Successful [Large] RXN

[Jacked]

Well bottom line, If it ain't meth it don't belong in the bag. Anything that ain't meth is an impurity, hence if you was to measure purity of a substance, anything else in that substance would be impure correct.
 And by the way Ideo is the missed link in what people long for after recrystallizing.. Shit a simple acetone wash will rid you of Ideometh. Wear, You claim a 48 hour LWR wont have Ideo present? Well a fast push pull after a simple acetone wash wont either..

[wareami]

Jacked:
Well I can't argue with that...not that argument is my style anyway.
We're here to learn and expose the facts, as well as, enlighten ourselves and others toward obtaining the purest product possible.
The simple fact that this still creeps into the discussions from time to time is ample evidence that there's always room for improvement and tightening UP that undefined slackspace in organic chemistry.
I will say this and stake my rep on it.
Along your same line of reasoning, Iodometh is not the only product we're concerned with eliminating that are the result of side-rxns and impurity production in shorter timed cooks.
And you're absolutely correct with the observation that impurities removed, equal reduced overall yield of pure meth.
Those experiencing 30-70% yields are typically the result of pulling a rxn before it's done FULLY reducing.
If 30% impurities are presest in the end-result...following a tone wash and the recommended recrystallization, your final yield will be lower, equalling the amount of impurities removed.
So we agree that impurity = yieldloss!

And as you say jacked....most people are accustomed to those impurites and want them in there dope and think they got ripped off when they get pure shyte.
The impure by-products created in side-rxns enrooute to pure meth account for some CNS stimulation to boot.
Red Phosphorus is a stimulant by itself(not saying peeps are slamming RP)
But RP's presense and interaction with the other reactants account for some of those side-rxn impurities.
They are necessary intermediates just like Iodo, like we hear of like the h3po3^__>h3po4, phoshine, etc....created enroute to full reduction.
Pull a rxn before it's time and yields suffer from the impurites left in the basified solution whether or not they are soluble in acetone!
This is why recrystallization is so necessary as a recommeneded practice to insure their removal.
I can't emphasize this point enough that low yields are the result of impurities present, in most cases.
How they get there is simple and how they are removed is simple. What's not so simple is explaining that longer ccoks times equal less impurity-more pure meth.
The numbers speak for themselves and have since I made that correlation long ago.
I set out to verify my suspicions and they proved to me to be correct.
So Again I stand by full cooking times to cook-off or to fully align those molecules that equal purity in product and higher yields of meth.
I can only speak for Ibee's experience with yields in the HI/RP as they differ from hot/fast and the LWR, but they are higher than most bees reports and he attributes this to side-rxn cookingoff/completion in the LWR, compared to removing them at the end of shorter cooks.
Again...No disrespect...and not argueing, just my attempt at reaching a meeting of the minds for better understanding.
You're teachings about patience and The HI/RP, taught this student!

And 48hrs LWR is not a constant fixed in the HI/RP rxn...
It's a gaurantee for newbees to succeed by.
Something that wasn't so prevelant around here in Ibee's early learning as a newbee.
You Jacked should recall Ibee's screams after the 14th failure in a row using the modified p/p(balloon)  

[Organikum]

For what reason ever, iodoephedrine is no impurity in HI or RP/I reactions. Whereby chloroephedrine is a wellknown impurity in catalytic hydrogenations.

I am not going to guess why this is this way, I done this before, but the forensic literature shows after my best of knowledge no iodoephedrine as impurity.
You may bet your ass if this had been found some forsensic DEA funded "scientist" would have baked his elaborated article on this, with testing on rats, mice, brainscans and cruel impact on every living being.

Actually it would be quite interesting how iodoephedrine turns one on - or off  

[Jacked]

Hell I cant argue that... And am not trying to.
 I wonder wear it would separate in a TLC. And it would separate as the other byproducts do.
This is not a debate on the results of two different rxns. Its a simple question. If iodeo would be considered an impurity or a byproduct. DEA says its not an impurity. They must like the old style dope. I know they hate Ice with a pashion...

[Organikum]

And you will find no unreacted ephedrine in the final product of a (successful) RP/I style reaction, except one fucked up the formation of HI at start.
Unreacted ephedrine after a successful RP/I or HI reaction is quantitativly destroyed in the standard workup. The NaI formed by addition of lye to the postreaction and the strongly basic conditions (ph14 hey!) do the trick.

(I sent Rhodium the reference for this times ago...)

Except for lousy workup and new gakk the RP/I is an astonishing clean reaction yielding very pure product. Steamdistillation and a second A/B + recrystallisation give finest product - to fine for many as it seems as d-meth smoked and even snorted is prone to debrain many users fast and effective.
I cant see anything bad in cutting with non-toxic compounds as long as the price is adjusted accordingly. But thats my personal opinion of course, nothing more.

[geezmeister]

Iodoephedrine is an unfinished intermediate, rather than an impurity in the reaction. It might be considered as something other than an impurity, or it may have a signature close enough to meth that the government forensic "expert witnesses" lump it with methamphetamine in their reports and that is why it doesn't show up as an "impurity" in their reports.

I see forensic lab reports that list the substance tested as methamphetamine/pseudoephedrine and methamphetamine/ephedrine/pseudoephedrine without further comment.  The usual lab test is for the presence of controlled substances, not the concentration of controlled substances or the contents of the substance tested. Forensic lab reports do not list the impurities or contaminants or cuts in the substance tested, but only the controlled substances or regulated substances, such as pseudo.

A standard forensics test report would not list iodoephedrine as its presence is not material to the prosecution of the case. Such a report will not list the presence of MSM or any other cut. I recall federal lab reports that reported the purity of the drug sampled by percentage... i.e., methamphetamine of 50% purity. The report did not list the other ingredients, however.

The federal sentencing guidelines contain provisions for sentencing under "mixture or substance containing" provisions when the substance seized is not relatively pure. Federal lab experts can evaluate a sample for the purity of the drug. In some circumstances they have to-- for instance if the prosecution wants to punish possession of "Ice" the lab has to report the substance tested was at least 80% methamphetamine. If the substance is below that level of purity, it is charged as meth, and if its really dirty its charged as a "mixture or substance containing" methamphetamine.

[Jacked]

I agree with Organikum. I also agree with Geez. And Wareami. 
 I also stand behind what I'm saying and that is "anything being in a product other than the product itself is a fucking impurity! unless of course your target is an intermediate. Then the damn meth would be the impurity..
:intermediate: A substance formed as a necessary stage in the manufacture of a desired end product.
That substance is not the desired product now is it? There fore it is an impurity.. I rest my case. I wont reply to anymore of this nonsense so carry on and explain it to someone else less hardheaded..

[memeep]

That substance is not the desired product now is it? There fore it is an impurity.. I rest my case

...and it will cease to be an impurity as soon as you have strongly basified at the end of the reaction because any that may have been present will cyclise.

[geezmeister]

Orgy-- your comment may be correct with Ephedrine. I have a lot of experience with pseudo, and just a little with ephedrine. Your comment isn't accurate with pseudephedrine, however. I had enough failures learning how to make meth that had pseudo in the evap dish rather than meth, or a mixture of pseudo and meth in the evap dish, to agree that hard basing will do pseudo in. If hard basing did, the pseudo would not have been there -- taste, smell, crystal pattern. But it was pseudo... no doubt about it.

It always reacted well the second time around, as I recall.

On a similar note, I have had reactions, and watched others do reactions, that produced a white crystalline powder that looked, tasted, melted, smoked --- just like methamphetamine. However, the net effect of the use of the drug was to put the user to sleep. I have seen "meth" like this that had long legs when it rocked right back up... stuff that burned clean on foil or glass, but just did not do anything other than make you sleep.

I realized even then that the common problem those reactions had was an insufficient amount of actual phosphorous compound. All of them were less than complete reactions. Some may have been caused by the phosphorous being coated by a wax or gakk, and some may have been caused by using red phosphorous that was more glass and trash than red phosphorous. I can't recall seeing this phenomena with hypo or phos acid cooks.

I always assumed the product in the evap dish that put you to sleep was an intermediate that did not completely reduce. It certainly wasn't methamphetamine, and it wasn't pseudoephedrine. What besides an intermediate could it be?

The a/b did not break it down, and acetone did not wash it out. So what, I wonder, was it. I always figured it was iodoephedrine, but that was just my speculation. Sleeping Geez is something to avoid making, for certain.

[Organikum]

There are several forensic articles available in which impurities specific to for a RP/I reaction are analyzed by sophisticated means including GC/MS and soothsaying.
The forensists even ran the reaction short in a try to maximize impurities - simulating reality somehow or whatever so I remember this right.

We know from these articles about aziridines, which were first discovered in analysis of product and then the reaction mechanism adjusted in theory as so often, about P2P and some minor byproducts.
We know also from these articles that after a standard workup neither (pseudo)ephedrine nor iodoephedrine is to be found in the product. This is backuped by analylis of street samples AFAIK. Not the samples analyzed for determination of the content of meth - but those for writing nice articles in forensic literature about dangerous compounds found in street-meth, cashing in some goverment money and getting some cheapo points on the publication scale.

I myself was convinced that unreacted ephedrine might be a impurity of lousy reactions. It isnt. And neither is iodoephedrine. The nonexistance of pfed is easily to explain, why no iodoephedrine thats a point of discussion. But the discussion is about "WHY NO" and not about "IS THERE ANY". 

After my best of knowledge, this may be not much but I try my best, bad quality of meth from RP/I is caused by shitty workup or lately by non-removable gakk or gakk-reaction-products coming through all A/B´s and recrystallizations.

I have no doubt that meth made by Jacked was and is first class.
Also meth by Geez is probably consumable, but for propagating this evil "titration" Geez gets a malus from me. Overall quality suffered badly since ppl started to dump some dirty  hardwarestore muratic acid into their nonpolar and then evaporated the liquid. And that no A/B anymore. Thats dirt, containing all shit from the nonpolar and from the muriatic. Gassing was MUCH cleaner.
Thats no titration, thats an obscenity.

No offense Geezemeister, but whats true must be told. Ya have enough merits otherwise



This iodoephedrine is a made up nonsense discussion - learn a better workup, do a second, a real A/B and a real recrystallization and your problems will be gone.
But most just cant await to get some product into their pipe and then brains gone anyways.
Not Jacked.


I hate it to sound like Osmium.
Fuck.
Out here.
ORG

PS: I have seen no pseudoephedrine specific articles, thats a point, but I doubt this makes a difference. But I have no prove.
Nevertheless I am anxiously awaiting the next generation of forensic articles on impurities, dangerous and nasty impurities which is highly probable to come. The impurities caused by different plastics, dubious OH-group carrying compounds and shit called gakk.

[abominator]

EDITED


Swim has done what he and some others refer to as "sleep aid dope", this is exactly what Geez describes, a mixture of unreacted pseudoephedrine(apparently azirdines) and some other impurities that will give a rush when consumed but will bring on sleep to a user with a tolerance.  Swim has used this dope and went to sleep while typical street users thought it was the shit, go figure.  Those were hard times and after one particular bag of sleep aid, swim decided that never again would he purchase street dope, no matter how long it took him to gather the precursors.

Swim apologizes for talking out his ass.  He never claim to have TLC equiment.  He was only trying to relate his personal experience, as it may help to further our knowledge of how impurties affect us.

[Organikum]

You have not done an analysis onto your product so your talking about what the impurities are is talking out of your ass.
TLC is easy.
Do it or shut up.

[geezmeister]

Orgy you are probably right about titration. That is why I took to gassing, and later distilling. My comments about sleeper meth are historical and from several years ago. Your observation about azirdines is most likely the answer to sleeper meth. That also ties in to the observed inadequacy of the phosphorous compound in those reactions.

I take no offense to your doubts about the quality of my product. We are all entitled to reasonable opinions, right or wrong...  

[wareami]

You didn't think y`all would escape my two cents without me knowing about it did ya?  
I either posted something today that met with it's demise, or I didn't post it.
It's all good though cause it contained truths that make me shudder...having lived them.
We'll not go there right now, in more ways than one.
Rhodium recommends a steam distillation followed by re-xtal after an HI/RP rxn.
Without the access to a GC/MS, I too get frustrated like Jacked whenever this discussion arises without a definitive resolve.
I hate to think, as Orgy says, our only resolve will come by way of a Twisted Bias Forensic Analysis of meth seized via evidence and forfeiture from a "God only knows" type method of production.
The type rxn plays as large a role as source of the starting material.
Orgy...I have to disagree with the way you handled abominators remarks...it's not your style and not beecumming of you! Especially after the last remarks you made in the previous post toward the king of one liners at shutting one up.
I shant spank you however cause I know you meant well!
TLC will not help me identify the substance! It will tell it's present or not. Who do you recommend I should call to tell me my first r_f mark is pure d-meth??? mmmmmkay!!!
And will they bee so kind as to tell me the exact names of substances in the middle marks that I tested from "pulled on purpose" rxns for this test??? MmmmmKay!
Case rested on TLC versus GC/MS that I don't have!
While it may be true that NaI causes decomposition or destruction of unreduced pfed/eph...This possibly might not be the case in the removal of free I using Na₂S₂O₃ from the post-rxn solution prior to basing.
Org, I did take note however of that little figure in () pH14
Neither here nor there!
Okay...Now!
Case Reopened!
I aim to drop everything right now to discover where I need to go to get this solvent used in TLC or a suitable substitute as well as the type paper needed.
Jacked, I recall us both participating in that TLC thread.
Seen it suggested several times since so there must be something there for us chemhacks. I'm game! I'll bite! I bite at chemistry anyway  And a little nonmenclature never hertz I always say.
I aim to put an end to this once and for all.
I also refuse to dance around a subject without having a grasp of proper terminology as I feel I've brought a knucklesandwich to a gun fight lacking the formal education.
If those bees are concerned enough about these impurities presence in their consumable product, they'll choose the routes of cooking that help ensure those aziridines are cyclized fully into a fully reduced product.
The only rxn I've seen on this board that substaniates this insurance of full reduction is the long slow controlled route!
Let your Yields guide you since we know
Impurity=Azidirine=By-product=intermediate=under-reduced intermediate=iodoephed/iodometh=FUCKIN TRASH
Subtotal=YIELDLOSS
Meth subtracted by YIELDLOSS=20-90% meth
Class over!
(Hey I didn't know I had class today? )
I didn't!
But with any luck and a miracle, I'll have some class tomorrow

[Organikum]

Geez, I have no more doubts about your product now as you told me you gass again...

Also I want to add two things:
- I have seen pseudo coming through the reaction inc. workup myself - protected by gakk.
- I know the "sleepy meth" too. But it is only known to long-time and/or heavy users and I suspect this being related more to effects coming from using much a long time than from impurities. I have also seen somebody falling asleep after taking 1/2g ultrapure meth (clear shards, double recrystallized, from labgrade E) - you fall asleep when you take to much too I say and after a long time of using the drug it is possible that your body says "time to sleep" although you just have slept 24 hours.
The usual regualary user has such an amount of sleepdeprivation accumulated that sleep is not a symptom which is to assign to anything anymore. Paradox reactions are common then, like taking a stimulant and feeling sleepy. One may not think this vanishes after a week or two without meth. Half a year up to a year thats it.


Meth is what I love. But tweaking is not what I love. Meth is a very potent drug and I need it clean for two purposes: For the better turn of pure meth. For its only possible to dose correctly with pure meth. Undefined product sends me tweaking sooner or later, always, just because a correct dosage is not possibly to find. This says overdosed sooner thasn later.
I have seen only undefined product coming from heavily gakked pills.


ORG

[geezmeister]

Orgy... you have no argument here. You comments match my historical experience. I recall watching my mentor fire a very large dose of what appeared to me to be very good meth...and fall asleep within minutes. He was suffering from severe sleep deprivation at the time.

Sleep deprivation will also impair your judgment of the quality of the meth taken... and help lead to overdosing.

Your last comment is an anthem for a number of bees, myself included. I could not agree more with your comments.

[Jacked]

I get it... Thanks memeep, Now I understand were these post are coming from... Well put!
 I was in asumphion and generalized the ideo as an impurity as any thing else found in a finished product, how it got there was not in my problem area. My bad..
 Wareami, TLC is easer than you think to put together. PM me an I will share what I have learned about it.
 This is a good read and explanes well  

http://www.chem.ubc.ca/courseware/121/tutorials/exp3A/columnchrom/