Author Topic: LWR question  (Read 6763 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Methiah

  • Guest
LWR question
« on: February 18, 2004, 04:55:00 AM »

foxy2

  • Guest
Too the moon man, too the moon...
« Reply #1 on: February 18, 2004, 05:16:00 AM »
Too the moon man, too the moon...


Methiah

  • Guest
SWIM's skills with P/P are okay.
« Reply #2 on: February 18, 2004, 05:20:00 AM »
SWIM's skills with P/P are okay. SWIM's done 20 or so RXNs so far. SWIM has lab-grade ingredients, 500 g of E, 500 g of I2, 500 g of RP.

wareami

  • Guest
Concrete Facts....
« Reply #3 on: February 18, 2004, 05:44:00 AM »
Are equal to the proof beeing in the pudding!
Try it you'll like it!
Yields as we all know are consistant with ones skill and reliant on many variables....The first one being:
How lab grade is lab grade E?...heheheheeee
In a properly executed LWR, with the exclusion of all gaaks from the feedstock, yields in the range of 85-90% are consistant in Ibee's Circle.


gluecifer69

  • Guest
Hoy shit Methia
« Reply #4 on: February 18, 2004, 05:54:00 AM »
2-18-2004EDIT: Sorry methia misread your post, thought you were talking about reacting those reagents metioned in that post at once.  DUH for me. This post is mostly meaningless.
Dude if you are using lab grade red then you are using two-thirds to much red.  If this is true and you have performed successful rxn's this way than that means excess red can't harm a rxn. 

I suggest you go to the stimulants forum FAQ. 

With the wieght of the precursors you suggest, it would seem like the reaction be a very violent one, with little or no heat required.

In swims opinion excess red(in that ridiculous amt.) would have to  create by-products. I think in a post from  WizardX he metions that it can contribute to excess azirdines.  I would recommed UTFSE for that particular post.


foursixmethod

  • Guest
concrete facts; here's one
« Reply #5 on: February 18, 2004, 06:15:00 AM »
Swim has listened to the teachings of some of the greats,  but it took listening to wareami and geez talk about the results of the LWR.  Swim has been a bircher for years until he diecided to try a rp/i rxn. When did this he still wanted to have it quickly, so started out doing hot and fast.
  Well after talking to wareami about the benefits of the LW and finally trying one swim will never done anything but.  After doing 18 rxn's swim in the last 4 have averaged 55%, 63%, 63%, 40%(had a spillage, duh) and the last was the biggest return of any, 67%. 
  This has produced some of the cleanest gear swim has experienced.  All of swim's rxn's are with otc precursers,  clean as clean can be because swim listened to his fav teachers.
  So from a newbie to this form listen to the masters and use tfse and one can't got wrong.

later, 46method


Methiah

  • Guest
SWIM knows better than to add an equal amount...
« Reply #6 on: February 18, 2004, 07:07:00 AM »
SWIM knows better than to add an equal amount of RP to a reaction. If the yields are as high as 90 percent, that would make the LWR worthwhile. If, on the other hand, the yeilds are more likely to be between 55 and 67 percent, as stated by foursixmethod above, then Worlock reports similar yields, if not better, from P/P in post # 109105

kris_1108

  • Guest
Different ratios with LWRs
« Reply #7 on: February 18, 2004, 08:47:00 AM »
>>SWIM's skills with P/P are okay. SWIM's done 20 or so RXNs so far. SWIM has lab-grade ingredients, 500 g of E, 500 g of I2, 500 g of RP

If you LWR'd 500gms of pseudo you could get away with like 200gms of RP.
After a LWR, the 'meth' would bee more % meth and less % un-reduced intermediates like iodo-meth.
Surely you would re-xtalize this amount; the loss after re-xtalization would be noticeably less than that of P/P cooked meth.
Many would agree that a LWR would be most suitable in any case, especially with such large amounts of pseudo.
If I could get the precursors I would reflux that amount for 48hrs and follow up with NP washes and a steam distill, and add NP to the distillate and wash the distillate, and then gas or titrate for meth. And then do a slow re-crystalization or two. (Thanks Bio for that process  ;) )
But as if I'd ever get to do that  ::)

geezmeister

  • Guest
yields from the LWR
« Reply #8 on: February 18, 2004, 04:06:00 PM »
I have had yields of meth from LWR that weighed almost 82% of the weight of the pseudo HCl reacted. Granted, I did every trick in the book on those reactions to keep from losing any yield. I have had several reactions with a yield by weight of the pseudo HCl reacted of nearly 80%. Yields in the high 70% range are commonplace if you work carefully.

Before you dismiss these yields as insignificant, consider that meth HCl weighs about 82- 83% of the weight of pseudo HCl. Any yield above 80% 0f the weight of the precursor is knocking on the door of complete reduction.

There is a little more to the story that this, however. The weights I have given are weights of recrystallized methamphetamine HCl. These are not raw yields. The loss in weight to the recrystallization process has been as little as a quarter gram out of 27 grams of meth HCl, although that has been my best to date.

My yields have consistently been higher with the LWR than the dryer, shorter cooks. The yields have been consistently higher with the longer cooking times, up to 48 hours. Granted, the yield increases at a decreasing rate right from the start, but there is a noticeable improvement in the product between twelve and twenty four hours, and even a noticeable improvement between twenty four and thirty six hours. Forty-eight hour cooks remain as truly amazing vehicles to superb dope. Do one and let it convince you of its merits. I need not detail the reasons. They will be apparent from the first use of the meth so produced.

I have invented and relied on so many excuses for not doing long wet refluxes when doing rP reactions I cannot remember all of them. Suffice it to say that my first 36 hour LWR, and my first 48 hour LWR, persuaded me of the error of my ways and made me realize my excuses for not doing long refluxes were just that-- excuses.


morpheus

  • Guest
Higher Yields
« Reply #9 on: February 19, 2004, 05:38:00 PM »
Read Geezmeister's post and believe.
Swim was getting 50-60% with his electric sand
wok and short hot dry cooks with push-pull unit.
After consulting Geez and reading various posts
by him(put "parameters" in TFSE)my yields jumped
and so did quality.There is no going back.
LWR is IMHO the way to go.I now have a mentor.

CharlieBigpotato

  • Guest
nano fb lwr thoughts:
« Reply #10 on: February 20, 2004, 05:46:00 AM »
greetings, bees.

swic had some thoughts to toss out there; not worth a seperate thread, so i hope its ok to toss them here.

nano rxns make sense to some bees that definitely aren't in a business, and are only occasional users. otherwize, they suck beecause of handling loses.
but one of the advantages of going small, should bee that a shorter reflux will get the job done. the very same job.
all the distances are shorter,and there's a higher percentage of surface area of reactants to volume of reactants.

under 5 grams, in a small (250) rb flask ,  may bee done in 24hrs. maybee less. (strictly opinion)
its a bit much to babysit after that. i've dreamt of going to bed and ignoring the thing, but it never seems like a good idea. 48 hrs is not something a bee would want to do in a nervous place. 

smaller is faster

wareami

  • Guest
Sorry Charlie...tastes like chicken (raw???):•þ
« Reply #11 on: February 20, 2004, 08:04:00 AM »
all the distances are shorter,as in shorter reflux will get the job done.
Chuck-E: While what the above two statements surmise is partially correct, they contradict the purpose of the LWR. One may as well do a normally ratio'd P/P and just tack on an extra 8 hrs cooking time, thereby fooling onesselves into beelieving that the end result will be the same as if it were cooked for 36-48hrs.
The LWR as defined is child's play Chuck-E ;)
Cutting any corners in the areas of time/temp/ratio's negates the purpose, as those areas define the LWR more than any other factor.
Ibee can still take a spudwrench :-[  to any size rxn and have useable product in under 3hours.
That fact alone makes your statement correct. To insinuate that less volume=less cooking time is not correct however.
For Ibeeware and The Kidz, the better parts of two years have been spent on R&D and amatuer analysis of this LWR rxn.
The tediousness of test sampling specimens at various intervals of 3 day cooks on smaller nano scales was sheer torture, but neccessary components of R&D to arrive at defining consistancies.
Much of the research was performed as extentions to extraction R&D!
Obviously, Ibee isn't in the "biz", for profit which allowed for the R&D to continue on many smaller nanoscale sized experiments versus just a few largescale rxns over the same period of time.
1gram of pfed takes the exact same amount of time to completely reduce in the presense of HI as 10grams or 20grams. The only differences will be flask size and ratio!
I think bees will notice that when the pioneering "Fans of the LWR" (as well as the many converts) offer suggestions or solutions regarding the LWR, relation to batchsize doesn't dictate cooktime/temp or ratio. They are consistantly:
•30hours+....UP to and including 48hours
•Internal temp 100-120°C(never higher)
1-E:1.2-I2:.08-RP:.05-.08-DH2O

BTW...Thank You GeezMonsterWhiplash(Bee-M-W ;D ) for that summery blast in the middle of winter!
Eloquent, as usual, in it's detail and delivery of concreteness concerning the facts!


CharlieBigpotato

  • Guest
pioneers and such
« Reply #12 on: February 21, 2004, 05:04:00 AM »
swim got hammered by the hot and fast boys, for his lazy insinuations, a few years ago.

i am also a beeliever in the ratio beetween the radius of the reactant's blob, and the time it takes for a meaningfull and reductive encounter.

if i had more pride, i'd dig out an old post to this effect that rhodium approved.

perhaps it comes down to some sort of showdown, to see who is coming up with the magical gear that can only bee had with 48 hrs refluxing; vs the sub-magical gear that can bee had in less time, by reducing the radius of the rectant's blob.

i worry about people staying up for 48 hrs, doing something new, and highly illegal.

and i worry about them not bothering to stay awake to check on that very slow reflux.

but,
isn't done  done?
doesn't the quality and return at the end tell the story?

if not,
then how can we not bee tempted to see the end results of a 96 hr. reflux?

i stand by my point,
and, i am not offended.

wareami

  • Guest
Concrete Boots...that'll fix `em! :•þ
« Reply #13 on: February 21, 2004, 04:57:00 PM »
J/K Biz: I fully understand the points beeing made and the concerns derived from those standpoints.
I can only state the facts from Ibees perspective and experience in dealing with both rxns.
The difference in quality and quantity will not convert a soul unwilling to investigate and confirm for themselves the benefits!
You'll recall that Ibee took alot of heat in the beginning regarding these proposals on this and had it not been for the confirmations of Geez first, coupled with the suggested principals that were handed down on numerous occassions by Osmium and Rhodium, Ibee'd still be the only benefactor of this method.
In most cases when someone needs to prove something they flip a sample on deck to change minds. Unfortunately we can't do that here. But if Ibee could he'd travel to every bees wouldshed and show them the difference! Forget quality and yield! The final work-up alone is enough to convince!
That is the first sign of something different. 
This shift from the hot-fast p/p to the gentler, no maintenance, LWR is so easy and simple I gauranteed it would convert all that sincerely put forth the effort to duplicate it and apply it in practice.
I still stand by it 100%. I also endorse the noticable differences that are inherent with adopting the mindset needed and carrying through without cutting corners.
Many will bee tempted by the fact that the rxn can be completed in less time. Just because they can!
Ride it out one time then cum back and let us know how impressed you are! That's all!
If bees can't safely wait it out, then by all means, it's not a reaction they should employ!
The day they are able to safely conduct the intial run as outlined, is the day they will wish they'd been in a better position to give it a GO all along!
Patience Pays, but in my wildest dreams I'd never thought the payoff would be half as hefty as the ones experienced by employing an extra 24+ hours to the rxn!
A properly executed LWR should never be pulled before 30hours. IMHO.
Unreacted product was found in runs pulled between the 24 and 30hr marks recorded by Ibee @ steady external 120°C temps.
That's Ibee's take on this rxn and thares no turning back from "As good as it gets" for him.
Ibee couldn't be payed to trade off the differences in his personal head stash gear!
If it were a Bizness, it might prove impractical and overly time consuming but that's not Ibee's case.
And those that are in the biz should at least experience the difference and I'd be willing to bet that they'd cook less and make as much $ casue they couldn't beat off the customers from beating down their doors to meet the demand!
If ya got joe smo's clam house selling fish they snag from the poluted bay in town and down the street ya got The Trout factory that farms thier fish from the deep blue ocean but takes two months to haul the fuckers to shore, Who do ya think is going to do the best biz when they both have the same $17.99 dinner special every night?
Okay....I'll quit!
But I don't have a fishstand here....the LWR stands on it's own merit so I won't defend it! But I will state the facts as I see them and let ya'll decide what's best for you! ;)
And Biz, we GO way back and I would never allow my character to be offended as I wouldn't ever intentionally offend yours!
If we agree to disagree, I would never take that personal as I hope you wouldn't!
And just to show ya the my oldztimerz disease hasn't kicked in fully yet....
Tell swimmy "Quit Using Tap Water"...it contains minerals that tip the scales ware accuracy is needed! ;)  ;D



CharlieBigpotato

  • Guest
well
« Reply #14 on: February 21, 2004, 06:04:00 PM »
just a reminder that it isn't a hot and fast rxn swim is talking about here.
its a little, bitty, 24 hr, wet reflux.
in the pre-approved ratios.

not too exciting to watch; couldn't find any unreduced gear in it. i suppose in 48 hrs, something else may have happened.

what say thee to 96 hrs?
how do we draw the line?

wareami

  • Guest
With a crayon....
« Reply #15 on: February 21, 2004, 06:49:00 PM »
Draw the lines with a straw or rolled UP $100 Bill!
That's how Ibee does it! ;D
You draw the line at 30hours...not below!
This gives ample headroom for the intermediates to be cooked off and for full reduction to take place!
Now Ibee is strapping himself UP to the WhippingPost voluntarily for the punishers WizX, Ballzofsteel, and Orgy because he's still not done the suggested "Make The HI first" bit. And that act alone may shave some time off the completion time now that more is known about the benefits of making HI first! It's believed to reduce the amount of intermediates created to begin with!
When that confiming data comes in, it will be reported in the newest LWR write-up slated!
Gaak is not the only cause of emulsions/emotions :o . Unwanted Intermediates contribute to those emulsions as well!
That is why it's stated that the improvements noted will first be seen in the lack of emulsion and ease of workability in the final work-up.
The quality and yield are just perks from cooking off the intermediates! ;)
Clear interface work-UPs are the bomb!


CharlieBigpotato

  • Guest
no emulsion, yet some polymer in the end
« Reply #16 on: February 22, 2004, 08:33:00 AM »
the only thing that bothers me about this discussion, is that i'm sort-of hearing that the size of the rxn is not a factor in this calculation.

of course it is!

and for some of the same reasons that a 20lb turkey needs to cook longer than a 1/4 lb hotdog.

but i don't want to get misconstrued in this, and have to bee a poster boy for impatience, beecause that's totally not where i'm coming from.

i should care more, and look this up, and provide links with charts and graphs. one of the curves would bee heat; one time; one size.

i'm surprised that there's anything arguable about that.

now there was a rumor floating around, that after enough  hot time, some long chain polymers would crap out and beecome removable.

if so, the 48 hr reflux should beecome  essential.

wareami

  • Guest
Rate vs Heat
« Reply #17 on: February 22, 2004, 05:08:00 PM »

the only thing that bothers me about this discussion, is that i'm sort-of hearing that the size of the rxn is not a factor in this calculation.
of course it is!
and for some of the same reasons that a 20lb turkey needs to cook longer than a 1/4 lb hotdog.



Tsk...Tsk...CharliesBud: That's cheatin!
It's not fair using the same analogy Ibee used to get bees to switch
And I might bee skinny but I'm not 20lb's Mr.PotatoeHead ;D  :)
Also...Baking things require heating from the outside in.
Not so with this rxn! It's exothermic remember! Kinda like me....I cook from the inside out! ;D  Whether I'm a hotdog or a turkey is besides the point! :P
Which reminds me...the altzheimers must be worse than I thought! It just dawned on me that the topic from long ago was about the cleanliness of the utensils and them contaminating the rxn. I think I said something to the effect that improperly washed flasks and such could transfer contaminants and sway the results! Just like washing flasks with soap and the residue left behind could affect the outcome. The same goes for minerals in water! ;)
Call me anal!

Can't an ounce cook be complete in 3 hours by hot fast/dry p/p standards the same as a 1 or 5gram nano?
I rest my case.
When considering 36-48hour cooks the window of completion is much larger than say a 3-6 hour cook!
48 hours is plenty to cook a pound.
What determines the reduction is the concentration of HI, and the heat of reaction.
The ratio to make that HI becomes an important consideration when scaling UP and will determine ware you'll bee in the range of success!
So size does not matter as long as sufficient HI is present.
Most have considered success as beeing the moment conversion takes place. Between 1-3hrs depending on the heat applied.
Higher heats with just enough dh2o to create the HI neccessary to reduce will put any size rxn in success range if ratio is correct.
This is what bees have been taught since Ibee was a babeebee!
That is how Ibee learned!
Now we come to find that the envelope of success can be achieved with more dh2o and lower heat, just enough to maintain the recycling of HI after it's produced, and time added on to compensate for the added dh2o and lower heat.
It's a gentler rxn.
The influencing factors are not the size of the rxn!
A 4 ounce cook will be complete in 48hours! They do it in the hot/fast p/p rxn successfully!
Now we need to define success!
Is a product any better using the Gentler LWR when compared to the product produced by the hot/fast p/p?
Absolutely!
What is the optimal time for any size rxn?
YEP....you said it!
48hours!
But because we can pull it at 36hours and have usable product that shows marked improvements over the hot/fast p/p we do!
Is that as good as it gets?
No!
It's tough enough convincing bees to develope the patience necessary to adopt the mindset of lowering heat/adding dh2o then tacking on an additional 30 hours to something they've been doing for years in 4 hours!
Do you see the irony in that?
Okie Dokie....now you have bees like Geez and Ibee doing research that can possibly shave some of that precious time off the rxn and still walk away with "As Good As it Ghets" product.
The best time Ibee's been able to pull off was 30hour!
Ibee's heard from other circles that 24hrs came close and all appeared to be reduced 100% but their descriptions lead Ibee to believe that some intermediates and iodosides might have been present, which is what Ibee discovered from his research.
Now obviously, bees all know how hard aquisition has become and the larger rxns have more at stake and it's best to gaurantee the best possible end result for those adopting to run the WetDream(LWR).
Ibee pushes everybee toward the 48hour mark in those cases, even though they could pull it at 36 and walk away with usable product!
 


now there was a rumor floating around, that after enough  hot time, some long chain polymers would crap out and beecome removable.
if so, the 48 hr reflux should beecome  essential.



There is alot of truth to this and Ibee has proved it on numerous occassions with running less than pristine clean feedstock and walked away smiling!
And Biz: Many fail to realize the extent of what went on behind the scenes at UP-AWE-NITE labs in order to determine "best vs worst" case scenarios in order to determine what exactly sets the bar and why the bar is set ware it is! Granted, most must take this nformation at face value.
In face of speculation, it's left to the bees to determine it's merit and value to them! The benefits are such that they must bee experienced by following the guidelines experienced and shared.
Credibility isn't an issue from ware Ibee sits because he knows that the times, temps and ratios being handed down will stand on there own merit and bees will begin the shift in mindset for those unbelievers holding contempt prior to investigation.
While some of the mechanics of the Longwetreflux remain a mystery to Ibee chemspeak-wise, the end results tested at various intervals up to and including 7 days are proof enough to Ibee ware that mark is.
Many have confirmed and been converted and all a bee has to do is read others reports to see the similarities. 

fourtyeight hours is optimal!




SHORTY

  • Guest
Another reason for the longer rxn
« Reply #18 on: February 22, 2004, 05:30:00 PM »
The red phosphorus releases hypophosphorous and phosphorous acids at a very slow rate and this plays a big role in the longer rxn time.  In the long wet reflux the red phosphorus releases these acids at a slow steady rate.  For example, the rp releases hypo which reacts with the iodine to form HI and phosphorous acid which will also react with the iodine to form more HI and phosphoric acid while at the same time more hypo is being released and the process continues until either the rxn is stopped or all the rp has been consumed.

This is why hypo rxns are so much faster because instead of waiting for the hypo its all there to react.  This also explains the need for very clean pseudo when using hypo. 

This may not bee true but its what i have come to beleive from what i have experienced and from what i have learned through research.  Heres a link to the source of the hypo being released at a slow rate.

https://www.thevespiary.org/rhodium/Rhodium/pdf/chemical_behaviour_of_red_phosphorus_in_water.pdf




popi

  • Guest
time vrs heat
« Reply #19 on: February 22, 2004, 09:27:00 PM »
Great work, as usual mate!. You are right.Slow and easy wins the race.If unable to watch for a full 48 hrs,whatdo you think the exact________ amount of H2o is required?(minimum)0.8-...>? Wareami thanks for all that salt-sweat info!