Is the minimum temp 120C?

[CharlieBigpotato]

did you imply that eph-hcl was less apt to reduce poorly than psuedo-eph?
other than added inactives, wouldn't they reduce identicly?

btw, bees, regarding tweeky twitches and the like:
swim has had ritalin and adderal a couple times (seperately) and found both drugs to cause amazing mouth gyrations and toungue waggling...even in single pill doses.

never had those effects on meth; even when it was torched in a joint.

[Rhodium]

Due to the orientation of the alcohol and amino groups in ephedrine vs. pseudoephedrine, the former is usually easier to reduce as there is less steric hindrance. I don't have the literature proofs handy at the moment, but anyone who has used both starting materials can vouch for this being true. And - as it's easier for it to be reduced to the desired end product, the less time the intermediates has to react some other way and form by-products...

[ballzofsteel]

Again,

Does the mechanism Wizard X describe hold true for
all haloephedrines, or only iodo-ephedrine???

Sorry to get off topic,but what the fuck is the topic again?

[cycosyince]

I think it had to do with temps/reflux/and the qualities rendered therein.

I keep reading about impurities causing undesirable (?) effects. However, from my end of the kaleidiscope, alot of the "voices" "DEA-behind-the-clubhouse", tweezer adventures upon the skin, talking with the pals in the A.C. unit, are more often the result of a meth induced psycosis, pure OR tweeky notwithstanding. Now for me what is REALLY interesting is how birch manages to transform the lowly psudo to a lofty position in the land o' meth with a temprature that is sub freezing, and in about an hour. Meth for those on the...(ahem) GO. At any rate, lower the dosage, and get plenty of sleep between the romps and the incedents of audio and/or visual hallucinogenaria should become less pronounced, (with the krappy dope) and go away altogether with the better quality bags.

[WizardX]

Does the mechanism Wizard X describe hold true for all haloephedrines, or only iodo-ephedrine???

YES. However the chloro and bromo will give poor yields as these halogen will not leave the ephedrine benzylic C atom as easy as I

[biotechdude]

> Now it is clear that a 100% pure meth molecule from one
> synth will be the same as a 100% pure meth molecule from
> another synth.  This is regardless of whether a hot cook,
> long cook, etc etc.

Wow, what a revelation!
I thought that was clear for at least 150 years?

One shouldn't consider it a revelation when the statement was obviously toned to be post-revelation comment through the use of the phrase 'it is clear'.  It was establishing the background information necessary for the smooth literary flow into the coments that followed.

Methamphetamine was first manufactured by the Germans in 1887.  Thats 117 years of meth production technology and validation.  Additionally, the theory of this 'revelation' would of been realised centuries before.

So perhaps you could add your esteemed input into this forum through relevant comments showing your much respected intelligence and experience.  Not 'cheap shots' that highlight your flippant literary humour and erroneous mathematic and history skills.

[CharlieBigpotato]

last attempt to explain something that is bothering me about this:

the effort towards producing pure product is laudable, but the growing notion that said product is 'mostly harmless' is dangerous, imho.

geezmeister is the sort of level-headed, decent bloke that one could probably lend his sports car to, and get back with extra gasoline and an oil change.

yet give a few grams of the purest meth in the world to some other type fella(s), and they'll stay up for days, get dirty, see helicoptors, pick at non-existant zits, not eat, get paranoid, etc, etc, etc...just like if they had gotten ahold of the mysterious 'tweeker dope'

meth ain't no health food. i don't care how pure it is.
check your blood pressure, for instance, beefore and after having some.

it puts you 'under pressure'!


fuck, if it didn't fuck up a bee, why would they bother with it at all?

its a good tool;

its a bad habit

[cycosyince]

So then in review, I assume we can round the figures to: Very high temps, (red heat, major flammage) is generally bad, and will destroy a batch.
High temps, (close to red heat, and 'Ow fuck that charred me skin white!) is quite likely to ruin a batch, or at the very least, wreck the yeilds to around a Qtr. of what went in.
The RIGHT temp. (The temp that works whilst refluxing, resulting in excellent quality/yields) Oh, this is the temp to use!
No temp/room temp, yeah whatever.
-70 with an ammonia odor, (along with some battery strips) You are clear for take-off, houston out.

Got it? Then



COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOK!

[gluecifer69]

Swim's push/pulls never reach 120C, so does the lower temperature offer more highly concentrated HI or what.

The highest temp his push/pulls have ever seen was 200 F, which is 93.3333 C. 

Could anybee shed some light on this, because SWIM knows he gets quality gear from the push/pull with high purity. MP tests have been done and they are right on the money. No fucking undreduced shit in this bees gear!

Just wondering all input will be greatly appreciated.

EDIT  I just read that lower temps. to offer higher HI concentrations.  Somebee correct me if am wrong.

[WizardX]

The Reaction Rate reduction of ephedrine to meth with HI is directly proportional to the concentration of HI and temperature.

What does this really mean you ask?

Well, if you put ephedrine in a 57% HI solution in a dark place (so photo-dissociation does not occur) at room temperature, 25 oC, you will get after considerable time some iodoephedrine (minor quantities). However, to convert the iodoephedrine to meth requires energy (heat) to force the reaction along by reaching the activation enery and thus increase the reaction rate.

[livid]

gluecifer is  right on the money.