• MDMA &
    Empathogenic
    Drugs

    Welcome Guest!
  • MDMA Moderators:

What is wrong with the MDMA available today?

Status
Not open for further replies.
indigoaura said:
@Glubrahnum - Would you please provide a brief overview of what synth methods contain mercury? I thought that the synth from organic safrole was the synth more likely to produce the magic product (based on what we have talked about here). Is that not what we are looking for? Isn't one of the potential explanations the shift from the safrole Al Hg synthesis to other routes? Would acetone wash and re-crystallization remove mercury contaminants? Vendor also claims multiple acetone washes and re-crystallization.
Click to expand...
mercury would be very rare to be left over. Chemists distill off mdma free base and recrystallize into a salt form. The mercury used is in little amounts to form a Al alguam pretty much all the mercury should of reacted withe the Al in this step if they did the calucations right. I have never seen any evidence for mecury contamination in mdma products.

PMK also uses mercury if they are going that route. Its a common reduction method for small to medium sized labs to make mdma. There are methods that will make mdma without using mercury aswell leading to a mda/mdma mix
 
indigoaura said:
@Glubrahnum - Would you please provide a brief overview of what synth methods contain mercury? I thought that the synth from organic safrole was the synth more likely to produce the magic product (based on what we have talked about here)
Click to expand...
There are several routes to convert Safrole into 3,4-MDMA. Most of them go through the 3.4-MDP2P intermediate and some of them use amalgams ...and some do not.
Amalgams are alloys of mercury. The method you have quoted uses aluminum-mercury alloy (Al-Hg alloy) or an aluminum amalgam as a reducing agent. This type of mercury is not organic and as such it is less harmful than organic mercury (e.g. methylmercury, which is quote deadly or debilitating). Just because inorganic mercury is used in the synth, does not mean that it gets converted to organomercury or survives the purification process (how diligent is this process depends on the chemist)

You cannot determine whether the synth routes use amalgams from the starting precursors alone (e.g. Safrole or PMK-Gly, Piperonal, Helional, etc...).
You can determine whether Al-Hg was used only by finding mercury content in the finished product ...or by careful analysis of the associated synthesis byproducts (which do not have to contain mercury at all)...or by the explicit declaration of the manufacturer.

P.S.
Al-Hg amalgam is gray. A lot of it would have to make its way to the final product to color it gray (that much aluminum amalgam would make it quite poisonous). As usual, relaying on the color alone is not a reliable way to judge the quality of the MDMA HCl powder.
 
Last edited:
This vendor (who obviously may be lying), is advertising based on the idea that mercury and other contaminants have been removed from the product. If I end up with any, I will try to get a good photo for you. I will also send to Energy Control and pay the $120 for the basic test plus the $60 for the heavy metal analysis. Do you think that will be sufficient?
 
This vendor is either a master bullshitter or actually may know what he’s talking about... Indeed the route he specified is, according to my research, is the most likely route to produce “MagicDMA.” And fractional distillation is key to producing very pure product, it’s what many chemists don’t do on the final freebase unfortunately.

I’d definitely give them a try to see what it’s like..

-GC
 
I guess a better way to phrase the question is: Do you think that the heavy metal testing done by International Energy control will be equivalent to the heavy metal testing done of water?
 
To compare them, call both and ask them about their Hg detection threshold, in parts per million (ppm) or parts per billion (ppb).
 
old hive bee here, some bluelight user pointed me to this thread. Won't be around much but here my input that you might appreciate and therefore a start to work on.

It's called cooking remember? different cooking recipes and procedures results in different outcomes.

you can cook a nice chunk of meat in the microwave and then sear it with a blow torch, appearance and smell will be awesome, but taste and texture (the pleasure) won't be anywhere near as a proper, slow, oven cooked roast.
same goes for chemicals, certain routes just don't produce what's expected or it is of inferior quality.

Leuckart: high quality "MAGIC" mdma plus side products as mda, stimulating, best for clubbing, work intense/time consuming synth, medium high yielding depending on chemist experience

AL/Hg and NaBH4 reduction: best for cleanest "MAGIC" MDMA, milder than Leuckar but more intimacy and sensuality, psychedelic in it's way, work intense/time consuming, specially NaBH4, medium high yielding depending on chemist experience

Pt/Pd hydrogenation: worst product of all, this is your mehMDMA. Very little labour involved, high yielding, once the reaction is set it's just a matter of waiting for completion. Add this to the use of higher mass producing acids as tartaric or citric for the salting and here you have your 300 mg tablets that give the crappy, boring experience that is so common today.

Also: PMK synth has its weak points. In the Hive times people were experimenting with alternate routes to produce pmk from safrole, O2/Wacker was one of them, quickly abandoned because the resulting ketone was inferior and the amine derived from it was weaker and missing what makes mdma special.
So chinese PMK glicidate might be also partially responsible for the missing effects of today's crappy mdma.

So just to clear (or confuse) a bit further: magic and meh are actually the same substance from a formula point of view, that's why no test can detect or differentiate the one from the other.
Why the two produce so different effects? no idea, my experience in pharmacokinetics is very limited.
 
Last edited:
Very interesting entry, I think someone finally explained everything. I am very happy because I thought that we would never know the truth ...


AL/Hg and NaBH4 reduction- i want this mdma?
 
oldskoolbee said:
Pt/Pd hydrogenation: worst product of all, this is your mehMDMA. Very little labour involved, high yielding, once set the reaction is set it's just a matter of waiting for completion. Add this to the use of higher mass producing acids as tartaric or citric for the salting and here you have your 300 mg tablets that give the crappy, boring experience that is so common today.

Also: PMK synth has its weak points. In the Hive times people were experimenting with alternate routes to produce pmk from safrole, O2/Wacker was one of them, quickly abandoned because the resulting ketone was inferior and the amine derived from it was weaker and missing what makes mdma special.
So chinese PMK glicidate might be also partially responsible for the missing effects of today's crappy mdma.
Click to expand...

So do you know any details of the elegant "single concerted step" reaction described in the quote below ? ...and I mean more than a mere "Darzen with hydrogenation on a Pt/Pd catalyst".

Quote from: https://mixmag.net/feature/we-went-undercover-in-a-chinese-mdma-factory

Our lab switched [in 2010] to ethyl PMK-glycidate as a precursor. This was unwatched, and we were able to source it from China at a very competitive price,” he said.

He revealed the details of his synthesis to me, and I verified the feasibility of the method with an equally expert but legitimate chemist. It wasn’t just feasible, he told me; it was beautiful. “It achieves complex molecular changes in a single concerted step, almost like watching a solar system of planets align. ‘Elegant’ is a good word for it, too. It’s the sort of thing that anyone [any organic chemist] could have come up with once it’s explained to you, but really, the first person to come up with this [method] had quite a stroke of inspiration,”
Click to expand...
 
oldskoolbee said:
old hive bee here, some bluelight user pointed me to this thread. Won't be around much but here my input that you might appreciate and therefore a start to work on.

It's called cooking remember? different cooking recipes and procedures results in different outcomes.

you can cook a nice chunk of meat in the microwave and then sear it with a blow torch, appearance and smell will be awesome, but taste and texture (the pleasure) won't be anywhere near as a proper, slow, oven cooked roast.
same goes for chemicals, certain routes just don't produce what's expected or it is of inferior quality.

Leuckart: high quality "MAGIC" mdma plus side products as mda, stimulating, best for clubbing, work intense/time consuming synth, medium high yielding depending on chemist experience

AL/Hg and NaBH4 reduction: best for cleanest "MAGIC" MDMA, milder than Leuckar but more intimacy and sensuality, psychedelic in it's way, work intense/time consuming, specially NaBH4, medium high yielding depending on chemist experience

Pt/Pd hydrogenation: worst product of all, this is your mehMDMA. Very little labour involved, high yielding, once the reaction is set it's just a matter of waiting for completion. Add this to the use of higher mass producing acids as tartaric or citric for the salting and here you have your 300 mg tablets that give the crappy, boring experience that is so common today.

Also: PMK synth has its weak points. In the Hive times people were experimenting with alternate routes to produce pmk from safrole, O2/Wacker was one of them, quickly abandoned because the resulting ketone was inferior and the amine derived from it was weaker and missing what makes mdma special.
So chinese PMK glicidate might be also partially responsible for the missing effects of today's crappy mdma.

So just to clear (or confuse) a bit further: magic and meh are actually the same substance from a formula point of view, that's why no test can detect or differentiate the one from the other.
Why the two produce so different effects? no idea, my experience in pharmacokinetics is very limited.
Click to expand...

I dont even pretend to understand this, but it sounds bloody convincing to me. It stands to reason that mass production involves the easiest, highest yielding methods, but quality is compromised. I find it analogous to furniture making. At one end of the spectrum you have highly skilled craftsmen who take time and effort to produce a quality piece that provides pleasure for years, and at the other you've got IKEA. It does the job, it's still furniture but ultimately its shit...
 
Glubrahnum said:
So do you know any details of the elegant "single concerted step" reaction described in the quote below ? ...and I mean more than a mere "Darzen with hydrogenation on a Pt/Pd catalyst".
Click to expand...
unfortunately no, I'm just reporting what was the common opinion at the time by some advanced users. My guess would be that two main reactions would be necessary starting from pmk glycidate.
Glubrahnum said:
You realize that would be magic indeed ...
Click to expand...
the proof is in the pudding, you've got both MAGIC and MEH tested at the same time, in different occasions with always the same result, both test the same.
my very personal opinion is that when this kind of substances are made in a pressurized environment some bonds are created in a different way that affects PK
Glubrahnum said:
Why do you think that a synth route using the mercury aluminum reagent yields the cleanest 3,4-MDMA ?
Click to expand...
because no other by products are created, assuming of course that the substances used are of high purity, and everything else is made by the book, freebase distillation and rxstallization.
 
oldskoolbee said:
... you've got both MAGIC and MEH tested at the same time, in different occasions with always the same result, both test the same. My very personal opinion is that when this kind of substances are made in a pressurized environment some bonds are created in a different way that affects PK
Click to expand...
The problem with this is that the analysis techniques that I use detect these different bonds by vibrating them with laser light ...and before this detection, different ingredients are sparated by varying interactions with different stationary phases.
 
Glubrahnum said:
The problem with this is that the analysis techniques that I use detect these different bonds by vibrating them with laser light ...and before this detection, different ingredients are sparated by varying interactions with different stationary phases.
Click to expand...
and you haven't been able to spot any differences between meh and magic? i assume you're talking about raman spectroscopy... that doesn't weakens but reinforces what i'm stating,
at least three different tests has been used, GC/MS/Raman on both substances without spotting any difference that may lead to a more definite result.
 
oldskoolbee said:
and you haven't been able to spot any differences between meh and magic?
Click to expand...
I saw differences but I got weird results, such as dealers peddling unreacted precursors as MDMA and tartrate salts. They are described earlier in this thread. My investigation started with this post.
Also, I did only several tests and quickly run out of virgin users in my private social circle that would not be unencumbered by tolerance issues. I do not procure these drugs, rather I rely on the samples that friends bring to me (this does not happen all that often). I wish I could freely advertise to do more testing of different drug batches and get more participants for in-vivo testing.

oldskoolbee said:
GC/MS/Raman on both substances without spotting any difference that may lead to a more definite result.
Click to expand...
...which would lend credence to the "potent contaminant" theory.
 
Last edited:
I think it is great to see the various synthesis methods summarized and correlated with overall effects. Thanks, @oldskoolbee! However, it still does not uncover the answer to the question of WHY these batches have so much variation. What is happening with these synths that changes the product so much, and how is the product changed (specifically)?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top