wacker or another way?

[Snakebyte]

Swim's having problems distilling his isosafrol (because his vacuum is not constant) so he is thinking about going straight from safrol to MDP2P using the wacker process.  It seems by the searching swim's done though, that the wacker does not give as good of yeild as other methods.  If someone had all the necessary equipment and chemicals why would they ever use that method over any other?  Can someone who really has performed a few different methods to get to MDP2P say which one they prefer and why?  Remember, swim has most equipment and chemicals needed and can perform basic organic chemistry techniques. I know this could be in the newbee forum but swim needs someone experienced to answer this question.

[abuse]

I don't think a new method will solve your vacuum issues because you will need to distill MDP2P under vacuum anyway, so using a different method won't work. Fix your vacuum issue, then you should be fine. What's wrong with your pump? Is it a piece of garbage that you purchased from a garage sale :-D? If it's an oil pump, try replacing the oil, then again, what the hell do I know :-)

[Antibody2]

performic uses cheap and easy to get reagents and has nice reproducable yeilds and it is a forgiving reaction with easy work-up.

Wackers use more expensive reagents and are not quite as forgiving, and the work-up on the benzo wacker is dirtyt  and nightmarish.

Buddy above is right, you need to fix your vacuum, or get a new one.

[Snakebyte]

Swim uses a 1/8hp refrigerater pump for his vacuum, and i guess he will try to change his oil.  Is there some sort of filter i can make or buy to stop all the crap from getting sucked in?

[Rhodium]

UTFSE for "vacuum trap"