MDPV chirality

[General alcazar]

So I was lucky enough to have a nice stash of the original batch of MDPV which I loved and milked along for years before it ran out. With the advent of the new product, I like many, so I have read, was very disappointed as the magic, or shall we say the perv factor, was near-absent from the new, white powder, leaving a shitty DRI effect and an unpleasant comedown with increased vasoconstriction. I have read speculations that alternative salts, freebase versus salt or even impurities are responsible for this, but how about ratio of enantiomers. Has anyone looked at the ratio of enantiomers or what each individual enantiomer's effects are. I'm thinking the chinese batches are using an alternate route of synthesis than the original and this may be responsible for a different ratio of (R) and (S) forms.
Fast&bulbous - would love your input given your predilection for this molecule.
Sorry if this question has already been asked - I couldn't find anything about it with a search.
The reason this came to mind is that a while back I 'accidentally' smoked about 60 mg in 2 hours (the stuff is compulsive as hell), and lo and behold, the old MDPV effects were back. Made me think I might have gotten enough of the good enantiomer to feel the old effects. The peripheral stimulation, remarkably enough, was minimal, the only unpleasant side effect being profound vasoconstriction (winded when walking around, tightness in chest) without a large increase in blood pressure or heartrate. Able to sleep with 10 mg diazepam 12 hours later, very mild hangover next morning which was gone after a good long run.

 

[hamhurricane]

in addition to this question i also wonder if the eudysmic ratio is higher or lower in chems where the chiral portion is a two or three carbon alpha sub like MDPV or BDB. i would imagine higher, but amphetamine already has a pretty high one.

 

[TheAzo]

I would be stunned if any MDPV on the market was anything except the racemate.

You'd need to either separate it at the end by forming a salt with some chiral acid, and you'd have to experimentally determine an appropriate acid to use (note, we're now working with a species that is not terribly stable in solution, in solution). In this case, wouldn't it be sold as such?
Or you could start with an optically pure precursor (or at least one that was biased in favor of one or the other). Generally optically pure isomers of anything not available from biological sources are exorbitantly expensive. Can anyone identify a suitable candidate precursor that would fit the bill? I can't.

Not that i don't think it would be fascinating* to separate the enantiomers and find out what the difference between them was.

OP, if you still have a sample of the old MDPV, you could determine whether it is optically active using polarizing filters (you can get them by busting open LCD displays, like from those cheapo handheld videogames (or dead LCD monitors, if you happen to have any of those sitting around). Test it on some other known optically active substance first, of course, to verify that your technique works.

My prediction is it will not be optically active.

I think there's a good chance that the differences are caused by some impurity, or the old stuff being something else misidentified. I know the three carbon analog is known (MDPPP), and felt to be qualitiatively better, though less potent. Is the four carbon analog (MDPBP?) known? Has it been tasted? It's possible that one of these has a more favorable ratio of perv-to-tweak. I've seen several people incorrectly state that MDPV had a 4-carbon chain instead of a 5-carbon chain. Maybe an early vendor had the wrong thing made, and was unaware of his mistake, and merrily sold the stuff off?

* Facinating, in the academic sense... since i've only had the new stuff, which, as OP said, is a dirty DRI that isn't that much fun and has alot of undesirable peripheral effects.

 

[General alcazar]

Ahh the elusive perv to tweak ratio.
Wish I had grabbed some MDPPP when it was available but from what I read it doesn't sound like it was that much better.
thanks for the responses.

 

[allium]

BTW, did anybody with access to mass spectrograph compare samples of 'old' and 'new' MDPV?

 

[TheAzo]

I don't know about the perv to tweak ratio on MDPPP, but supposedly it was more enjoyable. I wanted to get some. I think there's a vendor that plans to stock it again once they relocate

And, not many people here have access to serious analytic equipment - it's really unfortunate that drug laws prevent research and accurate identification of drugs - while doing rather little to keep people from taking them.

 

[hamhurricane]

MDPPP was vastly superior to MDPV. i consider my self a very "in control" drug user but MDPPP certainly tested my will. i was fine, did not abuse, but it does feel really wonderful as good or better than amphetamine. the fact that its so close in structure to bk-MDMA worries me, i have a feeling it acts as a releaser - it just felt a little too good. i would not treat it like a general purpose DARI until more information is available, not to mention its unfortunate MD-ring which will make it prime for conjugation with glutathione.

 

[allium]

Then why MDPPP is available less widely then MDPV? Most RC vendors sell MPDV not MDPPP - and I wish I have a source for the latter.

Not sure if this thread is right place to ask, but how do DA/NE releasers compare to DA/NE reuptake inhibitors? Are DNRA really more pleasant?

And, not many people here have access to serious analytic equipment

Yes, but it seems there are many well-educated people in this forum, so I thought maybe someone did such analysis.

 

[TheAzo]

I'm wondering the same thing about MDPPP!

I'm also wondering why nobody has made MDPBP....

I mean, MDPV is a big success (commercially)... and here the vendors are, making ring florinated cathinones and other random shit, all of which is marginal at best, but shortening the carbon chain (usually the 3-carbon one is qualitatively best) of a successful product to make a better one isn't being done?
IMO, it's very surprising... and like, they have the precursors right there, since everyone and their mom is making methylone and MDPV.

 

[ebola?]

Then why MDPPP is available less widely then MDPV? Most RC vendors sell MPDV not MDPPP - and I wish I have a source for the latter.

I'm guessing that maximal potency coupled with sufficient to maximal redose compulsion makes for maximized profits.

Not sure if this thread is right place to ask, but how do DA/NE releasers compare to DA/NE reuptake inhibitors? Are DNRA really more pleasant?

Most people, including Hamhurricane, prefer releasing agents. These types of preferences vary a great deal between individuals. I, for example, am not sure if there's even a DARI that feels good enough that I would pay money to use.

ebola

 

[Ceres]

OP, if you still have a sample of the old MDPV, you could determine whether it is optically active using polarizing filters ...

My prediction is it will not be optically active.

All the MDPV I've seen was a mixture of optically active crystals, and recrystallised back into individual optically active crystals...

 

[TheAzo]

They say MDPPP is more compulsive than MDPV - and it's weaker, so if you sell it at the same price, they'll go through it faster and buy more....

All the MDPV I've seen was a mixture of optically active crystals, and recrystallised back into individual optically active crystals...

Oh, interesting, so you can pull a Pasteur and manually seperate them!

What do you recrystalize from?

You, the OP, or some other connoisseur should go do that to answer the question about the relevance of chirality. If we find out that there is a large eudysmic ratio, then we can start looking at easier ways to separate them. I would do it, but i'm not really a peevee fan, so i couldn't judge the effects of the isomers (pv causes sideffects that i don't enjoy at all at very low doses, i've got no interest in doing any bioassays - though if some people show differences between the optical isomers, i might use

 

[Ceres]

Oh, interesting, so you can pull a Pasteur and manually seperate them!

MDPV is potent but even a 5mg dose is a *lot* of 30 - 250 micron crystals to eyeball

 

[TheAzo]

Could the solution be cooled more slowly to grow larger crystals? If you can get it to where it's a few dozen crystals, it'd be worth while, as it could provide very useful information.

 

[General alcazar]

Separating optically active crystals sounds like a pain in the ass, but given the low active dose of MDPV, it might be worth it. MDPV is an intriguing compound, but I'm pretty much done with it because it is too easy to binge and waste lots of time chasing the high (which really isn't that special). That said, it is very forgiving on the body in spite of this and eventually seems to hit a point where the tolerance is so high it barely works, forcing this user to stop. Not being much of a chemist, what would one use to recrystallize MDPV powder into relatively large crystals? 10-20 mg of each would be enough to determine if there is a qualitative difference.

 

[Ceres]

Practically speaking, no, the acicular habit and the tendency to form spherules doesn't lend itself towards producing very large single crystals atall even with really slow cooling / evaporation - there is a physical reason why MDPV is always (in my experience anyway) seen as a fine dust rather than chunky granules. Manually seperating the enantiomers into a dose is never going to feasible.

I don't know wether it's possible to create conditions where seeding a solution or the liquid phase with a few pure d or l crystals would favour that enantiomer to crystallise out in excess, so you could perform some kind of chirally resolving fractional recrystallisation process, or if there is some other way of doing it that wouldn't involve feats of micromanipulation likely to be as much fun as the chinese water torture.

I doubt the differences in subjective effects between any particular sample of MDPV is due to stereoisomerism anyway, I doubt wether most of it is even MDPV.

edit> oops, chiral resolution through fractional crystallisation is mentioned in the patent, but with no discussion of why it would be necessary or desirable.

 

[General alcazar]

I think most of it is MDPV. The feeling is the same in the end. It just takes a whole lot more of the new stuff to get there. Whereas 5-10 mg was a good dose of the original batch with 2-3 mg bumps, the newer stuff is better at 20 mg to start with 5-10 mg bumps. It has a lot more peripheral effects at that dose, but for some reason seems to top off at a certain point as far as the stimulation is concerned. Seems there is a tolerance, or maybe it ultimately causes some sort of receptor blockade. Really fiendish stuff, especially the newer versions since the dosing needs to be higher. At this point, if anything, impurities are at fault - I can't think if any other explanation.

 

[Ceres]

Is the four carbon analog (MDPBP?) known? Has it been tasted? It's possible that one of these has a more favorable ratio of perv-to-tweak.

Maybe it's just a coincidence that one takes (apparently) a lot less time to synthesize.

 

[dread]

I mean, MDPV is a big success (commercially)... and here the vendors are, making ring florinated cathinones and other random shit, all of which is marginal at best, but shortening the carbon chain (usually the 3-carbon one is qualitatively best) of a successful product to make a better one isn't being done?
IMO, it's very surprising... and like, they have the precursors right there, since everyone and their mom is making methylone and MDPV.

My guess is they are "saving" MDPB for future use... you know, cashing in on MDPV as long as you can still sell that shit, once it becomes illegal everywhere they'll move on to MDPB or some other family member...

 

[TheAzo]

The difficulty of synthesizing all members of this family is comparable.