Absolutely Rhodium...
It was a bit on the speculative side.
In the absense of much physical evidence, many of the preferences that shape these newer proposals are based on that type of speculation. But not solely from a purely speculative assessment. Many come from hands on experimentation and logical deduction in leiu of a better scientific explanation.
We kick all this around from time to time and mostly we all wind UP back at square one...
I'm never satisfied with that. I have a pioneering mind that needs answers. I can't be content with mere speculation and conjecture. Sometimes it's all I have, but rest assured that more information lay beneath the surface of what you see reported.
I've already been accused of beeing the "King of Verbiage" around here
And the last thing I want is to add to the heap, but I can't help myself sometimes!
I find it difficult to beelieve that any bee here is capable of underestimating the work that goes into bringing any of Ibee's contibutions to the collective with speculation being the only tool by which these innovations materialize successfully.
In the Beginning, Chemistry-wise I was like the common domestic person that looks at the Light Switch and the lamp, hits the lightswitch...the lamp comes on and the commoner scratches his head and walks away content for having light by which to see!
I could have been content if it weren't for my inner drive that needs to know why the damn things work.
You'll follow a trail something like this:
Lightswitch plate off the wall and the wires exposed!
Romex wire ripped through the drywall all the way to The socket ripped out as well and the upsidedown lamp completely dismantled. The romex feed wire down to the circuit panel box exposed beside the hole in the floor used to follow the continuity of the source. And there you'll find Ibee sitting on the floor, wires everyware, with his head buried in the "Modern Electronic Circuitry Reference Manual" trying to get at the bottom of why that freaking light came on by hitting that goddamn switch!
My heads still buried in the "Handbook of Chemistry and Physics" and every Organic Chemistry book I can get my hands on.
Yes!!!! You've created a monster!
Shorty brings up a very fine point and one that I have held for a long time.
The presense of HI gas is a good sign but not a necessity.
57%+ HI Gas
50-57% HI aqueous
The rxn will proceed to full reduction over several daze at 50% HI concentration and that concentration is the minimum dividing line! Excess h2o will overstep that demarcation line, pushing the rxn in the red, if only for a short time(8-12hr).
Without that time(unreative) being added back on to the overall cook time, a bee may still have meth, but I'm argueing that it won't be "Good As It Ghets".
Who determines purity?
Now I find it extremely difficult to disagree with Geez because I know he's one bee that knows the difference between purity.
This subject has put me at odds with Geez, it may seem to those that don't know us, which is the last thing I would ever want.
We agree to be mature by agreeing to disagree on the ratio's and that's fine. I must respect his position regarding this but I don't have to adopt it as a working practice. I say "at odds" because we are both respected bees offering two differences in preference.
I want to make it clear that this difference should in no way be looked to as a reflection of one cook beeing better than the other. We are peers here!
And that in itself leaves me at at odds and wondering if I left something out or maybe missed something myself.
I hate second guessing myself but hey
Either way...we'll always be beefriends no matter what!
I still learn from him and remain teachable so that's all that counts in the end!
Bees have been producing less than pure for years without even knowing that a purer form existed until the discovery of the hydrated longer cook LWR.
Ibee's bio-assayed meth from every possible spectrum imaginable over a six month period. These bio's were from rxns conducted under controlled trial study's.
Different ratio's, different cook times, various concentrations of HI....from excessively wet to excessively dry rxns.
Yeah I know....some will also want to know that if Ibee was that anal about this, why didn't he adopt more reliant analytical methods to determine purity?
He's Ghetto that's why.
The first blast from "As Good As It Ghets" cannot be denied as beeing the best you've ever come across.
Geez knows this as do many others now.
Ibee's first sample had him thinking he created a new methamphetamine analogue all together.
He also learned early on he could impart a numbing cokelike bell-ringing buzz effect by adding excess sodium thiosulfate below the H2S creation level to rid excess free iodine. Do you think he'd report that here for others to try?
Hell NO!
He quit using sod thio altogether for this reason.
The safety of this is not known.
I did research this effect back to sodium thiosulfate through one of my chem books.
Geez: I sense that I may have ruffled yer feathers some and this is never my intent and you know that!
Bee's will rationalize and debate this rxn everywhich way they want, but there's a HI level of futility involved in trying to sway somebees METHodology when that bee consistantly bats 85-90% and has been for two years!
Most wanna say "preposterous" to which I reply "If you only knew" and "Try It You'll never GO back".
To boast such yields is just that....boasting!
So a refrain is applied to yield reporting except where it's necessary to get bees to stop settling for less!
If there is an epitaph on Ibee's Tombstone it should read "You'll Reap What You So... There".
Akin to Jacked's old "End Result" sig line!
Three months before the 7 day rxn reports, Ibee was refining the LWR and nailed it. The three months that followed were a continuance of those controlled study's.
It's not always wise to go into such detail but for the sake of clarity, Ibee'll stick his neck out from time to time. But never to the extent of hurting the collective. If he looks like a fool....so bee it. It'll at least spark some serious individual reflection and possibly some creative insight into the rxn mechanism itself.
What's offered, isn't shoved down anybees throat and is geared more toward a take it or leave it stance. But it's hoped that most will consider it none-the-less based on the surface reasoning until they take it for a test drive themselves.
If I recall correctly...you were a pretty hard sell yourself on this LWR shyte.
It would be pretty shallow and ignorant of Ibee to have not run identical ratio's to those reporting success before arriving at final conclusions and suggesting shifts that vary from the best cooks the colony has to offer!
And no....that is not a shameless attempt at brown-knowsing!
The coolest most spectacular sold out event at the Hive would include the Top DawgBees involved in a "Good As It Ghets" analog taste-sampling competition.
And I'll never forget the shear hilarity I experienced when PandaBare bee was scoffing at Ibee's Egull Method and challenging Ibee to such a cook-off at around the same time the LWR experiments were being conducted.
The fruits of all that labor and frustration are to this day unmatched by even the happiest of daze Ibee's traveled in this universe!
I still say that the smallest flucuation in dh2o, on the high side, from the outset, will impact the concentration of HI in relation to RP/H3po3/4 to an unfavorable level so this creates a fine line that if crossed will result in unreduced E or less than fully reduced iodo meth if the rxn is stopped on a timeline as in the LWR.
Much Respect Geez!
...
