Author Topic: Ker Plunking for quality and quantity  (Read 36048 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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?)