Hello and an MDPV Question

zamzams said:
thanks for the other method stuff.

no doubt once i get another window to make some i will try both methods, it's a slow process though with the wife and trust gotta be earnt plus with the amount of time it takes to dry trying to hide stuff is a artform in itself.
Click to expand...

Tell your wife you're experimenting with home brewed beer. Women understand such quirks in men.
 
Alcyone said:
I did, however, run a GC-MS on what I'm inclined to believe is the Tan Stuff, but it doesn't make any sense to me. Not yet, anyway.
Click to expand...

Can you expand on this...? Is it from a 2006 "tan" sample, or the product of the stuffmonger process..?

Why doesn't it make any sense?
 
specialspack said:
Can you expand on this...? Is it from a 2006 "tan" sample, or the product of the stuffmonger process..?

Why doesn't it make any sense?
Click to expand...

It's not the 2006 tan MDPV. It's white MDPV HCl subjected to an oxidative environment in an analytical scale experiment designed to replicate the stuffmonger process. The end product may or may not be the same as the magical Tan Stuff discussed in this thread.

The results don't make sense because they're not at all what I was expecting. I was expecting to see oxidation of the pyrrolidine moiety and possibly hydrolytic cleavage of the resulting lactam, but that's clearly not happening under my reaction conditions. What I'm seeing is a substance with a molecular weight of 281 (that's 6 mass units more than MDPV), and the pyrrolidine and ketone functions are both intact. It appears that there are six hydrogens added to the benzodioxol moiety. That's all I can say for now.

I'm not sure if I should post the mass spectrum because 1) it might not be the actual Tan Stuff and 2) it seems to me that some people would prefer that the chemical composition of the Tan Stuff remains a mystery. I'd be happy to delete my posts if anyone can explain to me why keeping such secrets is considered harm reduction.
 
Acid4Blood said:
Aye, he's grand now. Too much peevee did its thing yet again.
Click to expand...

Indeed. :\

Me and a mate both attempted this. The PV I had was shit, the water went green, threw it out. My mate had same result with the tan I had, but managed it with the white. Although in the end he wasn't sure if he'd used enough baking soda, said the end result was still edgy.

Alot more tricky extracting that oil than you might think.
 
Alcyone said:
I
The results don't make sense because they're not at all what I was expecting. I was expecting to see oxidation of the pyrrolidine moiety and possibly hydrolytic cleavage of the resulting lactam, but that's clearly not happening under my reaction conditions. What I'm seeing is a substance with a molecular weight of 281 (that's 6 mass units more than MDPV), and the pyrrolidine and ketone functions are both intact. It appears that there are six hydrogens added to the benzodioxol moiety. That's all I can say for now.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't even say that, did you also see 207 in the spectrum!! now go look up column bleed siloxane ions. then post your thoughts.
 
^ I'm not sure if I understand, but there's always a fair chance I've screwed up, if that's what you mean. I'm quite familiar with column bleed (and background subtraction), I've got about 6 or 7 years working experience with GC-MS, but that's a few years ago and it's not what I do these days. I'll have to look at my results again, but if I've mistaken a bloody siloxane for a molecular ion, it would certainly be a royal fuck-up.

I'll post back when I've ruled out the possibility that I've just made a complete fool of myself. Don't hold your breath, folks.
 
16915140246400370207.jpg


Ok, knock yourselves out. The top half is ion traces of some diagnostic ions. The bottom half is the subtracted EI mass spectrum. It was acquired on an Agilent 6890/5973.

m/z 281 is there, but it's signal to noise ratio is about the same as in this thread. 8)
 
^ i wish i could understand that.
Can anyone shed some light as to what it shows or what chemical it might be?
 
A couple of hints...

m/z 126 is the butylpyrrolidinium ion characteristic of pyrovalerones.
m/z 127 is methylenedioxyphenyl +6 Da. Of course, 127 is also the isotope peak of 126, but it's abundance is too high. MDPV has 121 instead of 127.
m/z 155 is methylenedioxybenzenecarbonyl + 6 Da. MDPV has 149 instead of 155.
m/z 238 results form the loss of a propyl radical from the molecular ion at 281. The propyl loss is characteristic of pyrovalerones. MDPV has 232 resulting from the loss of a propyl radical from the molecular ion at 275.
m/z 84 is a methylenepyrrolidinium ion arising from a propyl loss from m/z 126. I didn't show its ion trace because it was displayed in yellow and didn't print well.

Once again, this might be the Tan Stuff. It might just as well be something entirely different.
 
The image I uploaded was perfectly legible, but for some reason it doesn't represent well in here. Can anyone please help me out? I'm a chem geek, not a computer geek.

Edit: Now I see, it's not too bad if you click it and zoom.
 
Alcyone said:
It's not the 2006 tan MDPV. It's white MDPV HCl subjected to an oxidative environment in an analytical scale experiment designed to replicate the stuffmonger process. The end product may or may not be the same as the magical Tan Stuff discussed in this thread.

The results don't make sense because they're not at all what I was expecting. I was expecting to see oxidation of the pyrrolidine moiety and possibly hydrolytic cleavage of the resulting lactam, but that's clearly not happening under my reaction conditions. What I'm seeing is a substance with a molecular weight of 281 (that's 6 mass units more than MDPV), and the pyrrolidine and ketone functions are both intact. It appears that there are six hydrogens added to the benzodioxol moiety. That's all I can say for now.
Click to expand...

If you're oxidizing the hcl then you are creating the Zamzams stuff. A number of us here have done that and it definitely isn't the tan. It's very ugly stuff, in spite of the euphoria it produces. The Tan is created by first freebasing the pv and then reacting the freebase with whatever is in the solution at temperature close to 100C. Don't know what it reacts with but it creates a much heavier oil than the pv freebase oil. It's not a simple oxidation because the heavy oil will only appear in the presence of sodium bicarbonate and sodium carbonate in water. The oil is created in an hour or so at high temperature, or in a few weeks at room temperature with continued agitation of the mix. It sinks to the bottom of the container. The residual pv freebase remains on the surface. This new oil is then oxidized to create the tan.

I am very interested in what the oxidized pv hcl is (the Zamzams stuff), since you seem to know. If it ever appears on the market it is something to absolutely stay away from.
 
Last edited:
captain codshit said:
Indeed. :\

Me and a mate both attempted this. The PV I had was shit, the water went green, threw it out. My mate had same result with the tan I had, but managed it with the white. Although in the end he wasn't sure if he'd used enough baking soda, said the end result was still edgy.

Alot more tricky extracting that oil than you might think.
Click to expand...

Try the room temperature approach outlined a few posts back. It's foolproof but takes a very long time.
 
stuffmonger said:
If you're oxidizing the hcl then you are creating the Zamzams stuff.
Click to expand...

The oxidation was carried out in an aqueous solution at alkaline pH, so I believe I'm not "oxidizing the HCl". I don't know whether I've created the Zamzams stuff, Gordon Ramsay's stuff or something altogether different. I don't even know what I've created, but at the very least I've got a clue.

Assuming that the reaction occurs in an aqueous medium, it's not really correct to refer to the substrate as hydrochloride or freebase. At low pH your substrate in this case is an ammonium ion, whereas at high pH it's an amine. Chloride anions are present in the solution in both cases and they normally don't make any difference.
 
This whole entire thread is utter bullshit.

You (and me) have all been duped by this idiot who has used about 10 different accounts to make people go through retarded undlesses time consuming loops, and when we fail, theres about 100 different factors that could of been the culprit.

This thread should have been closed a long time ago... a similar type bullshit occurred on drugs-forum.com about making smokable opium using dried ebay poppy pods.

Its bullshit folks.

Noticed how 95% of everyone who got this to work has less than 20 posts...
 
^^
Funny how others can't see it that way yet. Stuff doesn't want to send a sample to a lab but will send some to certain members. That's just plain retarded. Do those certain members know that what they recieved is begotten from this process? Certainly not. I like how Scruff says he's gonna quit responding to me when I've got him nailed. He keeps responding...why? If this is real he could just let it stand on it's own and many people would have been successful in reproducing the results by now. Noticed how he called that one post cold fusion? Hahahaha. Where are all the M'er F'ers that have replicated results? Jesus Christ people, use your brains. Look at the pictures, think about the process and quit being blinded by the BS.

Scruffmonger said he's interested in this product being developed into a sexual enhancer without euphoria...that way it'd be legal. Yeah, riiiiiight. By hoping someone here randomly comes up with that product as a result of this process? That is assine. Think about it. Better off giving a sample to Glaxo SK if you're such a philantropist. They have the labs, equipment and scientists to do it. Not us. Guess I'm just another addled fool.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top