MaDMAx:
Well then by all means go for it!I never said I want to go for it, and I actually said very clearly that lysergic acid amides are not within my research interest. I only wanted to post some information which seemed useful, particularly the charcoal-based isolation of lysergic acid from a large volume of solution. This technique can also be applied to solutions obtained from in vitro cultures, for example, or from the Convulvaceae. With your sloppy way of reading posts and lack of ability to see what really matters, I wonder how you got your title.
MaDMAx:
Someone I don't know repeated the experiment with some random samples of ergot sclerotia to see if alkaloid extraction would be a feasible means of acquiring LSD precursor material.Your better really don't know that bastard, because the analysis you are presenting here is bogus. Not the journal article, but those homemade or DEA-made or moron-made plots. You see, sometimes you meet your master, and I happen to have worked in the analytical department of a pharmaceutical company, received particularly training in chromatographic techniques. Someone absolutely wants to convince someone that ergot isn't a feasible source of lysergic acid, and I can only wonder why
. Where do you think Hofmann got his material from when he started to work on ergot-amines? Why did people develop ergotism from eating bread containing ergot, especially considering that the process of beaking will destroy most of the ergot alkaloids?
Patent DE0357272
from 1919 in example 2 starts with 2 kg of ergot and obtains the main alkaloid in an unspecified amount, but they certainly wouldn't have chosen to start with 2 kg if the yield was only a few mg. It's probably ergotamine what they obtained, which usually is found in a lower quantity then the other lysergic acid alkaloids together. Selected strains in 1919 when they didn't even know what to select for? Gimme a break!
And I can even beat you with your own weapon, the J. Chromatogr. paper: they found 3 alkaloids in
every sample: ergonovine, ergocristine and ergotamine. Also, all samples contained
more then one alkaloid. Yet, someone you don't know found
none whatsoever? And you believe that?
Just from looking at the numbers, the MS strain seems to have about the lowest content: 12.4 µg/ml total alkaloids, not counting the wrong-isomer -inine compounds. This is 0.0124 %. Not great, but the material is for free, safe to acquire and easy and cheap to extract.
It was hell to figure the actual percentage out, because there is something freaky wrong: what should be mg reads on my monitor as µg, yet when I copy and paste it here, it's correct:
2.2. Extraction and sample preparation
One hundred mg of crushed ergot of rye were extracted with...
What the hell is going on here? When you look at the article on your computer, do you see mg or µg? I have a screen shot to proove the µg on mine... An average strain, FS, contains 130.95 µg/ml, or 0.131 % total lysergic acid alkaloids. That's not bad! It also fits well to my original informed guess of 0.05 % lysergic acid and verifies my calculations. And with these facts some morons are trying to tell us that it's not worthwhile to use ergot as source of lysergic acid? It might be in the DEA's interest that we believe that, because it's just so much easier to get caught when trying to divert ergot alkaloids or acquire a selected strain...
Sorry, but I have to give you a big thumbs down: If you want to be an A+ Analyst you should get a critical mind of your own and get your facts straight...or move your rotten ass out of here, DEA agent MaDMAx. The Hive, knowing you far longer and far better than I, will be able to determine what you are: a moron or an undercover, or still an A+ Analyst for qualities I haven't seen on you yet.
Some will probably criticize me for going so harsh against you, MaDMAx, but it's exactly people like you with their pseudo-knowledge and/or disinformation who are hampering our progress. Without really knowing, you just dismissed ergot as source of lysergic acid, and did whatever you could to keep me from trying it, discouraged everyone with smart psychological tricks: Do some sort of analysis first to make sure you don't waste your time, you recommend. Which bee has even a remote chance to get an analysis done? Of course, you wouldn't mention that such an analysis could be done with low tech: TLC for example. Or simply extract some ergot on a test-tube scale. Then a few tests to verify and roughly quantify (by comparing with known strength solutions prepared from an ergotamine tablet) the alkaloid content can be applied: the peptidic alkaloids show light blue fluorescense under UV light (365 nm, easily available). Maybe that could even be used on the ergot itself? The Keller and van Urk colour reactions are two chemical tests. But instead of drawing the attention towards those easily availabe tests, you make it look like the only way to do it is via some high-tech mumbo-jumbo chromatographic stuff to which 99.999% of people interested in making LSD have no access to. All availabe information indicates that 2 kg of ergot will produce at the very least about 100 mg of lysergic acid, yet you are implying that it would likely be a waste of time. Why are you pressing so hard to discourage when all facts are very encouraging?
If I wouldn't have proven you wrong in every point you made, enabled through my professional training, The Hive would have followed your argumentation and dismissed ergot as a source of lysergic acid once again, and the illusive dream of a selected strain or diverted material would have continued. And those interested in making LSD would have once again missed the most easily and safely available source of lysergic acid, the source the father of LSD used!
Dr. Heckyll & Mr. Jive by Men at Work
...tells my tale.