Jacked:
Well I can't argue with that...not that argument is my style anyway.
We're here to learn and expose the facts, as well as, enlighten ourselves and others toward obtaining the purest product possible.
The simple fact that this still creeps into the discussions from time to time is ample evidence that there's always room for improvement and tightening UP that undefined slackspace in organic chemistry.
I will say this and stake my rep on it.
Along your same line of reasoning, Iodometh is not the only product we're concerned with eliminating that are the result of side-rxns and impurity production in shorter timed cooks.
And you're absolutely correct with the observation that impurities removed, equal reduced overall yield of pure meth.
Those experiencing 30-70% yields are typically the result of pulling a rxn before it's done FULLY reducing.
If 30% impurities are presest in the end-result...following a tone wash and the recommended recrystallization, your final yield will be lower, equalling the amount of impurities removed.
So we agree that impurity = yieldloss!
And as you say jacked....most people are accustomed to those impurites and want them in there dope and think they got ripped off when they get pure shyte.
The impure by-products created in side-rxns enrooute to pure meth account for some CNS stimulation to boot.
Red Phosphorus is a stimulant by itself(not saying peeps are slamming RP)
But RP's presense and interaction with the other reactants account for some of those side-rxn impurities.
They are necessary intermediates just like Iodo, like we hear of like the h3po3
__>h3po4, phoshine, etc....created enroute to full reduction.
Pull a rxn before it's time and yields suffer from the impurites left in the basified solution whether or not they are soluble in acetone!
This is why recrystallization is so necessary as a recommeneded practice to insure their removal.
I can't emphasize this point enough that low yields are the result of impurities present, in most cases.
How they get there is simple and how they are removed is simple. What's not so simple is explaining that longer ccoks times equal less impurity-more pure meth.
The numbers speak for themselves and have since I made that correlation long ago.
I set out to verify my suspicions and they proved to me to be correct.
So Again I stand by full cooking times to cook-off or to fully align those molecules that equal purity in product and higher yields of meth.
I can only speak for Ibee's experience with yields in the HI/RP as they differ from hot/fast and the LWR, but they are higher than most bees reports and he attributes this to side-rxn cookingoff/completion in the LWR, compared to removing them at the end of shorter cooks.
Again...No disrespect...and not argueing, just my attempt at reaching a meeting of the minds for better understanding.
You're teachings about patience and The HI/RP, taught this student!
And 48hrs LWR is not a constant fixed in the HI/RP rxn...
It's a gaurantee for newbees to succeed by.
Something that wasn't so prevelant around here in Ibee's early learning as a newbee.
You Jacked should recall Ibee's screams after the 14th failure in a row using the modified p/p(balloon)