• 💊 OTHER DRUGS 💊 Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Notable Threads 1 Notable Threads 2
    Dangerous Combos Addiction Support
    Emergency Services Benzo Guide v.1
    Addiction Stories Scary Case Studies
    Biology, Pharmacology & Drugs 101
  • Select Your Topic Then Scroll Down
    Alcohol Bupe Benzos
    Cocaine Heroin Opioids
    RCs Stimulants Misc
    Harm Reduction All Topics Gabapentinoids
    Tired of your habit? Struggling to cope?
    Want to regain control or get sober?
    Visit our Recovery Support Forums

Test cocaine on purity!

hey le junk

i can see from other posts in this thread that your posts from the coke high-horse are rubbing others up the wrong way.

again, you have experienced great coke. we get it.

Originally posted by Le Junk
It's being cut, and it's being cut with speed. Get used to it!

the statement above here is yet another generalised assumption, the value of which i question. your input on the subject of cocaine here is undoubtedly very valuable. i don't doubt that and i thank you for it. sadly, the contribution is devalued by your insistance that your experience automatically equates with that of the entire population.

Originally posted by Le Junk
Coke is still just as good as it was in the 80's and is just as easily obtainable.
I am wrong and everything I'm feeling that is negative from my cocaine is coming from my own mental state and has nothing to do with the cocaine itself.

that's an incredibly childish response - nobody (not me at least) is questioning the veracity of your personal experience. what people do have a problem with is you essentially telling them you know more about their experience than they do.

Originally posted by Le Junk
Sure, it's out there. And with that, I'll agree. But the chances of finding it in the U.S. are getting less and less.

this post reminds us that your perspective on the world of coke may be, well, simply wrong to some extent.

Originally posted by Le Junk
I just pulled 1.3 grams of pure amphetamine out of an 8 ball with isopropanol alcohol. How's that for evidence?

that's unimpeachable evidence that at least one 8 ball in your posession contained at least 1.3 grams of amphetamine.

no more. no less.

:\

alasdair
 
alasdairm said:

Originally posted by Le Junk
I just pulled 1.3 grams of pure amphetamine out of an 8 ball with isopropanol alcohol. How's that for evidence?

that's unimpeachable evidence that at least one 8 ball in your posession contained at least 1.3 grams of amphetamine.

no more. no less.

:\

alasdair
Click to expand...

alasdairm,

Regardless of your other statements regarding my posts on cocaine, THIS is where I'm at right now with the subject. And when doing your analysis of the A or B questionaire, did you take into consideration those that have at one time experienced A, but now mostly experience B? I have yet to go over those numbers myself, but I am inclined to think your a little one sided on the issue.

You see, each day, or week, I move one more step forward towards my ultimate goal of purifying my cocaine into as pure a form as can possibly be. In the end, I think many will benefit from all of my time and especially money spent on research and development of the process.

Now, I am at the point where I have found that all of the cocaine I recieve here, plus that of my friend in L.A., my friend in Jacksonville, FL, my friend in Chicago and finally my best friend in Detroit have all tested positive for amphetamine in their cocaine.

With the help of some very knowledgeable people on this site, I have found a way to extract the cocaine from the amphetamine. Just this last weekend I actually tried it for the first time and it was incredible! A little more fine tuning and perfection of the process, and I will post a thread on the exact procedure involved in doing this.

People with negativism, not to mention any names, I will ignore, for those who seek true knowledge and the keys to refining their coke, my knowledge will prove to be invaluable to them.

So, I bid your comments a fair well and I assume you will not be trying the process yourself as you have already totaled up the numbers.

;)
 
Originally posted by Le Junk
With the help of some very knowledgeable people on this site, I have found a way to extract the cocaine from the amphetamine. Just this last weekend I actually tried it for the first time and it was incredible! A little more fine tuning and perfection of the process, and I will post a thread on the exact procedure involved in doing this.

People with negativism, not to mention any names, I will ignore, for those who seek true knowledge and the keys to refining their coke, my knowledge will prove to be invaluable to them.

excellent. this is what i'm talking about. great contribution.

when you tell somebody "your coke is cut with speed" when you have no idea whether it is or not, and you are just making assumptions - that's a totally different story.

alasdair
 
Hi Chem Gen, it is good to see you guys are back in business. The more tests that get to the public, the better.
There are however some things I would like to say about the way you are and have been marketing your products in the past.

On your website from the past you were claiming that with the mandelin reagent , people could tell the difference between meth and amphetamines. With these kind of tests this discrimination is not possible! You will have to use other tests to do this!

Also the information you are giving with your cobalt coke test is not completely correct:
First of all, EZ Test White is totally different from the old fashioned cobalt tests. The reagents and the technical specs are very different so they cannot be compared. It does not help that you have named one of your reagents Co-test White. This will be very confusing for the public.

Second, a cobalt test can't tell you anything about purity. You're saying something about relative purity, but that's impossible with this test, which is only good for the presumptive identification of cocaine.

Third, there are many substances that will give a false positive with any cobalt based reagent. To name a few: lidocaine, benzocaine, procaine, methamphetamine, diphenhydramine, pcp, heroin, ephedrine and quinine.

I think it's great that you guys are back in business, but I would appreciate it if you would pay more attention when you're writing your promotional texts and stick to the facts, both positive and negative. Don't try to sell tests to people that do not completely do what people are made to expect from them, it is harmful for the whole harm reduction through testing principle, and makes other suppliers also look bad.
 
nicely said easy e

i respect how you came about with this response, because frankly, i would have been PISSED if another company posted an ad and link for a similar product on my thread....but since its public forums, its nobodys land(except the site owners)...

well put....
but Chem Gen, i believe it was of poor taste for you to post your product in a thread started by easy. i know its business, but you easily could have started ANOTHER thread.
 
Moderator - i don't agree that just because EZ test support your site, that you should remove all other businesses that promote AND support the techncial content of this site, and work to bring harm minimistaion product to the market (at better prices). Without Chemical Generation & Revelar(and competition in the mareketplace) there would probably be no Mandelin reagent. Perhaps you could provide an opportunity for opening of the lines of communication to discuss your position and needs, prior to removing the post.

On the topic of a new post - it was a post on new cocaine tester. We have a new one as well - i was trying to share that in a common forum, and wasn't aware i should raise a new post. Please clarify how you would like me to do so in future.

To respond the the post by Easy E.....

Thanks for your feedback and opinions Easy E.... here are some of mine....

The website information indicated that you could tell the difference between amphetamine and methamphetamine, as well as MDA and MDMA, using Mandelin reagent. We brought Mandelin to the world, and did a lot of research for it, so we know the product well. If you are an experienced tester and use good 'advanced' testing techniques (as we've previously shared), you can tell the difference. We've never claimed that this should be considered as conclusive proof. Merely - if you test carefully you will see the difference. And when we say 'difference', we don't mean black/white, we mean subtle colour CHANGES. You, and many people in tester-land, seem to be very focussed on immediate colour. These testers should be viewed as a colour change over a period - as outliined in our advanced testing techniques. Perhaps i can suggest that you read these?

With the new Cocaine tester from Revelar, again we've done years of research into the products, and detemined the best combination of products to avoid false positives. Cobaltous thiocyanate (modified - Co-Kit Blue) is still very much a leading edge tester, and yes, the new tester is very different to yours. The name of the second tester (Co-Kit white) is an unfortunate coincidence for you.

The combination of these two products end up giving you very similar information about the presence of Cocaine and the relative purity. With the two-pack product, the second tester was designed to pick up those compounds that give false positives to the cobalt thiocyanate tester (a known issue with all these single cobalt thiocyanate based testers). In this way, when used in combination, you end up with a very high level of assurance.

You have made a strong comment on the suitability of our cobalt based cocaine testers for determining purity without having any informaiton about our new product. I consider it inappropriate to comment on something so strongly when you know nothing about it. Please don't. More information to follow on our website on the purity aspects of the Co-Kit Blue product (www.revelar.com.au)

On the subject of false positives, as mentioned above, this is well recognised, and is why we have a specialised combination two-pack product. Some of the compounds you mention would only show up with testers such as Marquis and Mandelin - which we recognise, and is part of our testing regime.

I congratulate you on your new Cocaine tester. Whilst i have not had the pleasure to use your new Cocaine tester product, i will at some stage, and will provide some feedback. I remain concerned at the use of what i think is Chloroform, as well as the 'single' tester - there is always something that can fool a single tester! That's why we brought out Mandelin (to support Marquis - and which now is considered a better product), and also why we have a two-pack Cocaine tester!

Thanks for the welcome back - it's been a long few years, but it gave me heaps of time for Revelar to do a whole lot of research, product development and testing.

I think that of anyone here, i have always stuck to the facts, and have one of the strongest backgroudns in research and application of these testers - i have HUNDREDS of journals and papers on many and varied topics, and support this with field research through user groups. This is on the back of a very solid chemistry degree and years of industry experience in drugs.

Our motivation is to bring harm minimisation products to the world - as evidenced by Mandelin a few years ago, and our support of harm minimisation groups. Yes, we are a business, and so are you, but we are not motivated by greed.

I personally believe that I have significantly improved the technical knowledge base of this site, and the reputations of all tester producers.

Good luck with your new products. It will indeed be interesting to see what happens as Chemical Generation and Revelar lauch new product world wide...... stay tuned.....

B.
 
Well, I am not going to waste my time and energy on a pointless discussion, however, there are a couple of things that I want to say to you.
First of all, I find your allegations, where you say that we do not know anything about testing drugs and are motivated solely by greed, appalling! I would like to remind you that EZ Test, which was the first ecstasy test kit that was offered to the public, goes back until 1996 and is still going strong.
We chose to be a company because it would ensure our independence and it makes doing business easier. Making a profit is necessary to the point where we need to make money to stay in business, we are not completely geared towards making a profit just for the sake of the profit.

Our continuous efforts in promoting awareness about the whole field of testing street drugs has led to the arrival of several other suppliers of these test, which we have always greeted with much enthusiasm. The more tests that are brought to the public the better! Our good reputation in the marketplace has been achieved through our focus on providing people with the equipment and information they need and this is exactly where I think you can improve yourself.

You're making it sound like testing street drugs is rocket science, where we both know that ALL of these techniques go back to the 50's and 60's, when sophisticated equipment was not readily available.
Mandelin, Marquis, Mecke, Scott and Simons reagents are therefore hardly innovations, the recipes of these have been known for ages and their applicability is well documented.

I have read your 'advanced testing techniques' and just cannot seem to find anything that explains the chemistry behind your claim that these tests can tell the difference between primary and secondary amines.
Both Mandelin and Marquis work as follows: sulphuric acid works as a dehydrant and oxidant. first, the aromatic compound (benzene ring) condensates, then it oxidizes the resulting diarylmethylene compound to colored p-quinoidal products.
This reaction does not seem to be affected by the exact place of the nitrogen (which makes the difference between a primary and secondary amine). If you can show me the chemistry that proves otherwise: please let me know and I will offer you my apologies. When testing for secondary and primary amines you will need another class of tests, in this case Simons and Robadope reagents (btw: the latter is an EZ Test only true innovation).

For the coke test you are going to lauch soon:
I have made the same test a couple of years ago, it is a modified version of Scott reagent, where the modification is probably a water-glycerol mixture in solution 1.
I have abandoned this project for the reason that the results were not reliable enough. All it does is prove that there is (some) cocaine present in a sample, which is almost always the case.
Therefore, at the time I did not think much of the test and I still don't.
EZ Test White does not react to other drugs such as: heroin, methaqualone, PCP, quinine, methamphetamine,barbiturates, procaine, benzocaine, tetracaine,lidocaine, butacaine, and methapyrilene, and i know that there are substances on this list that would give a false positive with your test .
I would have loved to read on your web site which substances it tests for and which it doesn't, but unfortunately the information was not there.

This is exactly my point about your way of giving information: it is either unsubstantiated, not (entirely) true or just not there. Just stick to the facts, both positive and negative! You do not need this kind of sales technique to bring your products to the public!
Again, I am happy to see you guys are back in business, but I hope you will improve the quality of information that you're giving. Misinforming the public only creates insecurity with the public and it is not good for the harm reduction scene at all.
 
Easy, Easy E... i never said that you were motivated by greed - my apologies if thatt's how you read it. I said that we weren't! I believe that we have very common ground in this respect.

Some of the background behind these testers isn't so much rocket science, but old chemistry that dates well back, as you mentioned. However, they have developed over time, and more informtaion is now available if you know how to find it. All current testers have been around for a very long time - it's just the choice of which is best for the applications, and who decides/determines it first.

Our websites are under construction, with some of the basic (important) information there rigth now. There's more to come - we've only just found our feet again! As for mechanism of reaction - it's different between Marquis and Mandelin. Marquis has the formaldehyde to conjugate and form coloured compounds - i'm surprised you didn't know this! I've posted on this before (can someone link?)!

I do agree that if you want to know the differnce between primary and secondary amine, you should use another reagent.

You've missed the point on the Cocaine tester - its a TWO pack. Those materials that show up positivie to the first one, will be detected by the second one. This will be a world first! You are stilll making comment on something that hasn't been released, and that you don't know what it is or does. Just because you've tried it, and it didn't work for you, doesn't mean i can't get it to work. Further information will be available on the website in the near future.

There's no misinformation being prodvided by our companies. Please don't cast doubt on our capabilities without fact. I am above that at the moment, but could easily launch into detailed analysis, disection and rebuttal of many of your products and claims. Issues such a validation and stability testing stick firmly in my mind as areas that may not have been throughly investigated to support products currently being marketed by many companies, including yours.
 
Here's the basic reaction mechanism with Marquis and Morphine that I took from 'Thin-Layer Chromatography' by Jork et al. Volume 1b, page 300

Marquis_Reaction.gif


Also, from the same publication, colour change with Mandelin can also be attributed to change in the oxidation state of the Vanadyl ion (from V to IV).


Chemical Generation, I'm not sure if these are the links you are requesting, but these are what came up using your username and 'mechanism'

age of EZ test and reaction time

Fooling the EZ test


BTW guys, although a bit heated in places, this has been a very interesting discussion to follow ;)
 
Last edited:
I get the same effect from yay nowadays too. Its just u building up a tolerance and not some cut. You gotta relize that once u do coke for so long u don't speed anymore it just allows u to concentrate. Trust me im in the same situation and i know it sucks donkey balls on a hot summer afternoon!
 
Diggitydank420 said:
I get the same effect from yay nowadays too. Its just u building up a tolerance and not some cut. You gotta relize that once u do coke for so long u don't speed anymore it just allows u to concentrate. Trust me im in the same situation and i know it sucks donkey balls on a hot summer afternoon!
Click to expand...

Since when does "good" coke make you speed? In fact, "good" coke actually makes you slow down, become very clear, euphoric and extremely sexual.

I'm wondering if you've ever even gotten this kind of coke.

Let me ask you this, just how long would you consider "so long" that you've been personally doing cocaine?
 
I didn't even realize how shitty the coke I was getting was until last night when somebody cut me some real lines.

It was how Le Junk describes it. I was euphoric, but even more amazing, I was actually relaxed. No anxiety and no comedown.

8o

I'm now interested in taking the time to purify my coke.
 
Le Junk said:
Since when does "good" coke make you speed? In fact, "good" coke actually makes you slow down, become very clear, euphoric and extremely sexual.

I'm wondering if you've ever even gotten this kind of coke.

Let me ask you this, just how long would you consider "so long" that you've been personally doing cocaine?
Click to expand...

Maybe it isn't my place to talk, since I just started doing coke a month or so ago, but I believe Le Junk's argument about good coke and bad coke. I have tried both, and I've experienced daily usage of over a gram and a half of 'A' coke for several weeks. It has lost no magic, I have not started fiending, I have had almost nonexistant comedowns. Now, a few days ago after several days off of cocaine, since I was lacking money, I picked up a bag from a different guy. It didn't smell as strongly of cocaine, it was very powdery, it was not pearlescent, and it gave me the jitters and an asshole comedown. Yesterday I got some from the usual guy and damn, its still good.

This seems to support the theory that there is good cocaine, and bad cocaine, yes?
 
easy_e: any follow up info on wether or not EZ Test is planning on a heroin purity test?

I know its been asked, im just asking for any possible updates.
 
I am thinking about it, but I am still very unfamiliar with the substance and its adulterants. if anyone can explain to me what the most common adulterants are and what makes the different qualities of h (china white, class 4, etc) I can find out what kind of testing is best.
 
i can do research for you and give you some information within the next few days if youd like.
 
CUTS:
talc, sugars, quinine, local anesthetics, flour, sodium bicarbonate, amphetamines, phencyclidine, cocaine, and scopolamine.

TYPES:
From Rachamim18
Only #s 3 and 4 actually apply to heroin per se. 1 and 2 apply to processed morphine [don't ask me why]. 3 is actually heroin base and 4 is a water soluble salt. Tar, is simply acetylated opium with no purification whatsoever and neglects any intermediate steps so that it never becomes morphine during synthesis. Tar falls outside of the numbering system obviously.

So basically the only difference in the two types is one is water soluable.

Thats all the info i could find. Thanks Rosclot and Rachamim18 for the info on types.
 
How about that... More ways for people to make themselves a mint off of harm reduction. Part of harm reduction is outreach... At least past what any idiot could mimic in product and price while making 1000%+ profit off some sulfuric acid and formaldehyde (in the case of Marquis at least).

Still neat product though..
 
The question is how many drug users will go out and get some sulfuric acid and formaldehyde to test shit for themselves. If somebody makes money in the process of getting products that do it for you out there on the market, then more power to them I say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top