^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.