I vote with Scottydog.
If you want to make crank in low yield batches without much regard for what is in the mix besides meth, have at it.
IF you want methamphetamine hydrochloride, do not rely on this extraction method, or the post reaction workup. You will have a good deal in the mix besides methamphetamine.
I have no doubt that ampdup gets a buzz from his product, or that it works. You will note in the writeup a lack of detail regarding actual yields, the absence of discussion of purity of the product, and no mention of recrystallization. This approach and this method will produce some meth, which I am sure will be well recieved by most tweakers.
The dispute about whether the method "works" is in reality a dispute of the standard by which one measures the quality of his product. The product that Ampdup considers an acceptable product would not meet what I consider to be acceptable standards. His product works, it will get you high, it will keep you up, and it will make you want more. It may be as good as any he has sampled.
I read his posts in this thread very carefully. I have extracted pseudo from generic 120's for years. I realized many years ago that an alcohol extract of generic 120's did not yield clean pseudo, and if Ampdup took the time to recrystallize the white substance he has when he evaporates his denatured alcohol, he would realize that it isn't pure pseudoephedrine.
If he mentioned recrystallization in his writeup, or gave detailed yield information, or discussed cleaning and purification of his meth, I would give more credence to his opinions. I discount his claims, not because of a lack of sincerity on his part, but because he omits steps I do not consider as optional, fails to discuss actual measured yields, and has no way to make an objective assessment of hows good his stuff really is. I suspect what he produces will rank pretty well by street dope standards.
If he tries to recrystallize this product he will suffer yeild losses sufficient to deter him from trying to recrystallize again. The reason? His product contains crystal formation inhibitors from the pills, a lot of by products and intermediates. If he recrystallized to meth, he might realize how much of that pile of powder is not meth.
The difference of opinion relates to what constitutes "good" methamphetamine. The standard of quality or purity that the poster measures his product against is not the standard set by the elderbees, and accepted by most of the bees who have been contributing here for a few years.
I do not intend to engage in a vitriolic diatribe over quality. The subject has been discussed at length in this very context many times before, and need not be repeated here. I imagine that Ampdup will let me know in no uncertain terms that his product is the best shit anyone has ever made, that it is as good as it gets, and that everyone here who naysays his methods is an effete snob whose knowledge of making meth is limited to academic environments unsuited to the realities of the actual world.
It took me a few years to learn that the measure of product purity and quality in this forum is much higher than I thought it was. Quality at the Hive is not an "accepted" standard. It is the standard of "as good as it gets." This forum is about making the best quality product, not about making street dope.
I am not flaming you, Ampdup. I've been precisely where you are. I was obsessed with quality and yield, not with speed or convenience. I kept working at it, started listening to chemists instead of cooks, and realized that what the chemists were talking about and what I had been talking about were two different things. Please realize that when Scottydog or I say "That dog won't hunt," we mean it. By the same token, Scottydog and I aren't after what you are after. We are after something better. And we still get it.
No offense, but the extraction method you use will not give you suitably clean pseudoephedrine. Its not that easy.