Author Topic: The LWR and low yeilds...  (Read 2605 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

jammin

  • Guest
The LWR and low yeilds...
« on: May 30, 2004, 10:20:00 PM »
Yep, he did it again....
7.4g Ephedrine.HCl
5.5g LG RP
12g  I2
8ml  H20

(He used precusors for 10 g E.HCl just to make sure it's reduced this time...)

01. H20 and E.HCl was added in a 250ml rb flask
02. LG RP added
03. i2 added
04. Swirrled flask
05. Attached condenser with balloon and icewater


06. Heat gradually applied (oilbath)
07. Further heating until tiny bubbles are bubbling
08. Checked the setup 45 min after. Bubbeling almost ceased
    Added 1 ml H2O took heat until oilbath read 127C
    Bubbles are showing, but they are not tiny. Aprox 1/2cm in size.
09. Let the reaction sit for 48 hrs.


10. Made charmin plug and prewetted it with h20
11. Added 10 ml h20 to flask, swirled then filtered trough charmin plug.
12. Repeated step 11 three times, and combined filtered liquid.
13. Added 50 ml toulene in sepfunnel.
14. Filtered the combined post rxn fluid trough charmin plug again
    and directly into sepfunnel, drops falling trough the toulene layer
15. Rxn Layer is colorless but "milky"


16. Filtered 10 ml h2o trough charmin plug to wash down any remaning goods.
17. Shook solution and let stand for 10 min.
18. Decanted off toulene, it was fairly clear
19. Added 50ml toulene, shook and let stand for 20 min.
    Now the np layer turned piss yellow. So did the waterlayer
20. Added 30 ml toulene, shook, 20 min. Same color on both layers.


21. Washed again, this time with 75ml, 20 min. Still piss yellow.
22. Bashed with NaOH solution. Saw a yellowish layer rise to the top.
23. Waited 30 min, drained away most of the waterlayer.
    (The waterlayer was clearly separated from the yellow layer)
24. Time for extraction. Added 50 ml toulene, shook like hell and waited 30 min.
    (will saturate h20 with NaCl next time)
    Decanted toluene into a beaker.
25. Repeated step 24 with 30 and then 20 ml toulene.

26. Checked PH of the water layer just in case, still read about 13-14
27. Combined toulene, and poured in sep funnel.
28. Washed with NaOH sollution.
29. Time for titration. Added 10 drops of hcl in 75 ml h20. Poured h20 in sepfunnel.
30. Shook it hard and waited 5 min. Checked PH, read about 10'ish.
31. Added 5 more drops, shook and let sit for 5min, now it read 9.

32. Repeated this, now it read 7.
33. Let stand for 10 min, evaped h20.
34. Added 60 ml h20 with 5 drops of acid, shook like hell, waited 5min and evaped.
35. Repeated step 33 four times. Ph now read about three on the last pull.


He still has the last pull in the sepfunnel. It has been there for three days.
He's gonna evap it now just to see, but as the pull before that one yeilded next to nothing he dosent have high hopes.



Yeild from this rxn was about 2.3g from 7.4g e.hcl.
It seems he did at least some things right this time, but he still lost substansial yeild.



The only think i can think of from the top of my head was not to execute step 23.
But all the amines should be the yellow layer after the basing and waiting?
(He has saved this water layer just in case.)



Once he has have obtained acceptable yields he'll write a step by step procedure
for a 10g reaction with solvent amounts etc.

I hope that will save The Kidz, geez and all the others for some headaches in the furure.



Thanks for your time!  :)


Scottydog

  • Guest
Purity of Pseudo
« Reply #1 on: May 30, 2004, 11:58:00 PM »
Jammin, concerning your low yields from the LWR. Through time Swim has drawn a direct correlation between the purity of the pseudo precursor (going into the rxn) and the percentage of product coming back.

Before eudragit, when Swim would pull pseudo via the tetra trap and gassing. He would get back 50-74% product. The last rxn Swim ran with pseudo pulled with denatured (from a different pill source) was a laughable 33%.

The 7.4 grams of pseudo may have actually only been 5 grams?  :o

How did you pull your E? Was it pulled by A/B extraction? Did you do a burn test on it?

Swim no longer questions the rxn or lab skills, just the purity of the E going in.

I don't know if it was Chemosabe who mentioned it before, but a bee mentioned leaving the mother jar of based goods to set for a week or two and going back to it at a later time to reclaim what may have been encapsulated by gakk.

Over time, the gakk will release the goods.

Swim has been doing this exact same thing for quite some time now. Swim sees nothing wrong with how you ran your gear.

Pseudo purity is a big issue right now. You got something back, which means your a step ahead of god knows what percentage of the population who are forced to flush a complete failure in disgust.


jammin

  • Guest
More details
« Reply #2 on: May 31, 2004, 12:36:00 AM »
>>Jammin, concerning your low yields from the LWR.
Through time Swim has drawn a direct correlation
between the purity of the pseudo precursor (going into the rxn)
and the percentage of product coming back.

Well should have mentioned that i use european pills.
Many bees have told me that the pills from europe arent supergaked, cause there is no methcook problem here.

There isnt meth here at all really, just regular
amphetamine (dont ask me why never seen meth in the ten years i've been doing amphetamines)....

The pills are ephedrine.hcl not psuedoephedrine.
A box of 1000 pills weighs about 60g (+- 2g).


That means that it should be half e.hcl and half fillers/binders.
Unfortunally it dosent list inactives, but they are from pakistan,
and i doubt there is a methlab problem there... :P

I donno how gak behaves/looks like in the US, but with my are
very very small, and completely white with no coating.

Seems like they are filled with starch or something since pillmass
formed a gel when heated with water. All extraction tequnices i've tried
have all been colorless/white. It dosent seem to contain anything
that disolves in NP either.

>>Before eudragit, when Swim would pull pseudo via the tetra trap
and gassing. He would get back 50-74% product. The last rxn Swim
ran with pseudo pulled with denatured (from a different pill source)
was a laughable 33%.

As stated above Swim has no knowledge about the inactives. :/

Swim has on this batch only:

1. Extracted with hot IPA and filtered (50 ml IPA pr 6g pillmass).
2. Evaporated in pyrex oon low heat
3. Disolved in water and filtered
4. Evaped in pyrex on lowest stoved setting

Burns clean on alufoil.
Although he has not tested the purity in an other way
Yeild seems to be 80-90%, based on weight.

If a lot of gak followed the pulls on such a simple extraction
route one would expect the returnproduct to weight more then
the amount of e.hcl in the pills?



>>The 7.4 grams of pseudo may have actually only been 5 grams?

Perhaps. But then again, where the hell did the e.hcl go?
I would think that almost all of the e.hcl should follow
on such a simple route and not gak?


>>Did you do a burn test on it?
Left no residue/ash on foil. But it stained the foil.

>>Swim no longer questions the rxn or lab skills,
just the purity of the E going in.

Hmm... Well i feel that something is wrong somewhere in the post rxn here.
When i base the postrxn fluid the yellow layer that rises on top
should be the amines / meth oil, right?

Well that sure seemed like a hell of a lot more then 2.3 grams.
Is this often a contaminated layer?


>>I don't know if it was Chemosabe who mentioned it before,
but a bee mentioned leaving the mother jar of based goods
to set for a week or two and going back to it at a later
time to reclaim what may have been encapsulated by gakk.
Over time, the gakk will release the goods.

Hmm... he'll try this.

>>Swim has been doing this exact same thing for quite some
time now. Swim sees nothing wrong with how you ran your gear.

The strange thing is that i dont _ever_ get any emulsions
no matter how hard i shake the sep funnel. I've never even
had one that uses more than 30 secs to clear. And i've never
had any discoloration when i clean psuedo etc.

Except when i try to wash the postreaction fluid with
NP (toulene). Then it never ceases to be piss yellow.
I used about 1 litre on 50ml post reaction fluid.
Did ten washes, and it still did not clear. I thougth it was
excess I2, cause it was the typical I2-stain color.

But Osmium told me it wasnt:


------------------------------------------------

Jammin: Took of condenser and boiled off remaining iodine for 15 min.

Os:    There is no iodine left, and even if there was you wouldn't be able to
   remove it like that. And even if you could this is totally unnecessary,
   all you did was boiling HI out of the flask which will colour your walls
   yellow and corrode the shit out of everyting that's made from metals.

Jammin: NP looked pissyellow.
   But he knew it was iodine as he has been there before and panicked...

Os:   If you had evapped the washes you would have realised that this yellow
   stuff isn't iodine. Iodine in NP solvents is colored purple, sometimes brown.
   Do 3 washes. You can also use other amounts of NP solvent, e.g. 50-30-20ml.
------------------------------------------------

He used these NP solvent amounts now. He also used less water in the rxn fluid.
Are these rations correct?

>>Pseudo purity is a big issue right now. You got something
back, which means your a step ahead of god knows what
percentage of the population who are forced to flush
a complete failure in disgust.
 
Yep, he got something. Havent slept yet... damn.  ::) [


midway

  • Guest
It could be lots of things, but be sure to...
« Reply #3 on: May 31, 2004, 12:52:00 AM »
It could be lots of things, but be sure to check your filters... probably wont account for that much loss if the pills are as clean as you say but its worth a look.

jammin

  • Guest
Purity
« Reply #4 on: May 31, 2004, 12:59:00 AM »
Well, swim dosent really know if the pills are as clean as he thinks, but foil burns clean (no residue at all, just discolored).

Shouldnt 50ml of IPA be enuff to pill 3g e.hcl from 6g pillmass?

I mean when i get over 80% yeild, it would be unlikely that it is gak that followed over? I just crushed the pills, boiled in IPA and filtered.

Mechanical losses were minimal at best. And it would be reasonable to conclude that the yeild would weigh more that just the e.hcl if gak followed?

Or am i mistaken here?


geezmeister

  • Guest
a few comments
« Reply #5 on: May 31, 2004, 03:36:00 AM »
A few comments I make from a reading of your experience:

1) Your E isn't as clean as you thought it was. If its the European E pills that I extracted a little over a year ago, you don't have clean E even if you think you do. I had horrible results with a simple extraction from those pills. After that I cleaned the pills with my then-favored approach to the full cure, which used P2M's microwave solvent boil approach-- and cleaned first with xylene x2, VMP naptha X2, and acetone X2, then extracted with IPA and precipitated in xylene. I would do a STE after the boils now. I did not have a list of inactives to the pills, which I got in raw form. The cure worked very well and yeilds from the next reaction were where I expeceted as was the quality of the meth.

2) While I do not think that basing the reaction fluid with a NaOH solution will hurt methamphetamine, I do usually base with a nonpolar solvent in place. I do not suggest you separate out the water layer before you add  the solvent. You assume that all the meth has freebased and floated to the top by this time; some of it has. Some of it may take longer to do so. I sugget you cover the water layer with tolly or xylene and warm the polar layer up a bit. I'd add a little more base and some salt, stir, let the polar layer get hot enough to make it circulate under the nonpolar layer. Take it off the heat and let it cool, then separate the water layer, wash it well, and gas or titrate., You will likely find a good deal more meth in it than you thought.