First LWR

[the_wasper]

Swim has collected most materials needed for a LWR. Swim hasn't done a lwr and any suggestions would bee nice.He has 30 grams of mbrp, 30 grams whites(suedo)and a pint of 7% which will bee precipitated into crystals.I'm not sure how much dH20 to add in my flask ,and how long I should reflux. I had planned to use a balloon on the end of the hose running from the flask.Swim has done a few of the "dry cooks"(push/pull) with limited success.  Cooks in my aera run their hose int a bucket of kitty litter.They also pour a whole pint of 7% in first and cook it down till theres ablout 3 ounces of liquid, insted of using crystals.What is the puropse of this kitty litter? and swim is new at this so any suggestions would bee appreciated, but please bee nice

[mr_pyrex]

Well since no one else has jumped in to answer any of the questions, heres a coupla thing to start off with....The kitty litter is to help absorb the odor that is given off by the reaction, similar to the tanks on a push/pull set-up but the tanks also creat backpressure and absorb all the smell.  Next thing is that pint you have of 7% isn't going to be enough to do your full 30gms of psuedo, cause even at 100% recovery rate you'd still probably be borderline in having enough to fully reduce all the psuedo.  Therefore with mechanical losses and rinsing, etc. you'll probably recover more like +/-30 which isn't enough for the full 30...my guess would be that you would need more along the lines of 38-40gms I2 to completely reduce all 30gms.  So youu'll probably want to hold back some of the psuedo for the next run or get another pint. As for time probably in the neighborhood of 24-36hrs should suffice.  I'm not as fimilar with the LWR  as with the push/pull so I can't really give you specifics relating to a LWR other then the abovementioned.  SO maybee someone else can help more specifically.  It is quite possible though that your going to get the 'UTFSE' cause I'll bet most of the answers you seek can be found without too much trouble.  Good Luck and Bee safe.  Pyrex out of pointers ;-)

[the_wasper]

Basically question is how much dh20 is optimal with 30 grams of pseudo for lwr & the balloon on the end of hose( no condenser).will the reaction look the same as in dry cook.

[Osmium]

> Cooks in my aera also pour a whole pint of 7% in first and cook it down
> till theres ablout 3 ounces of liquid, insted of using crystals.

I guess you need to ask the cooks in your area for advice then.

[Osmium]

> Basically question is how much dh20 is optimal with 30 grams of pseudo for lwr

It depends on how much I2 you use. Try 80% of the weight of the I2, e.g. for 40g of I2 use 32ml H2O.

> & the balloon on the end of hose( no condenser).

Get (or build) a glass condenser!

> will the reaction look the same as in dry cook.

No.

[the_wasper]

think you are cooking and they do " a batch cook " with liquid I2.So much e so much mbrp and a pint of 7% cook for about 3-4 hours ,thats a "1/2 oz cook or half batch" you dont  learn a lot from these ppl.They make fairly nasty ,dirty dope.

[geezmeister]

For first use mbrp, good iodine, and clean pseudo, I suggest the following ratios for the reaction (E:I:rP:H20): 1:1.2:0.75:0.8. React for 24 to 36 hours at just under 100C. You can add a little more water if you want, up to a 1:1 ratio with the pseudo, but if you do I suggest you cook for 36 to 48 hours.

If you follow the method in

Post 311336 (missing)

(geezmeister: "I2 from tincture", Stimulants) you should have just enough I2. Use one part 7% tincture, one part dH20, one part 3% H202, and 25 ml HCl.  Add tincture, water, acid, peroxide, in that order, with stirring, agitate well after adding the acid, then let it sit for twelve hours or longer. You should get just over forty grams of I2 if you do your I2 recovery carefully. Add a little peroxide to the tinc/water/acid/peroxide soup and let it stand another twelve hours. You may get a little more I2.

[Master_Alchemist]

Wasper be careful if you are going to cook and distribute in your area which is already inhabited with several meth cooks!
Nothing makes a cook more jealous than discovering the boy next door makes better crank  
Swim speaks from experience here, BEE CAREFUL & TELL NO-ONE!
Swim has had to attend numerous funerals of close friends over the years  

[hooligun]

..and never mind who's the toughest or got the most friends, 'cos sure as honey is money someone from your local 'establishment' will drop a dime. believe it, avoid it...glhf.

[morpheus]

Can think of no suggestions.Its so straightforwardly
simple.
Just follow Geez's ratios,have the patience to go 48
and try to keep temp(internal) at 100C as higher temps tend
to give some unwanted side effects to the gear similar to dry cooks.This is debateable as some bees like them.
Its when you get to the workup swim is sure you will have some questions.

[UncleFester]

How is this long wet reflux any different from the basic HI/RP reduction recipe I've had in SOMM since ed 3, and how can such a simple recipe get so many pages of discussion? The use of hypo instead of red P of course deserves attention, but the idea there is the same...to make a 50%+ solution of HI with enough hypo left over to act as recycler of iodine during the reaction. I must be missing something about this LWR, or am too dense to pick it up.

[ChemoSabe]

Onkle Fester axed

or am too dense to pick it up.

You won't be if you try a small rxn from phed exracted from most any new OTC pills in any standard old way.

It took fouled reactions of this nature to ever convince my theoretical friend to try it but the LWR sure did the trick.

I'm guessing most everyone who now swears by the LWR was similarly inspired to ever first start with them and now continues for the same reason given in my previous sentence.

Suggestion to you if you still are skeptical is apparent in this posts title.

Side by side dual rxn "duel" testing would also be a good one.

[UncleFester]

But why is this old method (1992) NOW THE RAGE? It's been there for everyone for ages...

[ChemoSabe]

Onkle Fester axed....

But why is this old method (1992) NOW THE RAGE? It's been there for everyone for ages...

If under the gun for an anwer to this my impulsive first guess would be that much of the answer lies in the immediacy and relative ease with which the base components of the reaction can still be somewhat easily acquired.

The LWR only saw it's big rise in popularity once the gakkage became so bad that other methods of effectively dealing with it were simply not working. everyone here knew that the LWR's usefulness in that regard most likely had numbered days but it's relevance and usefulness still stands. For the most part that is.

Plus another component in the longstanding popularity of any reaction having to do with the e/i/rp combo, plus close relatives (hypo, phos, etc), is sheer longterm  habit and a corresponding culture of popularity and familiarity. Old habits of this sort , like most others, almost consistently die a hard death. And of course this aspect of it's widespead use is intrinsically connected to ease of access to components of the reaction itself.

Your question is especially relevant (but also quite surprising considering who you are) in regards to the newest round of gakkage and the fact that it's really only going to get worse.

Personally I see homebrew pheddy combined with some form of electrocatalytic hydro as the rapidly approaching next frontier.

From an extraction or purely precursor standpoint Homebrewed L-PAC production has more overall relevancy to a wider array of end products as well as completely bypassing any connection to OTC pillstocks.

I would never claim that the totality of understanding and performing the above two procedures was quickly or easily learned and perforemed by a complete novice though. WHich I think the procedure, to at least an LWR reaction, would comparitively be. Nor would I argue with anyone who might claim that the LWR in it's essence is, as reactions can go, one of the simplest possible.

My guess is that a large number of people will not be migrating to other techniques and procedures until there is simply no other choice. But that could quite easily be the reality any day now.

[geezmeister]

The point is repeated frequently. It has to be, because no point made in this forum is made for very long. The constant influx of new bees to this forum, sometimes in what seems to be waves, means that no topic is ever settled, and no answer is ever final. The information about push-pull techniques, about hot fast dry cooks-- is readily available. The writeups seem within the grasp and command of a newbee, while discussions of flasks and condensers and thermometers and hot plates or oil baths are not. It takes a little while for them to learn that the chemists give good advice, even if they give it with a condenscending sneer.

If we make the point that the LWR success rate is much higher, its learning curve shorter, its yield better, and its product cleaner than the short, fast cooks, we have saved the newbee from learning the hard way. If we don't make the point often, we find the forum full of threads debating how many drops of water to add for a two ounce reaction, advocating pseudo extraction with water alone, or touting how good the buzz is from incomplete reactions.

We need not reinvent the wheel. But we still need to get the message out.

[Rhodium]

Could somebody go through the documents on my page and tell me which should be removed and/or abridged as to not add to this newbee confusion. I have already removed the "Nano Cook Method" from my page as to reflect this paradigm shift.

[geezmeister]

I'll look at the HI docs on the page again and make some suggestions for updating the info.

[Ganzas2003]

if my opinion counts as i dont have "chemical credibility" but i think removing the nano wasnt a good change.
Id rather edit the write up. Adding a warning would do. I guess the Curbs nano wasnt a lie. it works. LWR works better (?)...i think so thou i never tried it. I will.
anyway i might be wrong on what was the main objective in removing that page...i hope i dont get misunderstood with this opinion.
global peace.

[UncleFester]

I wasn't fully aware that the LWR technique is more resistant to gak drag in than the push-pull and other variations. Thanks much! This method too can be a zero yield producing method if too much crap gets in the mix.

[ChemoSabe]

Fester correctly commented... This method too can be a zero yield producing method if too much crap gets in the mix.

And these days now even with the most anal of precursor cleanings the neo gakks of the day can still do some pretty mean and hideous tricks to a batch at the hind end of the process.

Anyone actually tried a 72hour fluxer yet to see if that can furtherly bust the new acrylic monster?