• N&PD Moderators: Skorpio | thegreenhand

  • Neuroscience & Pharmacology Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Recent Journal Articles Chemistry Mega-Thread
    FREE Chemistry Databases! Self-Education Guide

Ketamine salts solubility

Status
Not open for further replies.
Order, n, of the amps:

n = 1, amphetamine, R-NH2, Child
n = 2, meth, R-NHCH3, Man
n = 3, eth, R-NHCH2CH3, Woman
n = 4, prop, R-NH2CH2CH2CH3, 3rd Gender
n = 5, allyl, R-NH2CH2CH=CH2, Deus

Ethyl beats (or tricks) Methyl
Propyl beats Ethyl
Allyl beats Propyl

Yes, someone made them. Who? Idk and wouldn't say if I did. I plead the 5th on that. Honestly. But I sourced them from 3 different groups over a 6 year period.
 
AlsoTapered said:
You ARE kidding, right?
Click to expand...
Well he did say that "tons" of these compounds gave been made by someone for him to try, so I want to know the details of the activity that he supposedly characterized

Considering the lack of any details whatsoever, the claims are less than believable
 
someguyontheinternet said:
Well he did say that "tons" of these compounds gave been made by someone for him to try, so I want to know the details of the activity that he supposedly characterized

Considering the lack of any details whatsoever, the claims are less than believable
Click to expand...

Oh, but how could that possibly be? I I MUST be misunderstanding you because the way your statement is worded seems to infer that Rectify is a fantasist. But how could THAT be? If I may ask, what signs do you think led you to come to your teiative belief?

I mean you have no proof... oh yeah, the burden of proof lies with the person MAKING the statement - that's HOW science works (slaps self on forehead). Or course, it's not how fiction works... which I suppose IS in itself an inference...

It's a REAL head-scratcher for me because I had simply presumed that Rectify had such an exalted status amongst all of the organic chemists, medicinal chemists and those working in related fields that the design rationale, synthetic procedure, animal and then human testing were simply implicit and that their CLAIMING to have discovered compounds already in PubChem was simply an oversight... and for some reason they couldn't change the post to add these facts.

It's a very interesting insight - IF I haven't simply misunderstood your statement which I freely admit is POSSIBLE.
 
Last edited:
You sure don't seem too forthcoming with posting any evidence to support any of your claims.

Surely the labs sent you some sort of analysis of at least one of your "compounds"? A GC trace? A NMR?
Could you provide the synthesis route used? How about approximate cost and amounts?
Or is there just more excuses?

Why do you have problems discussing the specifics of the compounds with this "shady legality" excuse yet have no problem ordering it from a commercial custom synthesis lab?

I have no problems at all talking at length about the drugs I have synthesized and extracted because (primarily) I'm not a bullshit artist trying to impress anyone unlike you seem to be, and secondarily because without a time machine you couldn't prove I did any of these things. But I provide enough detail that those "in the know" should be able to respect it.

On the other hand, any chemist who knows anything can smell the bullshit from your story a mile away. If you had just stuck with "I'm just a guy who likes playing with Chemdraw" you'd get ten times the respect than this make-believe "I'm the next Sasha Shulgin" act.

Ethyl beats (or tricks) Methyl
Propyl beats Ethyl
Allyl beats Propyl
Click to expand...

This is actually the reverse of how amphetamines are known to behave. This paper shows the relative activities at DAT for various N-alkylamphetamines.
EC50 for DA release
Amphetamine: 8.7 ± 1.2 nM
N-methylamphetamine: 24.5 ± 2.1 nM
N-ethylamphetamine: 88.5 ± 9.6 nM
N-propylamphetamine is inactive as a release agent, instead acting as a reuptake inhibitor with IC50 of 1013 ± 101 nM. (For reference, methylphenidate has an IC50 of about 20-25 nM)

It also doesn't match in vivo potencies either: [ref]
jtQISMT.png

"The potency of these compounds was inversely related to substituent size: amphetamine > N-methyl > N-ethyl > N-propyl > N-butyl"

(Methamphetamine is more potent in vivo because it is more lipophilic than amphetamine, but more potency cannot really be gained by increasing the N-alkyl group further)

Also, PiHKAL points out that N-allyl-MDA is inactive at 180mg doses.[ref].

So if anything, N-allylamphetamines would be exceedingly weak reuptake inhibitors. I do not believe that your N-allylamphetamines would be active at reasonable doses (sub-100mg).

may have made my thoughts permanently broadcast telepathically. NO LIE.
Click to expand...
You understand that making such a statement severely hurts your credibility? If you seriously believe in things like thought broadcasting you are too far gone to provide any sort of reliable statements.

I don't synthesize anything. It doesn't pay anything.
Click to expand...
Well, actually, it pays quite well. And to be fair, you would be nothing but a hazard in a lab anyway.
 
Last edited:
sekio said:
Well, actually, it pays quite well. And to be fair, you would be nothing but a hazard in a lab anyway.
Click to expand...

God forbid.

By definition ANY lab with that person in it should be classified as a hazards lab.... or 'creative fiction'.

No GC-MS, No NMR, not even an MP.

But maybe it's just us, right? ALL OF US are wrong. but I think we have now reached the 3 sigma confidence level so we can state that this just isn't the case.

Has anyone calculated how much time this person has wasted? OK you might say, it's their time. But when they begin confidently (if wrongly) answering questions others ask then we have to consider that others might be put at risk.... or at least fail in their education. Then I feel, we need to make our views known.
 
Look, I'm just doing this because it can be done and am mainly only entertaining myself. These might not even be active. It's just the internet. Chill out. I know you are both great chemists far more experienced than me in the lab.

1-(4,5-methylenedioxy-2-iodophenyl)-2-aminopropane.png


JACK_THE_CAN
1-(4,5-methylenedioxy-2-iodophenyl)-2-aminopropane

1-(4-methoxy-2-iodophenyl)-2-aminopropane.png


FINN_MAC_COOL
1-(4-methoxy-2-iodophenyl)-2-aminopropane

If You Think I'm Stupid, Then Great!

I made a 750 out of 800 on the Verbal SAT And 800 Math. :)
 
Last edited:
Yea it's a small section of the internet where we try to actually take chemistry and pharmacology seriously and misinformation actually matters because it could end up in someone getting hurt or killed
 
Rectify said:
Order, n, of the amps:

n = 1, amphetamine, R-NH2, Child
n = 2, meth, R-NHCH3, Man
n = 3, eth, R-NHCH2CH3, Woman
n = 4, prop, R-NH2CH2CH2CH3, 3rd Gender
n = 5, allyl, R-NH2CH2CH=CH2, Deus

Ethyl beats (or tricks) Methyl
Propyl beats Ethyl
Allyl beats Propyl

Yes, someone made them. Who? Idk and wouldn't say if I did. I plead the 5th on that. Honestly. But I sourced them from 3 different groups over a 6 year period.
Click to expand...
I definitely consider making things up to fall under baseless speculation
 
Last edited:
Yes, I am also just some guy on the internet, but you're wrong about the intentionally posting bullshit part.

Why is my lack of chem lab expertise even an issue? I made aspirin, coumadin, and indigo in college, and that's about it. Whoop T. Do.
 
Okay so maybe it isn't intentional but that's rather doubtful after multiple practiced chemists have come in here and corrected you. Perhaps you hallucinated labs making your compounds and sending them to you?
 
The only problem with PCP is that sometimes people take too high a dose and end up doing weird shit like walking down the street naked. What's up with that ?
 
someguyontheinternet said:
I'm not sure why you think test scores matter
Click to expand...

I don't but that is how the education system works.

If one person offers a 2 sentence answer with NO reference while another devotes many paragraphs all with appropriate references, someone could construe the long answer as merely overcomplicating the issue if another can write an answer that would fit on a bus ticket,,,

That's is the thing about science - you can build certainty and accuracy by the addition of detail and reference... but it's a HARD science, On the other hand, science doesn't care about someone's delusions, fictions, fabrications and fables. It offers experimental results - that can be REPEATED.

But most of all, it's a LOT of work. What chemists do today is based on work going back lifetimes - all of which was independently verified and which someone could repeat again today and the results would be the same.

I've studied chemistry for 8 years and medicinal chemistry for a further 31 years. So their are lots of things I know, or know are known and I can find the references, but on average, for every fact I acquire, it uncovers a number of things I didn't know I didn't know (unknown unknowns) and so one becomes very careful to make any and all findings (be they a success of a failure) available to others because like anyone I make mistakes and people kindly correct me.

So simply making a statement with NO evidence whatsoever doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis or a conjecture because both of those are based on at least some evidence (no, I don't know when each term is more appropriate). It's just fiction, pure and simple.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps I should have left my own high test scores in that comment. But still, test scores don't matter when you make things up out of thin air and pretend it's accurate, as you mentioned and as @Rectify appears to do
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top