• MDMA &
    Empathogenic
    Drugs

    Welcome Guest!
  • MDMA Moderators:

Moonrock Molly

I dont see it as deep chemistry.

This is not an accurate thing to say because its not 99% pure MDMA. 16% of the mass by physical default is NOT MDMA.

Saying the following is more accurate:

A sample of MDMA is usually an HCL salt

In its HCL form the mass of MDMA is 84% (84% pure)

So when Shulgin writes this in his journal:

"(with 120 mg) As the material came on I felt that I was being enveloped, and my attention had to be directed to it...."



He is not referring to 120mg MDMA HCL but is actually referring to 120mg MDMA + (x) amount of Hydrochloric Acid?
 
Last edited:
So when Shulgin writes this in his journal:

"(with 120 mg) As the material came on I felt that I was being enveloped, and my attention had to be directed to it...."

He is not referring to 120mg MDMA HCL but is actually referring to 120mg MDMA + (x) amount of Hydrochloric Acid?

Good point. Could be either?

I dont know if its HCL would have to check the synth method?

If he doesnt specify HCL (or what ever salt) then I assume he means 120mG of pure MDMA. In order to do this he would have removed the salt mass from the measurement.

This is only an assumption I dont know the answer to this question.

PIHKAL is the source.

Interesting Question. I will take a look :)
 
Final salt formation below. The salt is HCL for sure.

This was dissolved in 200 mL IPA, neutralized with about 17 mL of concentrated HCl, and then treated with 400 mL anhydrous Et2O. After filtering off the white crystals, washing with an IPA/Et2O mixture, (2:1), with Et2O, and final air drying, there was obtained 42.0 g of 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine (MDMA) as a fine white crystal. The actual form that the final salt takes depends upon the temperature and concentration at the moment of the initial crystallization. It can be anhydrous, or it can be any of several hydrated forms.

Interesting that he talks about the crystal form being either anhydrous or hydrated. Effectively completely free from water or loaded with water.

If it were a hydrated crystal the MDMA purity would be weaker.

If he is discussing the potential for different crystal strengths >

To be completely scientific I can only assume that when he sais 120mG MDMA he means 120mG pure MDMA ie 120mG MDMA + ACID.

I dont know for sure. Its a shrewd observation you have made.
 
I have actually started a thread on there because as I was PMing sekio I realised a few opinions might be better.

I also got thinking and wondered if the ecstasydata info is HCL Bond or MDMA Molecule test?

I suspect its MDMA Molecule because they refuse to confirm the salt type due to DEA restrictions.

If you dont know the salt then 120mG of MDMA whatever salt is useless information as it could be anything from about 40% to 80% pure.

Based on how GC/MS works I think it just detects the MDMA molecule not the MDMA>Salt bond.

I also read somewhere that GC/MS wont even detect salt bonds. On this basis the edata info would have to be based on the assumption they are just measuring the MDMA molecules nothing else.

I have also asked this question on my ADD thread. I will update this one as soon as I have an answer.
 
Do these different salts you speak of have any impact on cell membrane permeability and/or crossing of blood brain barrier?
 
They sure do. The molecule size of the salt bond molecule I beleive is what causes the difference.

Different salts produce different highs.

MDMA acetate is reported to be longer lasting. Why this happens I have absolutely no idea currently.

Its the same theory as the red wine idea we were discussing on the 90s thread. Red wine containing Citric and Tartric acids.
Here are my latest book links for more research:

neuroscience

http://www.4shared.com/folder/HgxxoNqT/Neuroscience.html

synth

http://www.4shared.com/folder/nM4gT-vL/General_Synthesis.html
 
The 120mg suggested by Shulgin and commonly accepted is 120mg of MDMA.HCl. No one uses MDMA freebase, and nearly every piece of literature there discussing or suggesting dosing is referring to MDMA.HCl. That's why the 99% point of view is only ever relevant. If you have 120mg of MDMA.HCl that is 99% pure, you have exactly the right amount of drug if you want to take the Shulgin-recommended amount.

As there is no accurate way for testing for purity is any % of purity mass relevant to the user?

Exactly! But if you successfully convince someone that their 99% pure MDMA.HCl is actually only 84% MDMA (which is true, but useless and somewhat misleading - the very definition of pedantic), they start thinking they should be taking 142mg instead of 120mg to get the recommended dose. If they're already double-dosing it and doing 250, now they think they need 297mg to get that dose. So clearly there is a potential HR cost ; what is the benefit gained in return? I don't see it.

The only relevance is the theory. Based on theory there is no such thing as 99% pure MDMA in salt.

The best solution to this troubling piece of semantics would be if every user started referring to the drug they take as MDMA.HCl. Then we can all breathe more easily and not panic when someone says something is 99% pure.
 
Last edited:
What about if you see a pill on ecstasydata.org measuring 120mG is that also okay to take? Or is it infact 142mG of MDMA HCL because the GC/MS is only measuring the MDMA molecule? Does anyone in reality care?

I assumed all that 84% stuff that was being argued upon recently was just mental masturbation, but you make a very good point.

IIRC, pillreports base the pills and extract with a np then test the freebase mdma. IF they are reporting the amount of mdma in pills as the FB without taking into account the 16% BW hcl addition with the salt it does make things a bit confusing and misrepresents the amount of mdma hcl in the pills. It makes sense to pay attention to this hcl/84% stuff now.

Also, IIRC, all salts usually convert to hcls in the stomach. Since you got a big vat of hcl stomach acid down there and its strong enough to convert them from their initial salts to the hcl. At least thats what i've heard about other psychedelics that were salts other than the hcl. So in terms of different absorption/pharmacological differences in regards to the different salts it really makes no difference so long as you are taking into consideration the potency difference that accompanys different salts due to the molecular weight of the acid used. The only difference should be the time it takes to convert to the hcl in the stomach vs hcl already, and the weight difference for different salts.
 
Last edited:
The 120mg suggested by Shulgin and commonly accepted is 120mg of MDMA.HCl. No one uses MDMA freebase, and nearly every piece of literature there discussing or suggesting dosing is referring to MDMA.HCl. That's why the 99% point of view is only ever relevant. If you have 120mg of MDMA.HCl that is 99% pure, you have exactly the right amount of drug if you want to take the Shulgin-recommended amount.

According to the thread started on ADD it seems that you are correct. Several people on there make very valid points. However, I have yet to see solid proof that the doses specified by Shulgin are HCL or MDMA. It would not surprise me at all if someone emailed him and he said "no not HCL I meant just 120mG of MDMA molecule". A statement in his book or from himself would clear this up.

As someone points out on ADD. Due to the relatively low concentration of MDMA (ie circu 100mG per hit) say compared to LSD (ie circu 50uG) this doesnt make too much of a difference. Therefore assume HCL.

As there is no accurate way for testing for purity is any % of purity mass relevant to the user?

Exactly! But if you successfully convince someone that their 99% pure MDMA.HCl is actually only 84% MDMA (which is true, but useless and somewhat misleading - the very definition of pedantic), they start thinking they should be taking 142mg instead of 120mg to get the recommended dose. If they're already double-dosing it and doing 250, now they think they need 297mg to get that dose. So clearly there is a potential HR cost ; what is the benefit gained in return? I don't see it.

In my opinion its not useless, misleading and pedantic. Explaination as to why a drug can only be 84% strength is not useless. It could be misleading if you dont understand the concept of it. By all accounts everyone does hence why we are having this debate. I think its a bit of an elitist attitude to assume all E users are idiots and require simplistic HR advice so they can take E safely. Everyone deserves the real FACTS. Knowing about how a drug exists in freebase form, why and understanding why it comes in crystal format salt form, potential potency etc etc is important information.

Why is the OP asking about purity strength in the first place? I dunno but I am sure he would prefer to understand a little about the theory behind MDMA strength rather than being told dont worrey about it? Maybe not who knows.

Is it pedantic? If edata came back and said all the doses are measured MDMA molecule only and everyone has been assuming it was HCL. This would tell me that the % doesnt really matter + or - 16% has made not an i ota of difference. No one was even aware of it.

If that is the case you could argue it is pedantic but if someone asks I will always tell them.

The best solution to this troubling piece of semantics would be if every user started referring to the drug they take as MDMA.HCl. Then we can all breathe more easily and not panic when someone says something is 99% pure.

Making these assumptions with MDMA is probably okay as proven with edata + or - 16% doesnt really matter. However, make these assumptions with the likes of LSD, DOM and other more potent RC drugs you have more of a problem.

What we can effectively say here is two options -

Which one is the best for HR?

I assume what you are saying:

(1) MDMA is assumed to be HCL most of the time. We assume Shulgins doses measure HCL in his dose reports. We dont know what edata are testing for but we dont care. We dont know how many pills contain other salts and as a result could be anything upto 50% weaker but we dont care. We must all stick by these theories and keep things simple for the benefits of HR. As a result assume all doses mean MDMA HCL. If a dealer sais its 99% pure it could be.

What I am saying:

(2) MDMA can exist in many salt forms. We dont know if Shulgins doses measure HCL or Molecule in his dose reports, We dont know if edata mean HCL or Molecule in their dose reports, In most cases MDMA Salt purity can range from 50% - 84% depending on the type of MDMA salt you have. MDMA HCL contains 84% MDMA and 16% acid. We dont know how many pills contain other salts but they do exist. MDMA crystal can be hydrated (ie contain water) (and be many other things to make it weaker) and when told by a dealer its 99% pure MDMA dont beleive it because unless its oil (mdma freebase) it aint. Its a salt! In regards to drugs question everything assume nothing. HR = as much fact as possible avoid assumption where possible.

Do you choose (1) or (2)?

Please feel free to edit your version then lets throw it out there and see what people say :)

It will be a fun way of figuring this out.

I assumed all that 84% stuff that was being argued upon recently was just mental masturbation, but you make a very good point.

Cheers for the heads up :)

IIRC, pillreports base the pills and extract with a np then test the freebase mdma. IF they are reporting the amount of mdma in pills as the FB without taking into account the 16% BW hcl addition with the salt it does make things a bit confusing and misrepresents the amount of mdma hcl in the pills. It makes sense to pay attention to this hcl/84% stuff now.

I would agree with this 100%. As I understand it GC/MS cannot detect salt bonds. Therefore does the GC/MS just pick up the HCL and measure this or in the process of breking up the molecules in a pill sample does it just pick up on the MDMA molecule? You could argue if we have survived up till now does this really matter? Personally it would be nice to find out.

So in terms of different absorption/pharmacological differences in regards to the different salts it really makes no difference so long as you are taking into consideration the potency difference that accompanys different salts due to the molecular weight of the acid used.

I see your point - of course dose allowing but as I hear it MDMA acetate for example is longer lasting. Why this is I dont have an answer. Might be another one for ADD :D

The only difference should be the time it takes to convert to the hcl in the stomach vs hcl already, and the weight difference for different salts.

How ionic salt bonds work in the stomach I dont honestly know. Many times I have heard that different MDMA salts produce a very different buzz. I have no first hand experience of this (or at least I dont think i do :D ) so DUNNO.

I would be very interested to hear if someone does know a bit more about it.
 
Last edited:
Thanks to Torabora from ADD for this valuable comment

In a GC/MS a drug sample is normaly prepared with a base so that the GC/MS can scan for the freebase which also has a lot lower boiling point as you can not analyze samples with a very high boiling point like MDMA-sulphate which would decompose before evaporating.

Evaporating works for example for methamphetamine-HCl but also im not sure if you could inject methamphetamine.HCl directly onto the GC/MS column.

Plain Amphetamine is normally the sulphate because the hydrochloride is very hygroscopic and not easy to sell/handle/store or even to crystallize.

For calculating the amount of mdma in a Pill with GC/MS you would normally do the following:

Get a reference from a reliable supplier like Sigma-Aldrich, do a calibration curve (or do all measurements with internal standard doesn't matter)
Take like 10mg of the Pill solve it in water 0.2mL Water then basify and extract with like 0.2mL EE or ether or whatever. Measure it out, calculate the concentration with your calibration curve and now you have the absolute concentration of MDMA in the 10mg. Calculate on the whole mass of the pill and voalia your done. Now you can calculate the amount of mg of MDMA as the HCl salt, the sulpahte salt, phosphate salt whatever doesn't matter the amount MDMA stays the same.

And Im pretty sure Shulgin meant the HCl salt. Anyway it wouldn't be such a problem if you will "overdose" with like 16% you will not die or anything so relax take 120mg and just give a shit about what salt it is.
 
You're woefully misinterpreting what I said, and to use what seems to be your favorite word to (incorrectly) put into my mouth, I'm going to assume that it is on purpose, for the sake of "winning" an internet argument. In light of that, I'm going to step out of this discussion and let it run its course. Your posts indicate that you have great respect for the posters in ADD, and for Sekio. If that is the case, then why don't you take some time for further consideration of the responses you got there, and for why the thread was eventually closed?
 
You're woefully misinterpreting what I said, and to use what seems to be your favorite word to (incorrectly) put into my mouth, I'm going to assume that it is on purpose, for the sake of "winning" an internet argument. In light of that, I'm going to step out of this discussion and let it run its course.

Fair point just trying a different approach as its in many ways opinion based. Sorry if I offended you. I can understand how you see it this way.

Your posts indicate that you have great respect for the posters in ADD, and for Sekio.

I have respect for everyone on here. Including yourself.

If that is the case, then why don't you take some time for further consideration of the responses you got there, and for why the thread was eventually closed?

People are often called stupid on ADD. I noticed the dude hurling the insults does it on other ADD threads also. It was refreshing to see other members didnt like it. You have to stomach it or walk away. Yes the thread was closed I dont know why for sure maybe Sekio felt it had run its course I dont think I offended anyone? He clearly felt in some way it didnt warrant further discussion. I dont honestly know. I did consider PMing him but then decided to leave it lie.

Some very good points were made however and as always I learn from my ADD posts. From memory the previous one I may have incurred some insults but I just see it as entertaining and dont insult back.

I am sorry that you dont want to take part in this discussion anymore. Once again I apologise if I offended you.
 
Last edited:
I wanted to avoid being "that guy" who says he's leaving the discussion and then keeps on posting, but after some talk through PM I've been convinced to re-post my full arguments into the thread. Here they are:

"
I wasn't referring to the guy who called you or your post stupid in there, and I'm also not trying to call you or the topic stupid. I'm just trying to stop the perpetuation of a myth. I get that YOU seem to understand what you're actually saying when you make the 84% purity claim. But from my own observations and experience, most of the people who read it and repeat it don't. They think it means something very different from what it really does.

I'll quote some of the posts I was referring to more specifically.

Sekio:

"I would expect most reported doses to be "normalised" to the HCl salt dosage" with regards to the GC/MS testing in ecstasydata.org and similar labs

and

"Rule of thumb: treat all doses for MDMA as the HCl salt unless explicity specified otherwise."

Both are good points. While you are not wrong that there can be other salts, it is wrong to invest a lot of worry and thought into these other salts (unless you are making them), because no one out there commercially producing MDMA is making them. The HCl is just too easy and well-established for people to waste their time playing with other salts when their real interest is making money.

As for the first one - I agree with sekio there too. It is very likely that the labs are well aware that most people are basing their ideas of what an appropriate dose is on Shulgin's recommendations. They are also aware that the vast majority of users are not especially chemistry-literate and are either not aware or not concerned with the various salts. So while they report their data simply as MDMA (and as Torabora posted, are doing their GC/MS analysis on MDMA freebase), they are performing the simple calculation required to normalize that mass back to the mass of MDMA.HCl that was in the original pill.

Next:

From 8ft-sativa:

"If I have 84% MDMA HCL and I want to take a classic 120mg dose as described by Shulgin do I take that 120mg or should I bump the dose up to account for the 16% acid molecule?"

A perfect illustration of EXACTLY what I suggested might happen in one of my posts. A person who has a limited understanding of chemistry (NOT stupid, just a lack of experience in chemistry), takes what is being discussed and draws inaccurate conclusions from it.

And the same idea, in a broader perspective; from Amanitadine:

"A tiny, tiny, tiny amount of knowledge can be a very, very, very dangerous thing. Oh and confusing too! Cripes."

Ever heard the saying that someone "knows just enough to be dangerous"? That's what is going on here and that is the birthplace of this whole 84%/99% argument.

_______

Finally, my own analogy for why I call the debate pedantic.

Lets imagine someone who isn't very familiar with the english language is asking someone to tell them what number is referred to when someone says "two oh five". Someone responds, telling them that the "two" means 2, the "oh" means 0, and the five means "5", so the person means the number "205".

Mr. Pedantic steps in to correct the responder, announcing that "oh" is actually the letter O and that if the speaker meant "205", he would have said "two zero five". He isn't wrong, that is technically correct, albeit totally useless. Any person who is familiar with the english language will easily and certainly recognize this as pedantic nitpicking, a distinction that no one familiar with the english language needs. However, our original questioner is NOT familiar with the english language, having only a passing knowledge of it from the little bit that he has used (the average drug user's knowledge of chemistry). He has absolutely no basis on which to choose to listen to the first answerer or Mr. Pedantic. Like I said before, this isn't because the asker is stupid, but simply because of a lack of knowledge and frame of reference. The result: the original asker sort of has his question answered, but is now left with more doubt and confusion than he started with, and will likely pass this on to others.

Even if the asker does not become confused, gets his question answered, AND learns the proper distinction between "two oh five" and "two zero five", there is no tangible, usable benefit to anyone
"
 
I wanted to avoid being "that guy" who says he's leaving the discussion and then keeps on posting, but after some talk through PM I've been convinced to re-post my full arguments into the thread. Here they are:

I just read on ADD you are a PHD student in Organic Chemistry so I might have a question or two for you later so I am glad we got that straightened out :) :) . Sorry for sounding possibley OTT before.

I am a really bad sufferer of OCD so sometimes my personality gets the better of me. Back on track now so all good. There are some people heading over from the Australian Group as many people into pills etc are intersted in this topic. So great to be discussing this with you.

It is a great shame sekio shut that thread down sometimes I feel things that dont have a definite and quick answer arent the place for ADD. I guess he might have a point.

Anyway..

wasn't referring to the guy who called you or your post stupid in there, and I'm also not trying to call you or the topic stupid. I'm just trying to stop the perpetuation of a myth. I get that YOU seem to understand what you're actually saying when you make the 84% purity claim. But from my own observations and experience, most of the people who read it and repeat it don't. They think it means something very different from what it really does.

I see your point. This is a fair comment. if you dont understand the concept then in terms of HR it adds another 16% dose if you fuck it up.

I guess we then have to work out what will happen if you do fuck it up. Heres a roll play:

Walk into dealers appartment dealer spouts "I have 100% pure moonrocks". Customer thinks to himself these can only be 84% pure this must be bullshit. With this knowledge in his head he isnt "blown away" by the claim as he does understand that there is no such thing as a "moonrock" and also knows the crystal is only really a salt. Now in this calmer approached "not so blown away" approach he negociates a lower priced deal and walks away.

Deal done.. PROBLEM

The MDMA supplied is fused salt. It looks like big crystals. Thats okay. Next problem thefused crystals are imports from Holand they are very pure, amost white and anhydrous. They are infact 99.7% pure MDMA HCL.

That night customers mates arrive they are all off to a rave to neck some MDMA, meet some hot pussy and tear up the dance floor of their local rave establishment. They decide they are going to be responsible ravers and follow the bluelight HR guidelines limiting themselves to 150mG dose each. They crack out the scales and weigh up 179mG each alowing for the "un pure" substance supplied to them.

The consequences are they have now taken 179mG not the recomended 150mG as recomended by bluelight.

At this moment my argument is floored because 4 ravers have now gobbled too much MDMA and your point stands true.

but..

My next qustion is what is the 150mG safe dose based upon? Is it Shulgins recommendations? Is it info from personal experience? Is it information grabbed from Edata on certain pills? The likely answer is we dont know.

The big question is does this potential 16% OD present a risk (in a sense yes)(however whats our reference?)

Is it better that people attempt to understand the 84% purity theory? and if they get it wrong it doesnt matter?

Could we argue in the process of undersanding this information you are taking an interest in what you are doing and or more likely to be cautious.

At this point I honestly dont know i do take your point. I would request a chime at this point and maybe seek the opinion of other members.

Sekio: "I would expect most reported doses to be "normalised" to the HCl salt dosage" with regards to the GC/MS testing in ecstasydata.org and similar labs

I would expect also. I think if the ecstasydata call comes back "normalised" to HCL then I am in agreement with you and I fully understand your point. I have emailed both ecstasydata and also streetworx. if this "normalised" theory is correct then I will keep my mouth shut about the 84% purity issue :)

Both are good points. While you are not wrong that there can be other salts, it is wrong to invest a lot of worry and thought into these other salts (unless you are making them), because no one out there commercially producing MDMA is making them. The HCl is just too easy and well-established for people to waste their time playing with other salts when their real interest is making money.

(unless you are making them)
:D

I have a theory for you.

Say ecstasydata measure for the salt. ie they just measure the spike of the MDMA molecule and add the 16% to "normalise" the dose as sekio suggests. Lets imagine for arguments sake this is what they do.

Now say you are the defqon dance lab. You manufacture a pill that has "DANCE" stamped on the back. You wont be surprised to hear they are dancey. users like them. They have dutch super pill status. Now if you decided to make these with a citric acid you have the following:

MDMA Molecule - 193.2 Molecular Mass
Citric Acid - 192.12 Molecular Mass
MDMA Purity - rounds to 50%

Now if the ecstasydata lab measures just the MDMA molecule and just bumps up by 16% to account for an HCL salt you now "fool" edata by 34%.

A 200mG defqon could infact be 132mG MDMA. Users report them as full on come up but very very short lived. in my opinion it is highly likely a defqon dance is infact a 132mG MDMA citrate pill and NO ONE knows any wiser.

I hear countless reports of people moaning about the short life of a defqon dance. The citrate is making the pill more full on than an HCL pill

Thats my theory. On this basis.

as a result
it is wrong to invest a lot of worry and thought into these other salts
i dont agree.

If edata come back and say we test for all salts and 99.9% of pills are HCL I eat my words but.. I have a feeling they dont have a need to test for MDMA salt and as a result an alternative salt pill slips the radar. An awful lot more than we might think.

At this point your chem knowledge may come into play and it would be interesting to discuss the Freebase to Salt conversion and addresss the issue of how easy crashing or resolving a citrate crystal batch might be. Hygroscopy as I understand it is quite an issue with these heavier acids. However I also understand certain binders and fleurs can combat this issue in pill manufacturing.

Finally, my own analogy for why I call the debate pedantic.

you might have a point but I am all ears. :)

Lets imagine someone who isn't very familiar with the english language is asking someone to tell them what number is referred to when someone says "two oh five". Someone responds, telling them that the "two" means 2, the "oh" means 0, and the five means "5", so the person means the number "205".

Mr. Pedantic steps in to correct the responder, announcing that "oh" is actually the letter O and that if the speaker meant "205", he would have said "two zero five". He isn't wrong, that is technically correct, albeit totally useless. Any person who is familiar with the english language will easily and certainly recognize this as pedantic nitpicking, a distinction that no one familiar with the english language needs. However, our original questioner is NOT familiar with the english language, having only a passing knowledge of it from the little bit that he has used (the average drug user's knowledge of chemistry). He has absolutely no basis on which to choose to listen to the first answerer or Mr. Pedantic. Like I said before, this isn't because the asker is stupid, but simply because of a lack of knowledge and frame of reference. The result: the original asker sort of has his question answered, but is now left with more doubt and confusion than he started with, and will likely pass this on to others.

Even if the asker does not become confused, gets his question answered, AND learns the proper distinction between "two oh five" and "two zero five", there is no tangible, usable benefit to anyone

mmm My first comment this is a well designed analogy. Nice work. You have me thinking :)

The example above is clearly wrong. pointing out the definition of "O" in the context against zero is confusing. On the basis the users english will be limited it is unnecessary detail for that moment in their learning process. I guess once they reach an advance stage of english i assume this detail would then be pointed out.

The point now is the average BL user are they at this simple level or ready to take on more information?

(1) Does a user on ED warrant the discussion of salt molecule and what do they gain by this information? (2) is it unsafe to be dishing this info out?

(1) I would like to think the average user on BL has the nouse to grasp this concept. To me it seems relatively simple. Most users I discuss this with are fascinated by it. they seem to grasp it very quickly. the main reaction is fascination into something they never even thought about. We as people like to appear knowledgable amongst our peers. If a raver can sit in a pre club bar and chat with his raver mates about why MDMA might be only 84% pure it will give him a sense of pride. Once you start giving people this knowledge it makes them look for more. Now your looking for more your becoming more aware.

My current condition is not caused by a lack of intelligence but a lack of awareness. Once you start throwing these theories out there I reckon it improves drug awareness.

(2) From my analogy at the start of my post I honestly think + or - 16% due to the potency factor of MDMA (ie not like LSD or DOC) then it doesnt really matter.

It would not surprise me at all if Shulgin came back in an email and said no 120mG is molecule weight only to allow for hydrated crystals and to keep things regularised.

It would not surprise me if edata came back and said they are only measuring MDMA molecule have not an i ota of interest in the salt bond and just add the 16% to give the dose. On that bases the defqon dance could be 34% out in its so called 200mG. The real dose would be 132mG MDMA Citrate

Does it really matter a defqon DANCE is a full on Dutch Super pill at 132mG MDMA Citrate? the intense buzz might be because its a citrate not a mamoth dose. Once again the dose slips the radar.

in reality I doubt anyone would even notice mr defqon saving 34% product on every pill and have everyone spouting how brilliant these "200mG" pills are.

Say on the kG of 4000 pills at 5000euros he would be saving 1700 euros per kg, the pills would retain legend status and no one would be any wiser.

Thats my 2C.

Feel free anyone to chime in. Maybe if you could throw a bit of chemistry in there scure.

How difficult is a citrate to crash? I know it can be done.

What about resolving isomers how difficult is that. As I understand it it requires resolving with tartrates and fractional distillation in some way. Or maybe an isymetric catalyst. Another theory was a defqon might be a 70:30 isomer balance.
 
Last edited:
^100% MDMA freebase does not exist under regular atmospheric circumstances. It would likely be mixed with a certain amount of solvent if it did, which would make it less than 100% pure freebase. Suggesting a product is less than 84% pure when by relativity the consumable product can only be 84% pure, the average person would consider 84% pure MDMA freebase mixed with 16%HCl ion to be 100% purity, in regards to the end consumer product does not get any purer..

Once the purification process of the user product has been thoroughly run to full potential, the end product is at maximum 100% purity, which is 84% MDMA freebase and 16% H+Cl- ion. This product has no impurities, only a minimal ionic bond of ordinary ions already found in abundance throughout the body, only specifically chemically placed in order to make the end consumer product stable under regular atmospheric conditions.



I don't think this is the right forum to discuss this argument. Suggesting MDMA has a maximum purity is 84% is pretty misleading in a forum where we're just trying to talk about stuff that has to do with MDMA and related substances. 99% of people here are going to just go repeat this information without even reading the rest of what's being said. This is how false rumors get started.

I already made a thread here about purity btw a few months back. It was getting annoying because this same thread keeps popping up and then some smartass always replies "d00d, it can only be 84% pure", but has no idea wtf they are even talking about, just repeating the info they heard somewhere else.

You tell the average person their product isn't 100% pure, you are implying to them that it has impurities. An ionic bond of H+Cl- should not be considered a chemical impurity when the 100% freebase product is not even viably consumable nor does it even exist under standard environmental conditions.
 
I've had the whole isomer debate with folley in a couple of other threads. I find the idea of a commercial MDMA operation trying to separate isomers waaaay more unlikely than I find the idea of a commercial lab making salts other than HCl, which I already find pretty unlikely. Tartaric acid is a chiral acid, so the use of one of its enantiomer makes preferentially converting one MDMA isomer theoretically possible. However, if this does work, it would take repeated crystallizations in this way to get a substantial separation of the two MDMA isomers. Each crystallization involves the loss of some material, even when performed perfectly - it is, while useful, an inherently wasteful technique. No lab is going to add extra crystallizations to their procedure when they don't need to.

Don't know about making the citrate salt. It wouldn't be the same for every freebase, both the acid and the original freebase play a role. The HCl is very easy, except for some precautions to keep water out. If the citrate is known to be very hygroscopic, I can see it being very difficult, and certainly lower-yielding in the salting/crystallization step.


Walk into dealers appartment dealer spouts "I have 100% pure moonrocks". Customer thinks to himself these can only be 84% pure this must be bullshit.

does not belong in the same story as

They are infact 99.7% pure MDMA HCL.

In this context, your argument is a purely semantic one. Both the dealer and the buyer are thinking of MDMA.HCl, even if they don't know anything about salts. The drug they are used to selling/taking/etc and call "molly" or "moonrocks" or whatever they call it where they life is MDMA.HCl and not MDMA. Regardless of what they call it, it _IS_ MDMA.HCl. So for the dealer to call it 100% pure moonrocks is accurate, because what he really means when he says moonrocks is MDMA.HCl. I.e. he said "oh", but we all know he really meant "zero". It is a bad idea to draw conclusions based on the idea that he really meant "oh" (or freebase MDMA).

I agree that the 16% is very unlikely to cause anyone any significant harm, but my pet HR project is dispelling myths and misinformation about drugs. As a chemist, my favorite ones to attack are the ones that are based on faulty or nebulous chemistry.

I don't think the guy who made the "tiny tiny tiny amount of knowledge" comment meant it as a simple insult. I think what he is referring to is how people who have only recently entered a field of study and are attacking a lot of new information at once tend to draw conclusions that seem sensible to them, but are actually far off the mark. Then, because they are feeling confident and proud of their learning accomplishments thus far, they vigorously cling to and defend these conclusions. Not because they are unintelligent, simply because they lack a broad enough foundational knowledge at that time.

As for the citrate Defqon argument: Yes, that is entirely possible in theory, and if edata does do their tests by assuming HCl and normalizing accordingly, this would fool them. Totally possible.

I have a different theory for those pills. This one has nothing to do with chemistry and everything to do with psychology. The power of suggestion and the power of the confirmation bias. I'm sure you are familiar with how much mindset and expectations have to do with the subjective experience of psychadelics. I think it is a lot more likely that the stamp or just the defqon reputation has an effect on the mindset/expectations of some of the people who get them. Then, the first wave of people write their edata reports, and many of the subsequent users read these before taking theirs, altering their expectations. And so on, down the line.

If the power of suggestion is enough to make people believe their pills have heroin, lsd, mescaline, or any of the other craziness that people have passed along by word of mouth, is it so far-fetched for people to think a pill has a strong come-up but a short duration based on suggestion? I don't think it is.

As for the last bit:

I agree that there are plenty of people on BL who are perfectly capable of understanding. The problem is, BELIEVING that you understand comes much sooner than actually understanding complex subjects. Most people will stop looking once they believe they understand, and any mistaken conclusions they have drawn by that point will be stuck in very firmly and they will pass those on to others, with the added authority of sounding like they know what they're talking about.

You've already seen one person draw a mistaken conclusion from what you said in the ADD thread. I can point you to an entire thread of people confused about the 84%/99% debate from a couple months ago in ED. It isn't a good idea to try to teach calculus to a person who has not yet learned basic arithmetic, even if they have an IQ of 150. It isn't about who's smart and who's not, its about framing the discussion in a way that is appropriate to the audience. An inappropriate framework is going to spread misinformation, even if everything you say is "technically" true.
 
I have a different theory for those pills. This one has nothing to do with chemistry and everything to do with psychology. The power of suggestion and the power of the confirmation bias. I'm sure you are familiar with how much mindset and expectations have to do with the subjective experience of psychadelics. I think it is a lot more likely that the stamp or just the defqon reputation has an effect on the mindset/expectations of some of the people who get them. Then, the first wave of people write their edata reports, and many of the subsequent users read these before taking theirs, altering their expectations. And so on, down the line.

If the power of suggestion is enough to make people believe their pills have heroin, lsd, mescaline, or any of the other craziness that people have passed along by word of mouth, is it so far-fetched for people to think a pill has a strong come-up but a short duration based on suggestion? I don't think it is.

I think that is by far the most reasonable and likely reason. Until there is a double-blind study suggesting otherwise, I think that is the safe conclusion.
 
^100% MDMA freebase does not exist under regular atmospheric circumstances. It would likely be mixed with a certain amount of solvent if it did, which would make it less than 100% pure freebase.

You would dossolve the MDMA in a polar solvent such as Xylene.

To extract freebase from this I am not entirely sure. Please can you fill in the gaps for me scure. I am actually interested to know about this.

In the same context here say if you have dirty brown molley what is the most effective direction now to clean and recrystalize? I assume if you recrystalize from where your at at this point you just end up with the same brown crystals?

I frequently get asked. My acetone has not made my crystals go white what do I do now? I assume the issue is the crystal can only be claened on the outside

Suggesting MDMA has a maximum purity is 84% is pretty misleading in a forum where we're just trying to talk about stuff that has to do with MDMA and related substances. 99% of people here are going to just go repeat this information without even reading the rest of what's being said. This is how false rumors get started.

Maybe. I think if say Stretworz come back to me suggesting they are only testing the MDMA molecule then an argument could be had that assuming MDMA salt in a dose is misleading.

A lot of this falls down to that conclusion. I have emailed both edata and streetworx yesterday.

I already made a thread here about purity btw a few months back. It was getting annoying because this same thread keeps popping up and then some smartass always replies "d00d, it can only be 84% pure", but has no idea wtf they are even talking about, just repeating the info they heard somewhere else.

I had a read through that thread. It was funny as its identical to this debate. It didnt get concluded I noticed. Vaders stance on there is exactly where I stand on this. There was a bit of confusion but also some enlightenment so not sure how much that thrd adds to this other than confirming the debate is an interesting topic.

You tell the average person their product isn't 100% pure, you are implying to them that it has impurities. An ionic bond of H+Cl- should not be considered a chemical impurity when the 100% freebase product is not even viably consumable nor does it even exist under standard environmental conditions.

You are telling everyone that MDMA consists of two molecules and one of them aint MDMA. No one said anything about impurity. Personally if you word it like "MDMA in its crystal form can only be 84% of active MDMA this is because of the way salt bonding works" people get it. They dont have to know why.

I've had the whole isomer debate with folley in a couple of other threads. I find the idea of a commercial MDMA operation trying to separate isomers waaaay more unlikely than I find the idea of a commercial lab making salts other than HCl, which I already find pretty unlikely.

I totally agree with this comment. I dont know for sure but I do agree.

Tartaric acid is a chiral acid, so the use of one of its enantiomer makes preferentially converting one MDMA isomer theoretically possible. However, if this does work, it would take repeated crystallizations in this way to get a substantial separation of the two MDMA isomers. Each crystallization involves the loss of some material, even when performed perfectly - it is, while useful, an inherently wasteful technique.

Im not so sure. I do agree that its wasteful and is unlikely but it is possible none the less.

Here is an isomer extraction and consumer report from the hive.

2,00 g (10mmol, assuming 95% purity in the Islands) distilled MDMA
0.75 g (5mmol) D-tartaric acid
3ml H2O
6ml xylene (which turned out to be handy)
A solution of NaOH, equivalent to 0.2 g (5mmol) NaOH.
! Not use solid NaOH! Only solution! Hard has a different concentration of active ingredient and water, that a very strong impact on the results of separation: if the D-isomer is allocated fairly well, but a net L-isomer is unlikely to succeed. The easiest way to prepare the solution - dissolve a handful of alkali in the glass Dist. water, cooled to room temperature, weighed in a volumetric flask, calculate the density and concentration. Well or titrirovat - who like more.
And then weigh the required amount of solution.

After mixing the reagents, a lot of shake up and leave for a day. Xylene solution of L-MDMA separate, additional water rinse xylene. To add the excess xylene halophytes and leave to evaporate, first in the air to the evaporation of xylene, and then in a desiccator over NaOH. Obtain 1,05 g caramels. Rub the several times with acetone, ignoring the losses and obtain 0,6 g R (-) MDMA (L-MDMA).
An aqueous solution of D-MDMA alkalizes twice ekstragiruem, add soup and dried. Obtain 1,1 g of crystalline S (+) MDMA (D-MDMA).

Biotest

D-MDMA
T. 0:00 Took 70mg with a small amount of soup.
T. 0:40 Start of.
T. 0:50 come to the fore stimulation.
T. 1:10 feeling that he missed a dose. Added 20-25mg for the full manifestation of effects.
T. 1:30 substance differs radically from the DL-MDMA: strong stimulation and extremely clear head. Effects are serious, in vain, I added those 25mg.
T. 1:40 came 25mg. The state, characteristic of a large release of dopamine and serotonin: a strong stimulation, a great mood, but begin to appear pobochki - tugging and spasms of smooth muscles of the abdomen.
In contrast to the racemate, the head completely clear, there is little euphoria, empathy weak to feel it, we must listen to yourself. No smearing. +2 On Shulgin, not more.
Difficult to say, I like this state or not. There is something of a racemate, but not all, obviously something is missing. Perhaps a similar state can be obtained simultaneously Having eaten his fill of fluoxetine stimulants.
T. 5:00 Took fluoxetine.
The next day, no abnormalities were noticed, though, after the racemate observed a small tail.

L-MDMA
T. 0:00 Took 110mg with a small amount of food.
T. 0:40 Start of.
T. 1:00 Wow, this is quite psychedelic.
T. 1:30 Everything seems magical, the head bad-thinking, highly smears, get on its feet is not realistic, but the euphoria and empathy non-existent. +3 To Shulgin. It seems that he missed a dose - too much, I had to try 50-70mg.
T. 2:30 Not comfortable feeling that I was deceived - wrapping the same, but different content.
T. 5:00 Took fluoxetine.
The next day, terrible headache, the effect remained at 1. The tail of admission to the islands stretched nearly a week.


So (IMHO):
1. Ecstasy should be viewed as a mixture of two substances, and the only way - a stimulant-serotoninrealizera and psychedelia, albeit resulting in one bottle. Therefore, it is possible to find close analogues of MDMA, mixing two or three surfactants.
2. The magic of MDMA, entaktogennye properties and largely euphoria due to the combined action of both isomers. This D-MDMA is responsible for the stimulation, the selection of serotonin and empathy, L-MDMA for psychedelic component and mazhuschee action. Entaktogennyemi properties and magic neither one nor the other isomer individually do not possess.
3. Selective extraction works great, if it correctly carried out.
4. Obviously, the most interesting: unpretentious protsedurka separation of isomers - 10 minutes, and ready - allows to increase the amount of matter in three times - D, L, DL.
Since each isomer has its unique action, then outlines the prospects are very interesting, for example, try to separate isomers of PMMA - I guarantee that there will be three completely different drug. What is the scope for research! Consider, gentlemen?

Don't know about making the citrate salt. It wouldn't be the same for every freebase, both the acid and the original freebase play a role. The HCl is very easy, except for some precautions to keep water out. If the citrate is known to be very hygroscopic, I can see it being very difficult, and certainly lower-yielding in the salting/crystallization step.

As I understand it all the salts have different characteristics. Hygroscopic properties being one of the main issue. I also hear HCL is one of the most cavalier friendly hence the popularity in clan labs with dustbins etc as glassware. I would agree with what your saying here. I think Acetates and Phosphates are easier to deal with.

In this context, your argument is a purely semantic one. Both the dealer and the buyer are thinking of MDMA.HCl, even if they don't know anything about salts. The drug they are used to selling/taking/etc and call "molly" or "moonrocks" or whatever they call it where they life is MDMA.HCl and not MDMA. Regardless of what they call it, it _IS_ MDMA.HCl. So for the dealer to call it 100% pure moonrocks is accurate, because what he really means when he says moonrocks is MDMA.HCl. I.e. he said "oh", but we all know he really meant "zero". It is a bad idea to draw conclusions based on the idea that he really meant "oh" (or freebase MDMA).

Point taken silly example. Perhaps pills would be a better subject if he claims 100% pure. the argument then falls down to GC/MS again. Lets hope someone at streetworx has the time to answer this unusual enquiry :)

I agree that the 16% is very unlikely to cause anyone any significant harm, but my pet HR project is dispelling myths and misinformation about drugs. As a chemist, my favorite ones to attack are the ones that are based on faulty or nebulous chemistry.

My chemistry knowledge yes I accept is very limited and sub par to your own. However, Vaders is not and in that thread that simply kindly posted Vader sais exactly the same as myself. At this point I can confidently say this isnt a myth or misunderstanding on my behalf it is more a technicality.

I don't think the guy who made the "tiny tiny tiny amount of knowledge" comment meant it as a simple insult. I think what he is referring to is how people who have only recently entered a field of study and are attacking a lot of new information at once tend to draw conclusions that seem sensible to them, but are actually far off the mark. Then, because they are feeling confident and proud of their learning accomplishments thus far, they vigorously cling to and defend these conclusions. Not because they are unintelligent, simply because they lack a broad enough foundational knowledge at that time.

If someone was cooking E and was fucking around with glassware, vacuum, acids, solvents etc I understand but someone having a theory on there its harmless debate. Someone can be wrong easy just set them right. Dont have to call them stupid or suggest they are dangerous. If everytime I called someone stupid because they draw the wrong conclusion about their MDMA or whatever very quickly we have no threads because people feel insulted. Not all the posts on there were negative I must make that clear some made very valid points clearly coming from intelligent people. I am still confused why the thread was closed? was it out of line with ADD maybe too simplistic I dunno? I am sure nothing rude was said. Sekio made a good response someone hurled an insult then closed weird..

I saw someone just bumped a thread on there about drug synthesis will be interesting to see what type of responses that produces. :)

As for the citrate Defqon argument: Yes, that is entirely possible in theory, and if edata does do their tests by assuming HCl and normalizing accordingly, this would fool them. Totally possible.

Would be funny to see. Imagine if everyone was eatin 120mG afterall :D As mentioned by that user on ADD cause of the potency of MDMA it doesnt make that much difference. Even 50% off does it really matter. Could argue the fake information is safer.

I have a different theory for those pills. This one has nothing to do with chemistry and everything to do with psychology. The power of suggestion and the power of the confirmation bias. I'm sure you are familiar with how much mindset and expectations have to do with the subjective experience of psychadelics. I think it is a lot more likely that the stamp or just the defqon reputation has an effect on the mindset/expectations of some of the people who get them. Then, the first wave of people write their edata reports, and many of the subsequent users read these before taking theirs, altering their expectations. And so on, down the line.

You might well be right. Stamp dance on the back and it becomes a "DANCE" high. many forget E is a psychedelic this makes this a likely and most probable occurance.

I agree that there are plenty of people on BL who are perfectly capable of understanding. The problem is, BELIEVING that you understand comes much sooner than actually understanding complex subjects. Most people will stop looking once they believe they understand, and any mistaken conclusions they have drawn by that point will be stuck in very firmly and they will pass those on to others, with the added authority of sounding like they know what they're talking about.

I am not so convinced by this. I dont think we have the right to limit information based on our own personal judgement of how someone might be understading information. With this theory you dont need to really understand anything. MDMA in HCL form in terms of mass can only be 84% active MDMA. Why and how doesnt come into it.

Where we have a problem is if the likes of streetworx are filling in the gaps for us. Adding the 16% for you. Then it needs understanding to figure it out.

You've already seen one person draw a mistaken conclusion from what you said in the ADD thread. I can point you to an entire thread of people confused about the 84%/99% debate from a couple months ago in ED. It isn't a good idea to try to teach calculus to a person who has not yet learned basic arithmetic, even if they have an IQ of 150. It isn't about who's smart and who's not, its about framing the discussion in a way that is appropriate to the audience. An inappropriate framework is going to spread misinformation, even if everything you say is "technically" true.

I do understand the point here . Lets get the streetworx edata input and go from there.

Even if the edata confirm molecule only what about MDMA crystal. We then have a right mess on our hands :D

I think that is by far the most reasonable and likely reason. Until there is a double-blind study suggesting otherwise, I think that is the safe conclusion.

I agree avc this is probably the likely theory for th defqon DANCE. it probably is 200mG MDMA as at the lab end saving 70mG a pill is like saving 2p. besides they have a reputation to maintain.
 
Top