Problem gassing generic 120's

[weaz1dls]

this page talks about transport systems and pill manufacture process.  Hope this isn't a repeat.  Here is a bit followed by the link.

Post 0051 (not existing) In preferred embodiments, the polymer coat (26) will be insoluble in the fluid of a first environment of use, such as gastric juices, acidic fluids, or polar liquids, and soluble or erodible in the fluid of a second environment of use, such as intestinal juices, substantially pH neutral or basic fluids, or apolar liquids. A wide variety of other polymeric materials are known to possess these various solubility properties and can be included in the polymer coat (26). Such other polymeric materials include, by way of example and without limitation, cellulose acetate phthalate (CAP), cellulose acetate trimelletate (CAT), poly(vinyl acetate) phthalate (PVAP), hydroxypropyl methylcellulose phthalate (HPMCP), poly(methacrylate ethylacrylate) (1:1) copolymer (MA-EA), poly(methacrylate methylmethacrylate) (1:1) copolymer (MA-MMA), poly(methacrylate methylmethacrylate) (1:2) copolymer, Eudragit L-30-D.TM. (MA-EA, 1:1), Eudragit L-100-55.TM. (MA-EA, 1:1), hydroxypropyl methylcellulose acetate succinate (HPMCAS), Coateric.TM. (PVAP), Aquateric.TM. (CAP), AQUACOAT.TM. (HPMCAS) and combinations thereof. The polymer coat (26) can also comprise dissolution aids, stability modifiers, and bioabsorption enhancers.

Post 0052 (not existing) When the polymer coat (26) is intended to be dissolved, eroded or become detached from the core in the colon, materials such as hydroxypropylcellulose, microcrystalline cellulose (MCC, Avicel.TM. from FMC Corp.), poly (ethylene-vinyl acetate) (60:40) copolymer (EVAC from Aldrich Chemical Co.), 2-hydroxyethylmethacrylate (HEMA), MMA, terpolymers of HEMA: MMA:MA synthesized in the presence of N,N'-bis(methacryloyloxyethyloxycarbonylamino)-azobenzene, azopolymers, enteric coated timed release system (Time Clock.RTM. from Pharmaceutical Profiles, Ltd., UK) and calcium pectinate can be included in the polymer coat (6).

Post 0053 (not existing) A preferred polymeric material for use in the polymer coat (26) involves enteric materials that resist the action of gastric fluid avoiding permeation through the semipermeable wall while one or more of the materials in the core (25) are solubilized in the intestinal tract thereby allowing delivery of a drug in the core (25) by osmotic pumping to begin. A material that easily adapts to this kind of requirement is a poly(vinylpyrrolidone)-vinyl acetate copolymer, such as the material supplied by BASF under its Kollidon VA64 trademark, mixed with magnesium stearate and other similar excipients. The polymer coat (26) can also comprise povidone, which is supplied by BASF under its Kollidon K 30 trademark, and hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, which is supplied by Dow under its Methocel E-15 trademark. The materials can be prepared in solutions having different concentrations of polymer according to the desired solution viscosity. For example, a 10% P/V aqueous solution of Kollidon K 30 has a viscosity of about 5.5-8.5 cps at 20.degree. C., and a 2% P/V aqueous solution of Methocel E-15 has a viscosity of about 13-18 cps at 20.degree. C.

Post 0054 (not existing) The polymer coat (26) can also comprise other materials suitable which are substantially resistant to gastric juices and which will promote either enteric or colonic release. For this purpose, the polymer coat (26) can comprise one or more materials that do not dissolve, disintegrate, or change their structural integrity in the stomach and during the period of time that the osmotic device (21) resides in the stomach. Representative materials that keep their integrity in the stomach can comprise a member selected from the group consisting of (a) keratin, keratin sandarac-tolu, salol (phenyl salicylate), salol beta-naphthylbenzoate and acetotannin, salol with balsam of Peru, salol with tolu, salol with gum mastic, salol and stearic acid, and salol and shellac; (b) a member selected from the group consisting of formalized protein, formalized gelatin, and formalized cross-linked gelatin and exchange resins; (c) a member selected from the group consisting of myristic acid-hydrogenated castor oil-cholesterol, stearic acid-mutton tallow, stearic acid-balsam of tolu, and stearic acid-castor oil; (d) a member selected from the group consisting of shellac, ammoniated shellac, ammoniated shellac-salol, shellac-wool fat, shellac-acetyl alcohol, shellac-stearic acid-balsam of tolu, and shellac n-butyl stearate; (e) a member selected from the group consisting of abietic acid, methyl abictate, benzoin, balsam of tolu, sandarac, mastic with tolu, and mastic with tolu, and mastic with acetyl alcohol; (f) acrylic resins represented by anionic polymers synthesized from methacrylate acid and methacrylic acid methyl ester, copolymeric acrylic resins of methacrylic and methacrylic acid and methacrylic acid alkyl esters, copolymers of alkylacrylic acid and alkylacrylic acid alkyl esters, acrylic resins such as dimethylaminoethylmethacrylate-butylmethacrylate-methylmethacrylate copolymer of 150,000 molecular weight, methacrylic acid-methylmethacrylate 50:50 coploymer of 135,000 molecular weight, methacrylic acid-methylmethacrylate-30:70copolymer of 135,000 mol. wt., methacrylic acid-dimethylaminoethyl-methacrylate-ethylacrylate of 750,000 mol. wt., methacrylic acid-methylmethacrylate-ethylacrylate of 1,000,000 mol. wt., and ethylacrylate-methylmethacrylate-ethylacrylate of 550,000 mol. wt; and, (g) an enteric composition comprising a member selected from the group consisting of cellulose acetyl phthalate, cellulose diacetyl phthalate, cellulose triacetyl phthalate, cellulose acetate phthalate, hydroxypropyl methylcellulose phthalate, sodium cellulose acetate phthalate, cellulose ester phthalate, cellulose ether phthalate, methylcellulose phthalate, cellulose ester-ether phthalate, hydroxypropyl cellulose phthalate, alkali salts of cellulose acetate phthalate, alkaline earth salts of cellulose acetate phthalate, calcium salt of cellulose acetate phthalate, ammonium salt of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose phthalate, cellulose acetate hexahydrophthalate, hydroxypropyl methylcellulose hexahydrophthalate, polyvinyl acetate phthalate diethyl phthalate, dibutyl phthalate, dialkyl phthalate wherein the alkyl comprises from 1 to 7 straight and branched alkyl groups, aryl phthalates, and other materials known to one or ordinary skill in the art.

Post 0055 (not existing) As used herein, the term "preformed passageway" refers to a passageway or passageway precursor that has been formed on the semipermeable membrane by mechanical means, such as by a laser, drill and/or etching apparatus. A preformed passageway is optionally plugged after initial formation, such as depicted in FIG. 6. If a water soluble plug is used, the preformed passageway will increase in size even after all of the plug has been removed from the preformed passageway. The term "preformed passageway" is not intended to cover pores, holes, apertures, channels or other similar structures formed in the semipermeable membrane by incorporation of pore formers, water soluble particulates, or similar materials known to those of ordinary skill, into the semipermeable membrane during manufacture of the osmotic device. The invention does include, however, an osmotic device having a preformed passageway and one or more other pores, holes apertures, channels or other similar structures known to those of ordinary skill.

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2720020099361%27.PGNR.&OS=DN/20020099361&RS=DN/20020099361

also it apears that electrolytes and sodium ions assist in absorbtion of nutrients into the blood through the intestine.....hmm salt water eeh?

Water and Salt:

Most of the material absorbed from the cavity of the small intestine is water in which salt is dissolved. The salt and water come from the food and liquid we swallow and the juices secreted by the many digestive glands. In a healthy adult, more than a gallon of water containing over an ounce of salt is absorbed from the intestine every 24 hours

http://papa.essortment.com/whatdoessmall_rjsz.htm%5Bwink

]

[Relux]

So, once upon a time there was a pile of psuedo freebase (extracted from red hots) that was already ok for use (but the hcl salt was preferred) and a pile of hcl needles extracted from generic 120s that I assumed to still need a little help in purification.
    First of all, when once the freebase mentioned above was still the hcl salt, it was in the form of fine white cotton like needles. The same method used for crystallizing the hcl from the 120s resulted strangely in larger prettier more pristine looking crystals.
    Second, the freebase from the red hots required large amounts of warm toluene to dissolve (about 35ml/g) while the freebase coming from the aqueous solution of the based 120 pseudo seemed to shoot straight into supernatant warm toluene at about half the amount that was required for the other freebase.
    Third, when gassing the red hots toluene solution, very fine flakes of pseudo hcl were produced and quite quickly while when gassing the 120 toluene solution much larger particles were formed that seemed to flocculate, were much easier to filter, and seemed much harder to gas out. Both looked the same as a dry filter cake: dense white pearlescent stratigraphic (or flake-like) clumps.

    In reality there is no point in stating all of this, because both of the end products seem to be uber-sue and perfectly fine for reactions, but the whole difference in behaviors sure threw me off. I did not measure the amount of tol it took me to extract the red hot freebase to begin with but I vaguely remember it being quite a bit as well, so I do not think that the reason for the difference is that one was above water.

-lux

    ps. I've noticed it to be very useful to have the red color from red hots in order to track the degree of purity, and moreover show the relative pH of my solution when titrating (cherry red in acid to weak tea in base). I've actually been thinking of throwing in a few intentionally in batches of 120s before purification so I can see what i'm doing .

[foxy2]

Do the standard wash procedure.

Then extract freebase suzy/gakk.  Acidify with H2SO4 and isolate the Sulfate salt. Wash this and then extract freebase again and gas.

Just an alternate idea that that poped into my head.

[popi]

Scottydog: Please, Any new oppinion's of these new 120's with just methylcellulose,magneisium sterate,silica,talc and cellulose "listed" as inactive ingredients.Or any new break-throughs on your 120's?Mine cause tiny white specs in the rxn of a  'e.rp.I2'  cook. Or of the 120's you are working with.Thanks

[Prepuce]

SWIP has occaissionaly thought about trying detergents, and did so once without much success. In light of recent research, however, it might not be too difficult to remove them from the mix as long as an ionic surfactant is used. Dishwashing detergent is ionic, if SWIP's not mistaken. Ionic surfactants can be more or less easily neutralized, as opposed to nonionics like out old buddy, polysorbate 80.

SWIP would have never guessed he was battling detergent! But the fact is, polysorbate 80 is one of the most difficult to remove from a solution. Many of the others are not.

PP

[UncleFester]

I covered polysorbate there.
Fester

[wareami]

Popi: Ibee says try cracking the shells off 120's and using a fine seive screen or strainer to remove the shells first before doing anything else!
Ibee suspects that the shells are causing the condition described.
Also mnkyboy had a proposal to remove shells by soaking the tombstones in acetone until the swell and then screening the pills.
That write-up can be found here under the title "MnkyBoy's Cracked Pearls (Tomb-stones)"

https://www.thevespiary.org/rhodium/Rhodium/chemistry/pseudo.xtract.smackdown.html

Prepuce: Our Spudbuddy Charlie had recently brought UP the suggestion of using detergents in extraction.
The more I think on this, the more it might fall in line with my recent proposals to hopefully incorporate Oils in extraction as a first assault and then maybe using a detergent to rid the oil down the line.
Most detergents are effective degreasers!
Let the experimentation begin!
Sheeeeeesh....this could be torturous!

[foxy2]

Popi: Ibee says try cracking the shells off 120's and using a fine seive screen or strainer to remove the shells first before doing anything else!
Ibee suspects that t

I think I read somewhere that the shells never dissolve in a full turps cure followed by a dry IPA extraction. I think I remember reading that.

[geezmeister]

I've taken them off, and left them on, when extracting pseudo from the 120's in a variety of ways. I frankly never found there to be any yield advantage to removing them, or any penalty in the quality of pseudo extracted, leaving them in. You lose some of the inner ingredients deshelling them. You lose some yield leaving the shells in the mix.
So what?

Granted, I usually extract these pills by an a/b process of one form or another, and consider them too gakked to extract with alcohol alone, all due deference to the more painstaking, and time consuming, procedures of Ibee and the Kidz. I'll take a cut-and-slash clean sixty percent yield of four hundred of them processed at one time and leave the shells on.

Mind you my opinion of acceptable yield has a lot to do with the time I wish to devote to that pursuit, to the amount of pseudo I wish to react, to the value of my time itself, and the cost of a gram of pseudo. I will trade five or ten percent of the yield in pseudo for less time involvemnt and clean pseudo. Why work an extra five hours for another twenty dollars worth of pseudo?  Just extract more pseudo tablets to begin with, don't work it to death. Leave as much gakk as you can behind with a little bit of the pseudo as gakk magnets or gakk bait.

Struggling for that last five percent of the pseudo in an OTC product typically brings you into the sights of the foilants, and you get your reaction gakked. Its false economy to stress maximizing yields here. If you find a method and means to a lower yield of clean pseudo, take the clean pseudo and run to the bank as fast as you can.

Maybe its philosophy and not science, but some of the time we get so wrapped up in yield numbers that we forget the actual dollar value of what we are extracting and fail to realize that we may be gakking ourselves by insisting on high yields.


When I first started extracting pseudo, I extracted it from the carcasses of pills which had been ground, put in a coffee filter in a funnel, and had MeOH poured over them. One time. There was over forty percent of the pseudo left in the pills, and damn near all of the gakks. I had to fight the gakks, because I was trying to get all the pseudo that was left. The guy giving me his discarded powder--- he never worried about the gakks.

Granted that was years ago, but the principle still adheres. Make sure you aren't gakking yourself by pulling too hard. Its easy to do with any alcohol extraction method. Its much harder to do when you extract by an a/b method.

[wareami]

Ain't what it used to bee!
I agree with Geez so far as getting in, getting the deed done, and baggin what's baggable with the least stress and exertion as possible. And he's absolutely right about getting in your own way sometimes by being too meticulous and methodical.
The reason Ibee suggests the removal of the shells now more than ever, is because of what they are including in those coatings since introducing the newest embodiment formulations that contain the polymethylmethacrylates and an onslaught of various other adulterants/denaturants.
Pill size hasn't changed!
They gotta put it all somewhere.
Since they have a need to cram as much as they can in each pill(multi-matrix), it's anybees guess as to which area of pill is going to contain what to screw a bees attempt at any given extraction point.
Ibee's philosophy hasn't changed in regards to getting what's Ghettable by removing what can be removed before attempting to isolate the pfed.
In short...it's not about getting the pseudo out.
It's more about getting all the shit outta the way so a pinwheel of light can be seen at the end someware!
>Its much harder to do when you extract by an a/b method.
Ahhhh Yes....but Ibee predicted that the end of the frontside A/B is very near if not hear
Honestly...I hope bees don't think Ibee's been playing with AWE those exotic chems and solvents AWE this time for his health   !
Remember the medical device replacements for delivery system invention. It will make the difference when researching what's revealable on the consumer bee level.

[geezmeister]

The reason Ibee suggests the removal of the shells now more than ever, is because of what they are including in those coatings since introducing the newest embodiment formulations that contain the polymethylmethacrylates and an onslaught of various other adulterants/denaturants

Odds are that if it is used in the delivery system, its with the pseudo, not the shell. Think about it. If the pills are formulated as the literature on methacrylates you posted describes, the last place you are likely to find it is the shell. The methacrylates, by the literature you provided, are integrated into the delivery system and are going to be with the pseudo.

I'm not real sure the 120's are gakked with methacrylates yet. I am about to find out for sure.  

[popi]

Thanks Guys,Swip has been pulling too hard.Dam !And I know now that the pricks down here are not listing all "inactives"!!There is Providone in them,because  it went to gel if there was no soak.Now swip learned another costly lesson!What next:?

[fearnoevil]

Hello Geezmeister and brother Bees ;?D,
New guy here, tho I've been studying quite a lot this past couple of months and I'm ready to give this a whirl (2nd try actually as my first was snafu'd due to pure unadulterated dumbness, lol). 
I've stocked up on a batch of generic 120's but can't decide which method to use to extract the P.  I used VE's STB and it worked well enough for my first go (got close to 50% yield).  But then I've stumbled across VE's STE method which looks just dandy - nice and clean, simplicity and elegance IMO.  BUT now I've been reading about the new gakk and wondering now if either of these Universal methods will work???  Yeah, I'm so stuck now, head spinning as I trying to decide which way to go.  I also read your last post stating that you didn't think the 120's had been gakked with the methacrylates, so I'd sorely appreciate it if you could point this noob in the right direction.  Thanks for any info!

[Scottydog]

Swim can't advise Swiy as to what method he should use because he is not into conspiracies but the tetra trap extraction method and gassing for the pseudo salt works.

Swim has dreamed with STE on the 120's and results are not nearly as good as with the Tetra Trap. Gakk has a tendency to follow through using the STE on this particular feed stock.

Swim has dreamed with all recent extraction methods using 120's and the tetra trap is most efficient, both in terms of purity and yield. Swim is not sure if the methacrylates have infested this particular feed stock but one thing is certain, Polysorbate 80 combined with PEG and a dry matrix formulation is a bitch in its own right.  

The coating on these 120's wreak havoc on the STE, that is of course if you like peeling a plastic top layer off of your pseudo after filtering.  

Swim has been mixing his 120's with a particular brand of 60's that are rumored to contain eudragit, when performing the tetra trap with gassing and the extra titration modification step. (Even the most recent lot #'s with these 60's.)

60% yields of clean precursor.

IF "these" contain eudragit, they certainly go through an extraction and rxn, unscathed.

Have yet to dream of Fester's recent development using KOH because as of yet, it hasn't been required.

Hope this helps...

[gluecifer69]

how many times are you rexataling Scotty?   Did you read Geez's post on rextal and the new gakk, apparently it lets go after more rextals than one is accustomed to.[

Post 503703

(geezmeister: "Rextals and the new gakk", Stimulants)

[fearnoevil]

Scottydog,
Thanks a bunch for that input!  Am finishing up the cracked pearl extraction as I type and will let you know how things progress. HOPING this second attempt will yield even a small success (all fingers and toes X'd, lol).

One Q though, in your post you said, "Swim has been mixing his 120's with a particular brand of 60's that are rumored to contain eudragit, when performing the tetra trap with gassing and the extra titration modification step. (Even the most recent lot #'s with these 60's.)" Just wondering what eudragit is and if you're mixing the 120's and 60's for a reason, or is it simply what's available? 

Also have found the writeup on the Tetra Trap and will be doing some lite reading before I hit the sack ;?D.  Thanks again for your help and advice as this newbie sure appreciates the teachers he meets on the path to his Dream!

[Scottydog]

Fear

"Just wondering what eudragit is and if you're mixing the 120's and 60's for a reason, or is it simply what's available?"

Best info on this adulterant is found here:

Post 493344

(foxy2: "I'm sure this is the denatureing scheme your...", Stimulants)

Past extractions listed here at the-hive stressed that it was not best to mix pseudo pills, definately not dry matrix with a brand that can bee pulled with alcohol.

With the tetra trap it doesn't matter because this method is designed to not bee partial to certain brands or pill types. It is designed to conquer the worst of formulations.

Swim likes to mix pills containing PEG (without povidone) because these pills require no precleaning (soaks or boils) etc.

Swim likes to also match up a 2nd pile that DOES contain povidone because these pills WILL require a precleaning. Some of these pills contain anti-crystalizing agents. Wouldn't want to mix these with the 120's now would we?

You know its a sad day in hell when some 60's are known to bee more gakked then 120's but it is now a reality and has been for quite some time.

One particular brand of 240's contain both PEG and povidone. These can bee mixed with pills containing povidone.

Once you get the Trap down to a science, it defeats most formulations and opens up a window of opportunity to work with a variety of different feedstock, while before it may have been limited? Good point fear, sometimes a bee has to learn to work with what is available.

Newbees should become acquainted with this extraction now while it is still a voluntary choice because in the future, with newer formulations, it may become compulsary just to stay in the game? Something to think about.

Swim can't remember the last time he used a pre-clean with alkie pull. If it is still possible, I imagine the pills are limited to rarely available.

120's USED to work with the tyvek extraction, so yes the formulation for 120's HAS changed. What that change was, who really knows?

[geezmeister]

My current experience with the 120's indicates that Scottydog's way of doing the tetra trap -- with a slow, low heat extraction of the pseudo into the solvent-- results in excellent yields. In fact, I obtained the best yields I  ever have from an a/b extraction of 120's--- not quite nineteen grams of pseudo from 24 available grams.  I used more xylene to extract the pseudo than Scottydog does, and add acetone used to rinse the pseudo filtered out of the xylene after gassing to the xylene before gassing again. I obtained pseudo HCl by gassing and had no freebase pseudo to titrate. I tried to follow Scottydog's titration step, but got nothing from the process except the pseudo HCl I had before.

As with most things too good to be true, the yield from the method  was. Part of the weight is probably OII gakk, and a reaction of half of this pseudo resulted in meth that has signs of some OII type contamination. 
The smaller volume of solvent Scottydog used to extract the pseudo may explain why our results were somwhat differnt, why he saw freebase pseudo after gassing in the filtercake, and perhaps why he didn't have OII gakk in his pseudo.

I  do the extraction his way again to see whether using less xylene to extract the pseudo limits the extaction of OII.  I used enough that I had no freebase pseudo appear in the solvent, and it may be that the precipitation of the freebase pseudo crystals in the solvent is important to the overall cleanliness of the pseudo. More trials to come.

[fearnoevil]

Well Swif just got done extracting the E from 4 boxes of generic 120's. Ended up with 5.2g from a (im)possible 9.6g's. Not certain where the rest went to but Swif has some thoughts.

Swif went with MnkyBoys Cracked Pearl method to remove the time release coating. Swif fucked up right out of the gate by not having enuf dry tone to do the job - he didn't realize how much it'd take to cover the pills in the bowl, thought he had JUST enuf and was in too much of a hurry to make more before starting. Ya, I know, DUMBASS!!!

One note, anyone w/XP using the cracked pearl method your input is welcome - Swif noticed that the "pearl meat" didn't just fall out of the tombstones as stated in MnkyBoys method. After dunking, swirling and shaking for 5 minutes in the dry tone, most of the meat clung tightly to the shells. Swif had to take a fork and hit/tap/prod the meat out which was not as easy as he expected and took a total of around 15 minutes. Disentigrated a large amount of the coating gakk in the process which ended up in the pill mass. Swif wonders if this has something to do with a new formulation/gakk?

So the pearl meat sat in the tone for over an hour (might be where some of the yield went, will ck the tone later) while Swif was making more dry tone BUT THEN he read a post about NOT leaving your pill mass in tone too long as it steals E.

Panicking a bit, he drained the tone. Now a second rinse was required and the dry tone wasn't gonna be ready for more than a hour, and Swif could see the pill mass drying up and was afraid any gakk might contaminate the the mass.

Then he remembered Gottagogo's post saying that usually, tone from a brand new gallon can was pretty much dry and he uses it often without drying. So Swif decided that, since he had a brand new gallon sitting there, he'd take his chances and use it. He did the second rinse and then let it dry.

Just as MnkyBoy stated, the next day there was a fairly thick layer of plastic-like crap that Swif peeled off and then used it to play catch the frisbee with the neighbors dog. Funny the dog didn't seem to want to bring it back the second time....;?D

Next Swif proceeded to extract the pseudo using the Tetra Trap - he chose this method on advice given by Scottydog and Geezmeister due to concerns on Swif's part about all the talk about the NEW DEMON GAKK. Now Swif don't know if this is in the pill stock in his neck of the woods, but he didn't want to take any chances after all the work and expense and worry put into getting these danged precursors ! Plus, as Swif has stated in the past, he prefers simplicity (at least while he's getting his feet wet) and the tetra trap looked about as basic as it gets.

Now another note/Q for anyone with XP using the Tetra Trap. After adding the TCE, heating, then adding the Naptha and finally the DH2o, while heating/simmering the pill mass (mixed equally with sodium carbonate), the mix got all lumpy, looked like dry cottage cheese submerged in mostly clear Naptha! Now Swif's assumes this is normal but no mention was made in the synth nor could he find any info about this.

Well after doing 3 pulls (2 w/naptha & a bit of DH20 and the last with just naptha) on the pill mass and filtering this into his pyrex dish, it went into the freezer. 2hrs later Swif decanted and dried the E and ended up with the fluffiest, shiniest crystals he's ever seen. Sparkled like diamond dust!!! Much prettier then what he got from the Str8 to Bee method - no hard shit stuck to the plate or oily residue like he saw the first time. Swif did a bioassay (yeah he smoked some, well tasted it anyway ) and it tasted right and burned SOOOOO clean, not even the slightest trace was left on the foil.

The only let-down, albeit a small one, was the yield - Swif had hoped for a little over 6g's but 5.2g's is in the range. Now Swif's just keeping his fingers crossed that he can do as good a job on the rest of the process!

Now if Swif could just figure out if any of that new gakk is hidden in his lovely crystals....

Thanks for all the help ;?D

[geezmeister]

My last try with the 120's gave me pseudo that looked and burned very clean. I did not follow Scottydog's method to the letter. I extracted into more nonpolar solvent than he used, and I gassed my pseudo out of the nonpolar without any problem.

I also had pseudo that despite burning clean on foil was full of polymer gakk that impeded the reaction, gave me less than quality product, lowered my yield, and when smoked gave me gas.

Okay. I'm not completely certain about the last part. I am certain that my pseudo was not clean.