Author Topic: The Secret behind Potency of Meth  (Read 60580 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Osmium

  • Guest
> Does this clean up make your meth more...
« Reply #120 on: January 13, 2003, 07:15:00 PM »
> Does this clean up make your meth more potent or what?

::)   ::)
Did you bother to read this thread at all?


ballzofsteel

  • Guest
Hope that was sarcasm
« Reply #121 on: January 13, 2003, 09:00:00 PM »
Os,tell me that was humor of your dry kind.
Unless you wanna tell me how to make my meth more potent. :P

Oh,and No,I havent read this thread,I just like to pop up in it from time to time and scatter my little pearls of wisdom,for you guys who have no idea about how to produce the killa crank in less then an hour.

Gangsta ballz. 8)

geezmeister

  • Guest
Yields and techniques
« Reply #122 on: January 13, 2003, 10:35:00 PM »
Zibarium, you crusty old geezer: I'm all ears or eyes, whichever for the straight to zib method of pseudo extraction. Pretty please. You know I'll have to tweak it anyway.

Phlegm: I figured out why you aren't getting the yields you should. You do not extract all the meth. You do not think it is worth your time to get what is left after that first pull. What if your estimate of how much meth was left in the mixture after the first pull was wrong? What if you just assumed there was only another five percent involved?

Is your time that valuable? Or are you cutting corners, taking shortcuts, or half doing the task? Or are you merely assuming, albeit incorrectly, there's just not much meth left? You may have better technique than I do. I have better yields. Why is that? It may be that I do not assume I got "most of it" on the first pull. I also do not want most of it. I want it all. When I discussed yield, I gave yield as a percentage of the weight of the precursor. Thirty two grams pseudo HCl in, twenty six and a half grams of recrystalized methamphetamine out. That is not quite 83% of the weight of the pseudoephedrine reacted. It may not mean a thing of itself, but as an apples to apples comparison, it gives you an idea of how successful the reaction was.

I did not get that on the first pull. I did three pulls. Two the first day, one the next. On purpose, to increase yield. It worked. I also included the methamphetamine that crystalized out of the rinse acetone, and the meth which crystalized out of the motherliquor left in the acetone jar when the first crop of crystals was harvested, and the crop after that one. I included the meth from the third pull and the acetone rinse on that evaporation. I included every scrap of meth I got out of that reaction in the total.

I also remember being surprised at the yield. And the quality. No tweaker fuel here. No clenched jaws, paranoia, insanity. Smooth, clean, effective. Three puff stuff. Folks kept handing the pipe back with meth still in it. Eveyone wanted some for their pocket. For "later." As in "tomorrow."

I have done the same four to five hour synth you do: fairly dry start, add water when it starts to double, reflux another four hours until the red falls. My average yield by the method was in the low seventy percent range by weight compared to the pseudo reacted. And good stuff. Burned clean. It is NOT as good, nor as much, as the meth obtained from an eighteen-to-twenty four hour wet reflux. If it were, I'd still be doing the shorter reflux. 

One last note: the last time SWIG extracted meth, his yield from the first pull was 58%. Care to predict a final yield?
We'll know what it was in another day or two. Will it be more than 63% overall?

I disagree with the comment that there is no difference between meth produced in a reaction maintained at 190°F and meth produced in a reaction at 250°F. I disagree that there is no difference between what you have at six hours and what you have at eighteen. And I damn sure do not agree that the product you have after a wet reflux at 100°C for eighteen hours is the same product as you get after forty minutes at high temp with very little water. Its not. You are telling on yourself if you think it is.

I've argued for the four to five hour cook myself, defended it on terms of exposure and yield, and quality of product. Same argument.

I recant. I was wrong. I advised my fellow bees in error. Again. (Sigh.) I thought I was right then. I know I am now.  ;D


Rhodium: In terms not well understood by me and understood much better by you:

26.5 gm Meth/186 gm/mole=.142 mole meth

32 gm pseudo/202 gm/mole=.158 mole pseudo

.142 mole meth/ .158 mole pseudo X 100 = 89.8% yield by mole.




zibarium

  • Guest
a tale of two temps:
« Reply #123 on: January 14, 2003, 04:08:00 PM »
zib probably shouldn't have brought this up in this thread...but it happened; so:

for starts; lemme say that, as far as yields go, swiz is in total agreement w/ geezar.
one of the reasons for zib's claim of 80% +, is beecause he saved every bit of everything at every step of the extraction process...and came back later to fetch it!

this time, unlike others, swiz even dried and chilled his acetone; heated and dried his np, etc, etc...made no difference..there was still LOTS of product going out with the washes..and lots of product staying in the aqueous layer...even after ph 14 was acheived.

it takes time for the migration to happen.
of the 10 gms zib claims (out of 12 sudo), fully 3 of them were hiding in the crap that ordinarily, he would have ignored, or assumed so little would bee there that it isn't worth the chase.
wrong.

plenty in there.   and, swiz has no doubt that many (most?) bees are tossing a fair deal of goodies out with the trash.
(btw, zib speaking of go-go; not p-fed extraction here)

next; zib needs to look at the data in this thread:

knowledgeable bees speak in terms of long slow refluxes as though they are not related to the QUANTITY of reactants!

it is!

(not unreasonable to guess that a smaller rxn (in a small vessel) is not going to need the same reflux time as a larger one)

also, as per temperature: bees hint at the fact that the higher (and faster) temps might damage things, or create a new, and evil, sort of dope.

well, perhaps...but who will have the chem-kahoonas to tell me (or any bee) exactly at what temp this evil takes place?

an analogy has been used in this thread to cooking food.
well, has any bee ever noticed, that food, cooked in a pressure cooker at a higher temp (thus faster) is somehow tainted? that "slow cooked" potatoes are somehow superior?

zib better bust up this p[ost into a few parts.
lemme say, he wasn't looking for this particular rxn...in fact, he was planning a 24 hr. reflux.

pisser is, it was done in 9!

zibarium

  • Guest
more zibbery:
« Reply #124 on: January 14, 2003, 04:21:00 PM »
at the far end of the long reflux spectrum, is wareami's strange bit of data about a return to p-fed, after the really, really long reflux.

so...bad things happen eventually?
at what point?

who knows...but, perhaps it can bee said that more time is only better up to a point.

i'd say that point occurs when all the precursor has been reduced!

how to know when that has occurred during a wet reflux?

pure hunch; at least for me...and a few other, nearly imperceptible signs! (later on that one)

as far as zib's bodacious pill cleaning claims...how can he bee sure that it would work on all those nasty pills out there?
he doesn't. and so, his claims should bee taken with some leeway.

stay tuned for part 3

zibarium

  • Guest
zibberishness:
« Reply #125 on: January 14, 2003, 04:49:00 PM »
a couple years ago (fuck! could it have been that long?!) swiz mentioned, in the midst of various threads on pill cleaning, that he was able to achieve 50% thru a mere meoh pull (and filtering); evapping that; and boiling this piss out of the pm w/ tone. i think it took 8 of them! but left swiz w/ a reactable precursor.
at the time, other bees were going thru some shit heap of steps to get perhaps, 10 % more out of their pills.

so beefore anyone gets excited, lemme say, swiz still only got 50% of the pill goods; with much shittier pills.
(btw, haven't tried to mine the left-over pill mass yet...so those yields could go up)

what did he do?

1. ground pills to 'dust' w/ coffee-bean grinder
2. filtered out all "non-dust-like residuals" w/ panty-hose.   (use clean panty-hose if the wearer of them was sexually excited prior to your filtering needs)
3. soak the dust (overnite) in some warm and dry zylene

4. next morning, decant the dirty xylene and dry the pill mass (mostly dry)
5. shake it up (the p.m.) w/ warm methanol until its all well dissolved
6. pour that juice thru an outrageous filter. (swiz figures "if charmin t.p. is so great, how would it bee to use a shit-load? (no pun intended) so he fashioned a long tube of it, and filled the long stem of a funnel with it, and covered that with several more layers left flat; topped with several layers of coffee filters.
this set-up was pre-drenched with me-oh...and the pill juice was dumped into the filtering arrangement while the pre-wettning was still dripping!  (could bee important that the pre-wet filter doesn't begin to dry out beefore dumping in the juice) patience helps at this step, as it will take a long time to filter.
best to have a cover on the funnel and jar set-up, so the alcohol doesn't have an opportunity to evapporate during the slow drip of the filtering.
7. slow evap of the alcohol-pill juice until dry and crumbly. careful not to burn it
8. in a vision-ware (or similar) pan w/ a lid (not tight fit) and a fume hood or fan, boil the pill powder in acetone for a few minutes...doesn't take much...just enough to cover the powder. pour off the dirty acetone.
9. repeat
10. dry until crumbly and send the powder thru a screen; weigh, and put away in a small and tight container.

that's it, cowboys!

(btw, swiz's p-fed was still pink at this point; but had lost all signs of gooeyness...instead seeming more like granulated sugar)

more btw:
this was the precursor swiz used in his 9 hr. success story.

also btw: these pills were gakky as hell...but truthfully, zib don't know if they were as absolutely gacky as they get.

last btw: the xylene looked real clean when it was decanted from the soak...yet a drop of h20 in it revealed (instantly) lots of plastic-like crap. the adulterants don't necessarily show up as a cloudiness in a solvent...some are damn invisable)

swiz is now going to see if there's anything recoverable in the stuff he filtered out.

think i'll go hang out on the couch awhile.

best of luck, bees

8)

zibarium

  • Guest
shucks! one more btw:
« Reply #126 on: January 16, 2003, 10:42:00 PM »
(hey! where'd everyone go?)

in case any newbee is paying any attention to this, zib should add a bit of clarification concerning the pill cleanage:

what was happening with the panty-hose and the coffee grinder and the poo-poo paper is the crux of this report. beecause:

the bean grinder swiz stumbled on to was such that the red "shells" of the 30mg pills remained un pulverized! true, there was a tiny bit of white on the other side of the red flakes, but the loss seemed worth it to swiz for not having to get the pills wet...or carry all that glaze and shit to the next step.
i bee-labor this point, beecause a different grinder (or blender) might not give this strange seperation...which swiz had never seen beefore.

like-wize, swiz noticed, when screening out the red-flakes from his whiteish dust, that there were also present, some very tiny plastic spheres. so tiny, in fact, that swiz would have never noticed them if he hadn't been trying to screen out the red flakes. in fact, the finest kitchen-utinsel type screen would not catch these balls. the panty hose did! and the dust went thru! quite nicely.

leaving these balls...and quite an impressive amount! (though, alas, zib did not weigh them) but he did eat some, and detected no bitterness...nor could he imagine how the bitters could bee installed in these nano-speroids. and yet, geezemeister suggests that sudo is in the balls too.

and they may. zib respects geeze big-time. thing is, all this shit varies so much.
someone might try what i wrote, and if their pills don't have the little balls; or their grinder doesn't leave the shells intact, it wouldn't work.



plus, it might not work without the special hat and psuedo-incantations.

:P

Phlegm

  • Guest
more Phlegm thoughts
« Reply #127 on: January 18, 2003, 06:01:00 AM »
Gee whiz, Geez, did you read what I said! I never said I don't do second pulls, my yields are fine, and who said anything about those 45 min dry cook/pyrotechnics disasters? As for the latter, I tried that 2 or 3 times and think it's largely nonsense, unless you like smoking pseudoephedrine.

On second pulls, fuck yes it's worth my time. If they're done at a later date and w/o dumping in a shit load more of NaOH. They're a waste of time if done it right away, because I'll just have to do it again later. I believe that there's more shit to had if the basic soln is left to sit at least a few days before doing more pulls - the longer it sits, the better. Let it sit a week, then pull it again. In fact, I pool all my basic solutions in 5 gallon glass jugs and do some pulls on it after several months. It's much more efficient that way. And when that's finished, I get the iodine back out of it before I discard it. Precursor, reagent, and product recovery are as important as anything else in this game.

As far as my yields go, I still believe they're close to being as good as they can be in the real world, no matter how you calculate them. Since everything we all are doing is for the clandestine laboratory, and not a chemistry midterm, I think wt:wt yield expression makes sense because it's simple and can quickly be done in your head. Who cares that you got x moles of shit from y moles of pseudo? What you want to know is how MUCH shit you got back for what you put in! But as far as this yield stuff, it can be dropped. I'm more interested in the temperature/purity thing.

You know, psychology plays a much more significant role in the perception of how good your shit is than many people think. We all can distinguish pseudo infested dope from the real deal. But when it comes to finer shades of differences I think we're wide open to suggestion - our own, as well as from others. I've never seen any post at the hive adequately describe these contaminants that are supposed to result from refluxing a HI/RP/pseudo mixture. Is it believed because Os or Geez says it's so? And how do they know it's true? Because it seems like that's what should happen? Or do they have access to the needed lab equipment to run the experiments necessary to make such statements? If not, then are any book or journal article references provided to support their case? Or are they relying on bioassays to confirm an already strong belief? Hardly an accurate method to rely on. I mean, I swear that I can't tell any difference at all between my dope that's from a 6 hr reflux compared to dope from a long, long, long incubation. Geezmeister even admits that he flip flops on this issue. Do this: set up 2 reactions using the same amounts of ingredients from the same batches of ingredients in the same size and type of vessels. Reflux one for 6 to 8hrs. Incubate the other at 180F (as measured inside the vessel with the thermometer bulb immersed in the reactants) for as long as you like. Then work up the products in an identical manner. Close your eyes and have someone load samples of each one into new pipes,
and then see if you can pick which is which. Also, the yield from the reflux will be no less than from the other.

zibarium

  • Guest
pharmaceutical meth?
« Reply #128 on: January 18, 2003, 05:46:00 PM »
anybee know how legal meth is synthed? from methyl amine? what about the extraction?

Rhodium

  • Guest
industrial meth
« Reply #129 on: January 18, 2003, 08:42:00 PM »
Very likely through catalytic hydrogenation of the imine between P2P and methylamine. If they make dextro-meth, they probably use P2P and optically active N-Methyl-1-phenylethylamine (which after the amination undergo hydrogenolysis to form d-meth and ethylbenzene.

Osmium

  • Guest
> I've never seen any post at the hive...
« Reply #130 on: January 20, 2003, 03:34:00 PM »
> I've never seen any post at the hive adequately describe
> these contaminants that are supposed to result from
> refluxing a HI/RP/pseudo mixture.

Look again. There were heated discussions about that very topic.

> Is it believed because Os or Geez says it's so?

Not only Os and Geez say that.

> And how do they know it's true? Because it seems like that's what should happen?

Yes, that is one reason.

> Or do they have access to the needed lab equipment to run
> the experiments necessary to make such statements?

I occasionally have access to analytical instruments. Not right now though.

> If not, then are any book or journal article references
> provided to support their case?

Yes, plenty. Have a look at Rhodium's site, it has all the papers you need to know about.

> Or are they relying on bioassays to confirm an already
> strong belief?

Yes, that too. I did an A/B of the post-reaction mixture and observed what I saw (which was totally in line with what the books/ref/theory predicted). Then I evapped the washes to isolate at least some of the predicted impurities and looked at the residue, smelled it etc. Also compared the taste, smell, consistency of regular and A/B purified dope. And so on.

> Hardly an accurate method to rely on.

Wrong. While you cannot necessarily tell if your coffee was cheap or expensive you usually can tell if there's milk in it or not by looking at it. You cannot say exactly how many sugar cubes were added, but you can tell if there's sugar in it at all or not by tasting it.

> I mean, I swear that I can't tell any difference at all
> between my dope that's from a 6 hr reflux compared to
> dope from a long, long, long incubation.

Sure. If I add some sugar to a glass of coke the sugar content might rise 5%, yet most people won't be able to tell it apart from a regular coke. Still, the sugar content is higher in one glass than the other.

Since most human senses work logarythmically you cannot reliably detect small changes. But the advantage is that you can often detect if something is there or not at all, over a wide range. We have no problems whatsoever to detect the slightest light source several miles away at night, but can't tell the difference between a 400 and 500W lamp during bright daylight. We can hear a dime falling on the floor or a slight breeze of wind shaking the leaves on the tree outside, yet still won't be instantly deafened by a broken car muzzler or loud rock concert.

If you come to the conclusion that you don't mind and 80% meth/20% pfed (400W lamp) is good enough for you, fine. I still want mine to be as pure as possible (the 500W lamp).


Jacked

  • Guest
perfect sense
« Reply #131 on: January 20, 2003, 05:58:00 PM »
I can understand this post very well and feel more apt to agree with you. Somehow it makes better sense stated this way than in previous encounters on this topic.. I'm sill a fucking hard head at times. Swim ran a reflux  during this event (thread)but wrongly he was still upset not wanting to look at anything he might be doing as substandard and did not give it a chance, No mater how it came out it was not going to agree with another than my narrow minded clams at the time. In other words it was a BIOS reaction.. I think you are striving for nothing but the best and that is admirable by any standards and I for one will read you post more carefully in the future. My apologies for not looking at the effort applied or giving the end result the chance it deserved.. My hats off to you and your sharing of your knowledge with us. No I'm not going to be happy with a 400w light when a 500w could be had... And thank you for bring it to my attention.
  


Organikum

  • Guest
Osmium you are right but miss the point
« Reply #132 on: January 20, 2003, 06:05:00 PM »

In Methworld things are different.
Look at the topic of the thread:

The Secret behind Potency of Meth


Do you read purity anywhere? Next example:


Super High Potentcy Push/Pull dope




Most are not searching for clean pure meth to produce but for to yield the right mix of impurities which has the most devilish impact, the hardest mind spoiler. They like it this way. It´s their right to do so I believe and we won´t forget that in the Xtasy scene mixes are much more common and beloved.

Now everybody will shout: "no, no, not I!" followed by:"but I know many people who are this way"

The only ones I know who truely want a clean as possible meth (clean from impurities) are the ADDH´s AS and similar haunted ones who selfmedicate and want as less side effects as possible. Who takes it for plain fun wants the big bang. What´s a bug for one person is a feature for someone else.
Exceptions prove the rule true.

As the common base is missing here.
No real communication is possible.
ORG




Chicken

  • Guest
Mix of impuritieis
« Reply #133 on: January 20, 2003, 06:42:00 PM »
I believe that Organikum is correct in his point that the majority of methamphetamine users are looking for a product with the proper mix of impurities that they are used to.  I have had many friends who are used to washed down street dope, whereby the uncrystallized street product was given a slow acetone/alcohol recrystalization and then filtered and then used as a clean product.  Many actually preffer this to an actual product that was produced via lab grade precursosrs and proper methodology.  I can't coun't how many times I recieved the response, sure it keeps me up, but it just doen't give me that warm feeling, or get me going really.  Some people even reffered to the clean stuff as a product only suitable to be mixed with the washed down product, otherwise it's wouldn;t envoke the shadow ppl, or the off the wall thought so sought after by many. 

Acetone washed crank has to be one of the dirtiest products around nonetheless many preffer it over actual clean product.  My theroy for a long time was that they sought a solvent high, and actually missed the acetone, toulene, or IPA rush that they got for the improperly made product.  I am begining to think that the othe rimpurities come into play as well.  There are crowds so used to RP meth that they actually hold ppl who use NH3 meth in a lower regard and say they are crazy to be using the NH3 stuff.  I know ppl who use NH3 stuff who say the RP stuff does nothing for them.  Also the majority of those used to the mexican crank washed down and sold as glass think that the home chemist stuff is weak and should be made stronger.  Estracted Desoxyn (pharm. grade methamphetamine), which has been cleaned up is seen as bearly being a product at all.

It truly was a let down to hear that the super clean product I had was being mixed with washed down crank in order to make it saleable, when I knew for a fact that mine was made the proper way with clean precursors and sound methodology.   For this reason alone I support organikum's theroy. 

I am one of those who has spent years trying to educate myself, perfect methodology, aquire proper precursors, and develop my skills into being able to have as a near a 100% pure l-meth product as possible; however, perhaps I am one of those ADHDer's that Org speaks of, because all of my efforts stand by the wayside when ppl say man can't you just make some of that lith that you used to have around ( made from GUP's none the less) and I try to explain to them how this product is much better -- and I am greeted with the response I'll just mix is 3:2 with some wash down then and everyone will like it . . . .

 


foxy2

  • Guest
I'll bet most mexi-dope is cut with ephedrine,
« Reply #134 on: January 20, 2003, 08:03:00 PM »
I'll bet most mexi-dope is cut with ephedrine, because ephedrine has so many obvious "perephial effects" that people know their "fucked-up".

This is just a guess.  Hell if I was a dealer I might do the same thing, whatever makes the customer happy.

Jacked

  • Guest
I live in the methworld
« Reply #135 on: January 20, 2003, 10:48:00 PM »
I live in the meth world, have been for quite some time now, I for one would like to live a nice long life while enjoying the product which swim makes. By striving for a clean pure product I hope to ensure this to be true. Over the years one becomes a wear of exactly what damage is being inflicted by dope that is manufactured strictly for distribution with no regards to health. I once said if it is an impurity they like so much and if we could just manufacture that impurity would it still be considered an impurity???? or would it be the desired product??? But why poison yourself knowingly if you have the means to not to. I for one do not suffer from mussel spasms and jerky twitches while trying to go to sleep after being up for a few days working, I do not think my lower back is hurting when it's actually my kidneys that are swollen and pressuring my CNS, I don't wake with jaw mussels sore and chipped teeth from a tooth grinding locked jaw buzz. My body does not tense every mussel for long periods of time that I'm not even a wear of happening until hours have passed, My bones don't ake at every joint after a few days of abstinence and my mind does not see people in trees watching me or I don't think everyone is a cop after a few days of non stop working on simple project that has turned into a task that will never be completed or amount to anything worth while, the whole time thinking I'm doing something constructive.... All those actions I can attribute to impurity's, I have even been able to predict behavior patterns due to impurity's in a large batch that is manufactured strictly for profit and cut loose for the public to enjoy... Myself I would rather enjoy a clean high from a product that is as clean as can possibly be had. The ones around you that need to feel the heat when hitting, get a pinch of crushed rock salt in there bag, Not ideometh or azidrine, The ones that enjoy the above can purchase there gear from the mexican connection but those close to swim will haft to have there shit together a little better than that or they can join the many forced to deal with the street and its product. It is not only unhealthy but poses a threat to security to even have that kind of user in your company..... Strive for the best if not for anything but for your own health and safty... You can't spend your profit or enjoy your buzz dead of in jail.. There is a lot more to impurity's than meets the eye ;{        


geezmeister

  • Guest
Diitos on Jacked's comments
« Reply #136 on: January 20, 2003, 11:50:00 PM »
I understand what Jacked says about impurities completely, and I feel the same way. I concur that the side effects that tell some they have done meth have nothing to do with meth. They do have to do with how it is produced. I have noted the correlation between high flask temperature and several of the tweakier side effects, like shooting sparks. I think the amount of water in the reaction moderates the effect of the heat, and that less heat and a drier reaction may cause as many side effects as higher heat with a wetter reaction. It is hard to say what temperature range results in what side effects without comparing the moisture content of the flask, and the purity of the ingredients.

I have noted that jaw clench starts first, is mild to begin with and increases with temperature; that the voices come next, followed by the faces and shadow people, and the sparks last, and only at high heat. 

I find that the product of a wet reflux which reached a maximum temperature of 103C was free from these side effects but was certainly the real thing and as good as it gets.

Nor was this a psychological quirk, or wishful thinking on my part. When you have person after person make the same comment about the product, without solicitation or suggestion, you realize they can discern the differences between the methods. I was not doing the wishful thinking, or evaluation of the batch. I read their responses. All of them commented on a three puff high; on the absence of jaw clench or teeth grinding, the long period of effectiveness, the absence of a need to go back for a  few more puffs, and the non-tweakerish ability to focus on and complete a task.

I did not help form their opinions or observations. I did note their impressions. To a person they agreed the batch was smoother and cleaner than my "normal" stuff, which they were quick to add was very good. They could tell the difference, and articulate the differences, and were consistent with the differences they noted. I will take that as confirmation of the theory without lab analysis.

I could tell the differences between product from the long reflux and the four to five hour cook, and so could they. They did it without knowing the method employed in production. They only knew it was a new batch. If a humnan cannot discern such minor differences, why did each of my patrons have the same comments?

You know the answer to that question. 

 




bbell

  • Guest
why buy impurities?
« Reply #137 on: January 25, 2003, 05:17:00 AM »
nobody in their right mind wants impurities in their dope.Why would you pay good money for bad dope. You want pure dope for your $$$. Go home and put all the bunk in it you want,but the impurities are not going to get you high. Drugs are purified by distiilation,crystallization then recrystallizing, these are the final step in drug manufacturing.

johndee

  • Guest
Garbage in = Garbage out
« Reply #138 on: January 26, 2003, 04:59:00 AM »
My buddy swij swears that most crappy product is the result of crappy methods, and it is just that simple -

dirty precursors equals dirty result in other words.

careless methodology through the reaction will result in numerous nasty by products, all of which can be clearly seen if one takes the time to evap ones solvents (experimentally, of course) - as has been said here many times, a busy reaction which fades quickly and requires increasing heat, up to say 230 F (not C, oops,sorry!), to continue to throw gas and mist, until finally it just sits there, yellow oil amidst RP, usually 8 - 12 hours AT LEAST.

It is worth noting that a reaction can in fact be shut down and reheated to its boring conclusion. Much like the recent post from Worlock states, removing your attention and outside heat from the vessel will not stop the reaction, it will proceed at the rate of Brownian motion regardless, as long as the reagents are adequately pure and properly proportioned. The reason for gradually increasing heat is that as the process approaches completion, there are fewer and fewer molecules reacting, and they have to find each other. Heat merely accelerates the process of these molecules finding one another.

A word on proportions, and if you have good precursors you will always have good results, and will need NO HEAT to fire it off. Once the rxn calms, then slowly increasing heat is what swij claims he does.

1 part E or PE

1 to 1.5 part RP (depends on the alchemist' temperament,  ;D )

2 parts I2

1 drop water per 1.5 g I2, (more may be added later in the reflux, experience is the only teacher)

Easy does it - boring as hell except for that first few minutes.

Obviously excessive heat will cause side reactions, resulting in aziridines, mutant molecules etc.

just like OS said.

But the keys to the primo are simple.

Pure ingredients, do not cut corners.

Bee patient and do not over heat.

Let the reaction mix sit an hour or so after removal from heat, and let it breathe. Then boil the filtered fluid with Al shreds for a few minutes, best way swij knows to get rid of (or perhaps, dare Swij say it, Complete! any unfinished mutant iodo molecules.

Seems like far too dull a job once you get it down.

Use a little care and those suggestions and your stuff will beat the pants off any other meth-od. Including the crap the Pharm companies worldwide make. Side affects come into play only due to overconsumption of this incredibly smooth, gentle, deceptively superpotent product.


Carefully base it, into Toluene, nothing else even comes close for efficiency.

Gas it out, wash it with tone, and straight into the freezer to stabilize the molecules.

Ain't it a bitch?
8)

And yes of course bright light (photons or waves? hmmmm) will also accelerate excitation of the mixture - how could anyone think differently? Light radiation powers the universe, bees.

And swij learned all that right here at the Hive, and has proven it to himself and I many times over. Man I wish I was able to snag the young chicks he does, but that is another story.

Happy Trails to all of you, long live the Hive.
;D


Jacked

  • Guest
must be swim methods
« Reply #139 on: January 26, 2003, 05:38:00 AM »
Most people want a certain impurity in there dope, I'm not sure which one they want but there is a difference they like?????? They will trade a rextalized product for the first run damp stuff damn near every time.. They don't know any better. Just like when swim use to resort to the street for his high, He knew no better than what he got. Shit the pink shit was the bomb everyone agreed. Then as we progress some of us learn what it should be like and others just don't get it.. Or refuse to understand.. Then there are the dealers.... They will cut for profit.. That is the way it goes. You cant blame them for shitty reactions just some cut.. If everyone on the street level would stop buying bad dope then and only then production cooks would get there shit together, there mind set is "Shit there gonna buy it anyway why spend the extra time fixing a fuck-up" and they are right. People will buy it if its brown pink yellow green or white.. that is the truth.