely in all circumstances a suspicious thing to do.

And if you can manage to get it it's definitely to your advantage for both safety and success in chemistry oriented endeavors.

And having and using it does not take anything away from that "I did it myself" feeling that going ghetto also gives you. It does increase the odds of you having that feeling more frequently and to a higher degree than before.

If you ever find yourself in the emergency room prior to admission to an ICU with 3rd degree burns while a fire cheif & crew, a hazmat team and a narcotics investigator are simultaneously at the scene of the scorched and smoldering remains of your little ghetto lab you might have wished you'd had a safer setup.

There are still many arguments that staunch ghetto enthusiasts would have on this topic to make their points in favor of "going ghetto" too but obviously I'm not one of them.

[SHORTY]

Although i do consider finding a safe way to hold a testtube over a candle for 24 hours more difficult to achieve than putting a flask on a hotplate.  You couldn't leave it unattended because the candle or testube would have to bee adjusted as the candle burned down.  Ventilation would have to be configured so that it wouldn't disturb the flame etc... 

However, my motivation for making meth is not because its fun.  But if that is your goal and it makes you happy then by all means have at it.

[kris_1108]

Hi
Swik has been working on a LWR nano synth, atleast for himself.
The test tube would be held with one of those big steel paper clamp/clip devices, which is screwed to a simple stand. A glass thermometer rod would be in the vessel, which has a fluoro-tube condenser atop. This assembly was tested with water; the point of condensation was about 150mm up the 5/8 x 12" tube. The plan is to steam distill the goods out. Swik can use the existing vessel & condenser, the next problem is...


...how to attach the top of the vessel to the condenser?
Swik was thinking about using some flexible transparent tubing with a 3mm (~1/8) inner diameter.

Has anyone had much experience with steam & flexible tubing? Is there any reasong why it would not carry the steam over into the condenser?

and SHORTY - Could you please guide me with getting the white coat off the inside of a fluoro tube? thanks.

EDIT: woops i just found a post that sais you use sponge/coathanger wire/dishsoap. cool, thanks.

As for the time, well, we all know that it is best to go for 24/36/48hrs. However if one was to reduce 10mg of pseudo, surely it would not take 24hrs..(?). Does that mean with such small amount (2gms) Swik could reflux for less time? Or would 24hrs still be far better than (say) 12hrs on a 2gm reduction?

[SHORTY]

I use plastic tubing for connecting my external steam source as well as the boiling flask to the condenser.  It works fine fomr me .

As far as the rxn being faster for smaller amounts i would say it will bee the same time whether its 10g or 100g as long as the ratios are scaled up and the correct flask size is used.  Look at it this way, if it takes 10 minutes to boil an egg then does it take 20 to boil 2?. (i beleive it was Rhodium who said this a while back .

[kris_1108]

cool so plastic tubing will work,
thanks Shorty.

I understand the egg thing but I spose I thought I could get away with less time on such a small amt.. I wonder if it is truly the same time to reduce .1gms and 1kg???
It depends on the nature of the reduction; is it mostly mechanical or a percentage?

Lets say, In a 10gm wet rxn, after 2hrs of reflux, only 2gms of the pfed has been fully reduced.
Has it taken 2hrs to reduce 2gms OR has it taken 2hrs to reduce 20%?
If the former is the case, then a 2gm rxn could bee completed in 2hrs..
If the latter is the case, then, only .4gms of the 2gm rxn would be reduced after 2hrs.
Is the reaction ALL percentage? or ALL mechanical? or a mixture of both? (could it bee 70% pecentage and 30% mechanical..)
Shit I hope that made sense  
What do you bees think?

[CharlieBigpotato]

do the math.

factor in the radius.
do the double blind if need bee.

or better yet, beelieve in magic.
at the risk of offending some bees, i'm still inclined to say that i feel sorry for anyone that has to hang in there with a  a 3gm rxn for 48 hours; especially newcomers that will bee stressed out the entire time; and by the end of it, when they really need their smarts,

well, they're so wasted that they do something stupid.

i can't motivate for convincing anyone of anything concerning this subject.

but i feel sorry for any newbee that feels compelled to nurse a 3 gm rxn for 2 days.

everything we know is wrong. almost everything.
i hope we can agree on that.

nothing i have ever done has made any sense, according to the loudest noise du' jour.

bee safe, young fools.
we need you for other tasks than incarceration.

let in light

[Relux]

Kris, I think I understand your questions about the mechanical/percentage of the reaction mechanism, in which case my answer is that it is entirely percentage. If the system is homogenous (heat is the same throughout, consistency is identical throughout, distribution of reagents is consistent) then the reaction will procede the same regardless of how big it is, or small. Think of it in terms of a unit. One unit of reacting substrates will produce some percentage of that unit worth of product. One unit could be 1000kg or .5g, but all will react the same. Reactions rely on contact between reagents, and also upon the kinetics of that contact. If there is a certain amount of some chemical and a certain amount of the other in a solution, one striking the other occurs in the same frequency whether you have 1ml or 1L.
  Also think about the fact that the rate of product formation decreases more or less exponentially. 1gm of substrate producing .2g of product in two hours would leave .8g of product which in another two hours would produce .16g of product and leave behind .64g. This is of course a slight bit oversimplefied due to neglected equilibria and recycled reactants, but more or less still holds true. (by the way, I have no idea if 20% reacts in 2 hours, but I think you meant that as an example anyway)

[kris_1108]

hi relux
thanks for your reply, and the explanation of how the reaction works. I understand what you are saying. Is it true for even the smallest amount? (e.g one molecule of pfed?). What about two molecules? I know that this sounds a bit extreme (only fleas do one molecule cooks   ) but I am just checking that the reaction is infact, entirely a percentage reduction.

I cant get my head around the fact that (e.g) 2 of 10 gms would take 2hrs but 2 of 2gms would take 24+ hrs. Its like you can reduce 2gms of pfed in 2hrs if you add an additional 8gms! (all these figs. purely example!)

Maybe some things just arent meant to bee fully understood (e.g women). hehe
AH no offence anyone  

[kris_1108]

Hi
Swik has been pissing around with steam distilling out of a test tube. He has just been practicing with h20 in the tube.

The plan was to connect the top of the test tube to the fluoro tube condenser via small plastic tubing. The problem is that NO steam enters the condenser via the plastic tube (small, ~3mm Inner.Diameter tube). The tube HAS to bee fairly small cos big tubes dont like making sharp bends. I am guessing that the tube is staying too cold and the steam is condensing before it gets to exit.

Any suggestions as to what to try next?

Thanks

[Rhodium]

I cant get my head around the fact that (e.g) 2 of 10 gms would take 2hrs but 2 of 2gms would take 24+ hrs. Its like you can reduce 2gms of pfed in 2hrs if you add an additional 8gms!

It hasn't got to do with the amout of pfed you add, it's about the other reactants.

If you use 2g pfed and add five times the usual amount of HI/RP (what you would normally use for 10g pfed), then you might be able to perform the reaction five times faster (in theory, in practice other factors sets in, as this is a multistep reaction), but usually people don't want to spend more reactants than necessary.

Anyhow, this effect is called the Law of Mass Action, and is explained all over the net:

Simple cartoon:

http://www.yorktech.com/science/analogies/massact.htm

With equations:

http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cchieh/cact/c123/massacti.html