Opioids Experiment Thead - New Formulation Oxycodone Extraction

[BATTLECO]

i'm pretty sure that the dangers of the microwave were addressed earlier and proven false in another thread. a microwave does not emit anything radioactive, and radioactive waves would only harm something living, not somehow make the pill "radioactive" and consequently dangerous to ingest because of radioactivity. (i'll link that other thread in a minute if i can find it.)

edit: here it is http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?t=537394

as far as what heat may or may not do to the other ingredients, i have no knowledge personally, and i have heard others mention that tampering with some ingredients could potentially alter them in such a way as to render them more harmful, but i have not really seen anything definitive. do you have sources for any of this? i'm not trying to call you out or anything; i would just like to see them if they are available online. (additionally sources regarding the "level II carcinogens," etc. and statements from other countries about them being harmful would be very helpful to the forum)

No, I do not have any definitive proof to back this up, however it has been proven that heating any kind of plastics does release extremely toxic fumes. I'm not sure if they are absorbed by the powder or not. My main point was that Purdue has truly destroyed these pills for all practical purposes, and they are no where near as powerful as the old ones. And look at all of the time and trouble you are going through to try and even make them similar to the old ones. I live in the US, and it seems to me if your main interest is getting high it would be far easier, and less expensive to just buy heroin. Not to mention the quality of your high would be far better. Like I said I'm not trying to knock the method, as I have tried it myself, but even when done properly it is still nothing like railing an old oc. I would just suggest for safety and quality, you would be far better served buying heroin or roxi's, or if you have a prescription, do what I did and just have your doc switch you to all roxis. I'm not a scientist, but my sister is a Phd in Chemistry, and I was in the same boat as you, until she warned me of how potentially dangerous thes microwave extractions are, as the pills are made with plastic. So, it may very well not become radioactive, but burning plastic IS TOXIC. I'm not telling you to not do this, TO EACH HIS OWN, only trying to suggest safer, more effective alternatives, that is all.

update+ I am by no means trying to preach to anyone either, I was just trying to share some info my sister gave me concerning the microwave method. I don't knock anyone's choices, it is a free country and you are free to do what you want, hell, I smoke cigs, and those are PROVEN to cause cancer, so I am sorry if I came off as righteous, that was not my intent! Like I said I am in the same boat as I can't get old oc's either. Have you tried using a toaster oven, perhaps there is another way to remove plastic without heat? I am only sharing info to try and help fellow oc users that is all, sorry if I offended you, I did not mean for that, and i wish everyone the best trying to defeat this awful pill!

 

[monolith0323]

I have 20mg OPs and am trying to use the Coke method to get them to work the way the old ones worked when chewed. Basically I'm just a chewer and am wondering if I am using the best method possible.

I can get them into a pretty fine powder with just a pill cutter and a pill grinder. They actually aren't that hard for me to cut.
I then put them in some Coke in a large shot glass and let it sit for at least 6 hours or so. The result is a sort of thin syrupy liquid with some white substance at the bottom.

I drink the soda and ingest the white powdery substance. I've only done this once before and it was ok. Not great by any means, maybe half as strong as chewing the old ones but it's better than nothing.

I would appreciate any advice on how to do this better or more correctly


Best regards sorry for my newbie questions.

 

[oxycontinbullet]

Debuct A/B Extraction

I am pretty pissed right now and if Mr Moriority was here in front of me, we would be on our way to his atm. I used ten 60s and got back 200mgs. Exactly 30%. He said things like "I did" and "I Got" when he didnt try a damn thing. I am sure he is very intelligent and all but he hypothosized and didnt do a DAMN thing. I knew it pretty much right away when he said he overwhelmed the gelatin by using a liter of water. BULL! A liter didnt overwhelm ten 60s and he used 10 80s supposedly. Then when I added the lye and got that reaction with the crap the same way that another member did. I knew then that he didnt actually try his experiment. Dont try saying that I used primitive equipment or anything like that. The only thing I did different was I did slow evaporation which should have done better. I say if anyone out there wants to try an experiment then try straight to E. A/B extraction sucks rod. I lost the majority of my oxies. He then later recommends using a hundred tablets to make it worth doing. He is probably a cop. JERK

 

[oxycontinbullet]

I know I misspelled Debuct

 

[ugly]

won't these stupid 60s I'm still staring at taste like birdshit if I let one melt in my mouth? I don't know what to do with them. I just look at them and think "What a fucking WASTE!"

 

[mymindisgoo]

just grind it with a pedd egg or something and snort it real hard as to get all the powder up yer nose before it gets gooey.. or microfreeze it. problem solved

 

[JohnyV]

I am pretty pissed right now and if Mr Moriority was here in front of me, we would be on our way to his atm. I used ten 60s and got back 200mgs. Exactly 30%. He said things like "I did" and "I Got" when he didnt try a damn thing.

Friend, how did you test the exact amount of opiate mgs from your final product or solution?

I did not think it was possible to do this without sending a sample to a lab. Sure, they have test kits for opiates but these do not test how much, just a simple positive or negative result.

If you or anyone else has information on this subject, it would be greatly appreciated and it help in my test results which I could more accurately share here.

So, in short: Is their some type of new opiate test or other method that can accurately display the amount of opiates from a sample or item?

Thanks for any help

 

[lazylazyjoe]

I'm a little confused about all this... is this gelling agent, the PolyOx, soluble in Methanol? If not then, couldn't you put the ground/milled up pill in a solution, agitate it and wait for it to seperate, suck up the solution, put it in a flat disc, then evaporating it off using a small fan, then scrape up the remains work? I've done this with other pills and it worked. Please excuse my ignorance on all this,

If it is, then, what about just plugging the whole gelled solution (using water, not methanol) using something like a large needle-less syringe and lots of water.

Also, I have IV'd 100mg morphines that gelled by using a large piece of cotton, extra water, and NOT agitatting or heating it. It wasn't perfect but it was IV'able, probably very bad though since it contained some gel.

 

[stray cat]

No, I do not have any definitive proof to back this up, however it has been proven that heating any kind of plastics does release extremely toxic fumes. I'm not sure if they are absorbed by the powder or not. My main point was that Purdue has truly destroyed these pills for all practical purposes, and they are no where near as powerful as the old ones. And look at all of the time and trouble you are going through to try and even make them similar to the old ones. I live in the US, and it seems to me if your main interest is getting high it would be far easier, and less expensive to just buy heroin. Not to mention the quality of your high would be far better. Like I said I'm not trying to knock the method, as I have tried it myself, but even when done properly it is still nothing like railing an old oc. I would just suggest for safety and quality, you would be far better served buying heroin or roxi's, or if you have a prescription, do what I did and just have your doc switch you to all roxis. I'm not a scientist, but my sister is a Phd in Chemistry, and I was in the same boat as you, until she warned me of how potentially dangerous thes microwave extractions are, as the pills are made with plastic. So, it may very well not become radioactive, but burning plastic IS TOXIC. I'm not telling you to not do this, TO EACH HIS OWN, only trying to suggest safer, more effective alternatives, that is all.

update+ I am by no means trying to preach to anyone either, I was just trying to share some info my sister gave me concerning the microwave method. I don't knock anyone's choices, it is a free country and you are free to do what you want, hell, I smoke cigs, and those are PROVEN to cause cancer, so I am sorry if I came off as righteous, that was not my intent! Like I said I am in the same boat as I can't get old oc's either. Have you tried using a toaster oven, perhaps there is another way to remove plastic without heat? I am only sharing info to try and help fellow oc users that is all, sorry if I offended you, I did not mean for that, and i wish everyone the best trying to defeat this awful pill!

Hi Battle:

Please do not misunderstand my post as saying that I took offense to anything you said; if it came across that way, I sincerely apologize. I was just asking you to post any sources you might have for the good of the community. It's always better imo if the reader can verify a poster's assertions through nonbiased third-party sources, for various reasons, but I definitely did not mean to challenge the validity of what you said per se, or to seem combative or anything like that. (the microwave thing being an exception i guess, as there had been a thread earlier which ran somewhat contra to that portion of your post). anyway, the free expression of ideas is important here, and i certainly would not fault anyone for trying to prevent harm on a harm reduction site! once again, i'm sorry if my tone seemed unnecessarily argumentative or rude, because that was not my intent. take it easy

 

[BATTLECO]

Hi Battle:

Please do not misunderstand my post as saying that I took offense to anything you said; if it came across that way, I sincerely apologize. I was just asking you to post any sources you might have for the good of the community. It's always better imo if the reader can verify a poster's assertions through nonbiased third-party sources, for various reasons, but I definitely did not mean to challenge the validity of what you said per se, or to seem combative or anything like that. (the microwave thing being an exception i guess, as there had been a thread earlier which ran somewhat contra to that portion of your post). anyway, the free expression of ideas is important here, and i certainly would not fault anyone for trying to prevent harm on a harm reduction site! once again, i'm sorry if my tone seemed unnecessarily argumentative or rude, because that was not my intent. take it easy

No worries, no offense taken, you made a valid point. I was going off my sister's knowledge of chemistry and how plastics can become very toxic when exposed to extreme heat. Now if all of the plastic is eliminated through some processes then I'm not sure they would be so dangerous, BUT if any of the plastics remain, I'm not sure the microwave method is something I would want to ingest into my system, esp lungs. But, like I said I wish you all the best in your attempts to beat this fuckin pill, as i may have to go back to it at some point. I only hope Purdue sees the error of its ways and recall it and puts the original back, although from what I hear that is not going to happen, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

 

[EricBana]

I don't think you've seen an OP. You need a Mack truck to crush one, and even then, you have just pancaked it.

Also, the "wax" (aka ammonio methacrylate copolymer) in the old OC has been replaced by cured PolyOx, a hydrophilic resin that absorbs water, expanding to a gel twice the original dimensions. oxycodone is bound to polyox, and released by diffusion, erosion, and/or polymer degradation. The latter is the fastest way to release it.

PolyOx dissolves in IPA, so you can use one or more of several methods to degrade it while in a pure IPA solution, which should be continuously agitated. When degraded, it lets go of the oxycodone, which will sediment out.

If you then drain off the solution, the sediment that remains contains oxicodone and a very small amount of remaining excipients, most of which are not water soluble.

It won't get everything, but you may be able to repeat the process of <degradation+agitation, sedimentation,drainage> using the previously drained solution to get more out.

Notes

1. You must not allow water anywhere near the procedure. The isopropyl alcohol (IPA) must have 0% water. Even 1% will prevent the procedure from working. There is a procedure to prepare pure IPA with nothing more than an oven, high percentage isopropanol, and epsom salts (see note 5).
   
   
2. It is a good idea to perform the procedure inside a sealable box, such as one of those large plastic containers made for organizers by Rubbermaid and others. A closed packet of dried epsom salts (see note 5) should be kept inside the box during the procedure to prevent the possibility that humidity in the air could contaminate the procedure.
   
   
3. Note that with the second and any subsequent iteration, the quantity of sediment will be very small, and being white, very hard to see. It would help to use a small thin glass with a transparent bottom to hold the solution, with a circle of black paper or plastic glued to it's bottom, for contrast.
   
   
4. Recommended degradation method is continuous aeration of polyox solution in IPA while flooded with high intensity ultraviolet. This could be preceded by using a fatty solvent to dissolve the anti-oxidant BHT, but with strong UV light, this should be unnecessary and would just make things far more complicated.
   
   
5. Dried epsom salt can be prepared from the epsom salt you can buy at CVS.
   Heat in oven at 500 degrees until the crystals melt and turn into a solid white block. This has driven off all the water that was bound to the crystals. Remove block from oven and crush using vise or some other way. Don't use the kind of plastic pill crusher with triangles, you'll break off the triangles while crushing. Keep the dried salts in an airtight container with no room for air. When ready to use, place desired amount into any kind of bag that can breathe and close to avoid spillage.

justtesting, do you have a link to a good "how-to" on purifying IPA with Epsom salts. I have 91% IPA, but gotta get it to 100%.

Then once I have 100% IPA, I simply powder (or do my best) my OP 80s, then put them in the IPA and agitate for a long time until all the polyox is in solution with the IPA. The sediment remaining should be the oxycodone (plus any inactive chems. which are not soluble in IPA) right? I siphon off the polyox/IPA solution, then add water to my Oxy sediment, and finally evaporate everything leaving me with somewhat pure oxycodone and no polyox? So I can either shoot or sniff the resulting oxy powder? Mainly interested in shooting...hehe. Thanks man!

I know I posted this on page 10, but I would really really appreciate some feedback. Where are ya justtesting?!?!?!

 

[nicci4321]

I've never tried the solvent methods, but I have for weeks now been taking off the coating and microwaving the entire pill for 4 minutes.(obviously microwaves vary). After microwaving I place the entire pill into the freezer for about 1min. At this point the pill is still sticky, but you can cut it up easily into very small pieces. After cutting, I put the pieces back into the microwave for 2 more minutes. The pieces turn slightly off white and glassy looking, at which point I put the plate with the pieces back into the freezer for 2 minutes. At this point the pieces are no longer sticky and you can cut them into even finer pieces. Snort and enjoy. You even get the old familiar taste in the back of your throat. I cant say the buzz is as strong, but its close, and its not time released. This is what I've been doing daily for weeks now, and it has worked for me. One last tip...Be careful to not over cook your product, if it turns tan or brown, you've gone to far.

 

[monolith0323]

Question

I've been dissolving mine in coke for a few hours and it seems somewhat effective, maybe 50% of the old dose.

I think I'll give your method a shot, it sounds interesting.

Also..what about sucking on them? It seems that several people have reported good experiences with this method when combined with drinking a Coke or other acidic drinks.

I've also had two 20s dissolving in water for almost two days now. There is a white blob at the top and what appears to be powder at the bottom. I've seen other posts where the blob is discarded and the water and powder consumed. I'll post the results of that soon.

As you can tell I'm not a smoker or snorter, just a chewer who doesn't mind not getting a high IR dose from the OPs as long as I get some return.

Thanks for any info anyone can provide.

 

[EricBana]

I've never tried the solvent methods, but I have for weeks now been taking off the coating and microwaving the entire pill for 4 minutes.(obviously microwaves vary). After microwaving I place the entire pill into the freezer for about 1min. At this point the pill is still sticky, but you can cut it up easily into very small pieces. After cutting, I put the pieces back into the microwave for 2 more minutes. The pieces turn slightly off white and glassy looking, at which point I put the plate with the pieces back into the freezer for 2 minutes. At this point the pieces are no longer sticky and you can cut them into even finer pieces. Snort and enjoy. You even get the old familiar taste in the back of your throat. I cant say the buzz is as strong, but its close, and its not time released. This is what I've been doing daily for weeks now, and it has worked for me. One last tip...Be careful to not over cook your product, if it turns tan or brown, you've gone to far.

This is no help to people wanting to shoot the OPs, unfortunately. Not a dig against you nicci, I'm just stating my frustration with these new OP oxys. Can't wait til' I get my roxy 30s in 10 days 8(

 

[justtesting]

justtesting, do you have a link to a good "how-to" on purifying IPA with Epsom salts. I have 91% IPA, but gotta get it to 100%.

I know I posted this on page 10, but I would really really appreciate some feedback. Where are ya justtesting?!?!?!

Still here.

I don't have a single specific writeup on the subject, but there are two posts you should look at in my "Library of posts", as well as Wikipedia's epsom salts page.

In one of those posts, (Questions about strengthening liquor proof with epsom salt)I described a procedure I planned to try for removing water from vodka, and asked some questions of someone familiar with the method. A response from andyb is in the post andyb's Answer to above post. He makes some good points, particularly about starting out with alcohol that is a higher concentration than the typical vodka.

Exactly the same procedure that I proposed for ethanol will also work for isopropyl alcohol. Better, in fact, because epsom salts are very slightly soluble in ethanol, but not at all in isopropanol. [With ethanol you would end up with a tiny amount of epsom salts in the ~200 proof ethanol; not nearly enough to act as a laxative (one of the things epsom salts are sold for), but too much for absolute purists. This would not be a problem when purifying isopropanol, which can't dissolve MGSO4]

The basic idea is that you can dry "wet" epsom salts by heating them. I'm calling the heptahydrate crystals "wet" for my convenience. Nobody else calls them that, and they feel dry to the touch. Heating the wet salts produces "dry" salts plus water vapor

Specifically, 0.480 grams of dry epsom salts +.504 grams water gives you .984 grams wet epsom salts. A ml of water weighs almost exactly one gram gram, so it is easy to determine how many grams of dry epsom salts are needed to absorb a given volume of water.

It is best to err on the side of using too much epsom salt. Too little, and you will have water left.

Then once I have 100% IPA, I simply powder (or do my best) my OP 80s, then put them in the IPA and agitate for a long time until all the polyox is in solution with the IPA. The sediment remaining should be the oxycodone (plus any inactive chems. which are not soluble in IPA) right? I siphon off the polyox/IPA solution, then add water to my Oxy sediment, and finally evaporate everything leaving me with somewhat pure oxycodone and no polyox? So I can either shoot or sniff the resulting oxy powder? Mainly interested in shooting...hehe. Thanks man!

Sorry, it is not just a question of dissolving the polyox. You need to degrade it, or it will hold on to the oxycodone like a mother holds on to her baby in a war zone. The sediment will not include much oxycodone, unless the polyox has been degraded (there will be a little, but not much).

Degradation can be accomplished by several means. One is by oxidation (that is why Rurik's method "works"). Another is by exposure to strong UV light. Yet another is by applying specific types of shear forces documented by Dow Chemical.

Another user has proposed a method that uses some of these ideas, but also uses an idea that I originally suggested, but now disagree with, involving volatile oils to dissolve an anti-oxidant. I now feel that this makes it much too complicated. See "Other experiments on OPs" in my library of posts (above), as well as the next link after it.

The following is the closest I've seen to the sequence about which you asked "would this work" (paraphrased of course). It was cut and pasted from Topix (note that PEO is a "generic" name for PolyOx):

There are a couple of well thought out methods that have been proposed. One good one is an acid/base extraction, but the simplest seems to just require knowing that PEO is soluble in isopropanol while oxycodone is not, and being able to follow basic but necessary instructions to degrade PEO: 1) Degrade the high molecular weight PEO to a degree sufficient to break it's binding to oxycodone. 2) Dissolve the degraded PEO in 100% isopropanol (even 1% water would cause this method to fail). 3) Siphon away the PEO/isopropanol solution, leaving a residue consisting of oxycodone and a minute amount of other ingredients. 4) Add more isopropanol to dilute whatever solution could not be siphoned off, then siphon it away. 5. Allow isopropanol to evaporate. 6) Dissolve the residue in water, then siphon away the oxycodone/water solution, leaving only the non-water-soluble ingredients behind.

Note 1: People interested in understanding this more thoroughly will need to dig up the degradation methods on one of those web sites. Note 2: Steps 1 and 2 are only shown as separate steps to make the method seem more understandable. In practice they appear intended to be combined.

 

[Kenaz]

No worries, no offense taken, you made a valid point. I was going off my sister's knowledge of chemistry and how plastics can become very toxic when exposed to extreme heat. Now if all of the plastic is eliminated through some processes then I'm not sure they would be so dangerous, BUT if any of the plastics remain, I'm not sure the microwave method is something I would want to ingest into my system, esp lungs.

Never mind lungs - I'm 100% sure I wouldn't want pyrolised plastics going into my circulatory system!

Seriously, I can't imagine any way by which the "microwave/freezer" method would eliminate these plastics, or the byproducts thereof. I remember one person describing the solution which resulted from an M/F as resembling a shot of black tar. Unless OPs are made with a new special "black oxycodone" that tells me a whole bunch of extra stuff went into his vein.

 

[EricBana]

Still here.

I don't have a single specific writeup on the subject, but there are two posts you should look at in my "Library of posts", as well as Wikipedia's epsom salts page.

In one of those posts, (Questions about strengthening liquor proof with epsom salt)I described a procedure I planned to try for removing water from vodka, and asked some questions of someone familiar with the method. A response from andyb is in the post andyb's Answer to above post. He makes some good points, particularly about starting out with alcohol that is a higher concentration than the typical vodka.

Exactly the same procedure that I proposed for ethanol will also work for isopropyl alcohol. Better, in fact, because epsom salts are very slightly soluble in ethanol, but not at all in isopropanol. [With ethanol you would end up with a tiny amount of epsom salts in the ~200 proof ethanol; not nearly enough to act as a laxative (one of the things epsom salts are sold for), but too much for absolute purists. This would not be a problem when purifying isopropanol, which can't dissolve MGSO4]

The basic idea is that you can dry "wet" epsom salts by heating them. I'm calling the heptahydrate crystals "wet" for my convenience. Nobody else calls them that, and they feel dry to the touch. Heating the wet salts produces "dry" salts plus water vapor

Specifically, 0.480 grams of dry epsom salts +.504 grams water gives you .984 grams wet epsom salts. A ml of water weighs almost exactly one gram gram, so it is easy to determine how many grams of dry epsom salts are needed to absorb a given volume of water.

It is best to err on the side of using too much epsom salt. Too little, and you will have water left.

Sorry, it is not just a question of dissolving the polyox. You need to degrade it, or it will hold on to the oxycodone like a mother holds on to her baby in a war zone. The sediment will not include much oxycodone, unless the polyox has been degraded (there will be a little, but not much).

Degradation can be accomplished by several means. One is by oxidation (that is why Rurik's method "works"). Another is by exposure to strong UV light. Yet another is by applying specific types of shear forces documented by Dow Chemical.

Another user has proposed a method that uses some of these ideas, but also uses an idea that I originally suggested, but now disagree with, involving volatile oils to dissolve an anti-oxidant. I now feel that this makes it much too complicated. See "Other experiments on OPs" in my library of posts (above), as well as the next link after it.

The following is the closest I've seen to the sequence about which you asked "would this work" (paraphrased of course). It was cut and pasted from Topix (note that PEO is a "generic" name for PolyOx):

Ok I see what your saying. The PEO is oxidized through heat in Rujiks method correct? So if I dissolve a few 80s in 100% IPA, then boil that solution constantly adding more IPA to account for evap. will the PEO get hot enough to degrade? I read somewhere else that it degrades at 300f.

BTW justtesting, what are your opinions on Rujiks method for IVing? Is the "tiny" amount of gel left over he talks about merely an indication the PEO hasnt completely degraded? I assume the multiple cotton filtrations remove all the PEG (what the PEO degraded into)?



thanks man

 

[justtesting]

More on using Epsom Salts to "dry" alcohols

Say you have 100ml of 50% (100 proof) vodka. Alcohol percentages are given by volume, so you have 50ml of alcohol and 50ml of water. Water has a density of approximately 1 gram per ml, so you have about 50 grams of water in the solution. Every gram of MgSO4 will hold ~.5g of water (according to your numbers, I did not confirm them), so THEORETICALLY you need about 100 grams of anhydrous MgSO4. In practice, use some extra MgSO4 to make sure that you got all the water as in all likelihood the MgSO4 won't be 100% anhydrous, and it's also quite possible that you have a bit more than 50ml water due to concentration by evaporation of the alcohol. That seems like a lot of MgSO4 to me. I would try to find more concentrated alcohol (everclear probably) if I were you.
...
Hope my math was all good there. I've been up for way too long right now.

I just took a closer look at those numbers last night (when I also wrote about half of this posting). Unless I've been up too late, this time, I think your numbers for anyhydrous and heptahydrate are reversed.

It is every gram of the heptahydrate that contains ~0.5 gram of water,

=> 0.480 grams of anyhydrous +.504 grams water --> .984 grams heptahydrate

so with a liquid composed of .5g water and .5g alcohol, you'd need .48 g anhydrous to swallow up all the water, producing just under a gram of heptahydrate.

So one would determine the volume of the water to be absorbed, and determine it's weight (via 1g ~= 1ml) . The only thing to watch out for is that a choice of too little anhydrous will prevent all of the water from being removed. You need just a little less anhydrous than water by weight, so using equal weights won't hurt. (You'll just have a teeny bit more sediment to leave behind.

Based upon the above, the end user would start out with 2 grams of the heptahydrate form per gram of water to be removed. This amount of heptahydrate contains a little over a gram of water. Removing this water from the heptahydrate by heating, will leave enough of the anhydrous form to consume more than one gram (or one ml.) of water.

Or with real world numbers, if one wanted to dry 10 fluid ounces of 91% isopropanol alcohol, that means one would need to remove 0.9 fluid ounces of water, or 26.616 milliliters. It's kind of natural to want to calculate everything in milliliters, but in this case, we can just double the weight of the water to get an amount of heptahydrate that is more than effective (1.8 oz) and round it up to 2 oz.

The only other concern I have is about temperature. When I prepared my anhydrous for testing, I used 500+ F. for 10 - 15 minutes. This not only drove out the water, but it melted the crystals, and I ended up with a white block of caked powder. It worked to absorb the water I needed it to, but that resulted in a hard rock of heptahydrate. If I were to use a lower temperature of say 250 F, would it retain it's crystal form, and hence be more easily re-usable?

When the crystals melt, it is obvious that all the water has been drive out. If using a lower temperature, do you have any indicator of when the water has all been driven out of the crystals, or do you just use experience (one's own, or that of others) to gauge the time needed?`I think I remember seeing times of one or two hours in another post, but I don't remember what the corresponding temperatures were.

 

[justtesting]

Ok I see what your saying. The PEO is oxidized through heat in Rujiks method correct? So if I dissolve a few 80s in 100% IPA, then boil that solution constantly adding more IPA to account for evap. will the PEO get hot enough to degrade? I read somewhere else that it degrades at 300f.

Not precisely, it's oxidized by Oxygen. Heat is just the catalyst, and the presence of BHT (an anti-oxidant added to OP's for just this reason) inhibits oxidation except in the presence of the brute force of burning, which I think may also be damaging the BHT. Without burning, which also damages some of your oxycodone (the reason light tan works better than dark tan), you need to spend hours degrading the PEO.

Degrading a polyox molecule, means turning it's long polymer chain into multiple mulecules consisting of shorter polymer chains. A polymer is essentially a repeated sequence of identical molecules chained together into one long molecule. Picture a little girl's paper cutout dolls made from folded paper with scissors. The same cutout figure is repeated many times. The number of repetitions determines how much the molecule weighs.

Polyethylene oxide is a polymer chain of ethylene oxide molecules. PEO 2000 would have a molecular weight of 2000 and one set of mechanical properties, while PEO 32,000 would have a molecular weight of 32000, and have a different set of mechanical properties. PolyOx is a Dow trademark for a PEO having a molecular weight in the millions. Think of the kind of folding such a long molecule, and it's neigboring molecules can do. That's what accounts for it having such a high viscosity. They interfere with each other flowing. These molecules are so big that they can actually wrap themselves around tiny particles of oxycodone. That's why just dissolving them does not release the drug. They have to be degraded. Your digestive system contains enzymes that will break down (or in Dow's terminology, "erode") the polymer strands at the gel surface, which releases the drug, at a more or less continuous rate. You can't buy those enzymes, so you have to take advantage of other means of degrading it. High intensity UV light is one way. Oxidation is another way. Applying shear forces in a particular manner is a third. Dow has a document on this.

A simple aerator can help with the oxidation. You can make a small one by bundling a bunch of thin 1" lengths of very thin heat shrink tubing with a surrounding 1/2 " tube fed air by a small air pump (maybe an electric bicycle pump, but that might be too powerful). This can be used to aerate a polyox/IPA solution that at the same time is being flooded with high brightness UV light. ion catalyzation could accelerate the breakdown if one could figure out an easy way to do it with an IPA based solution. The whole thing is probably best done inside a closed airtight organizer box (that also contains a paper bag containing a dried epsom salt based dessicant), so that neither IPA evaporation nor high atmospheric humidity can cause problems.

BTW justtesting, what are your opinions on Rujiks method for IVing? Is the "tiny" amount of gel left over he talks about merely an indication the PEO hasnt completely degraded? I assume the multiple cotton filtrations remove all the PEG (what the PEO degraded into)?

thanks man

I think it could be dangerous to inject that stuff. He may see a "tiny amount of gel", but he still has as much PEO as before. it just now consists of mostly shorter length polymers that don't have much gelling capability. They don't need to have degraded so far as to be callable PEGs, and thinking about it, probably not that very many have been. There is also a small amount of other solids, such as BHT and titanium dioxide, which can be filtered out easily as a final step, and should be filtered out.

P.S. I just now discovered a book called "Handbook of Polymer Degradation". It might (or might not) be helpful for learning of other methods or shortcuts to PEO degradation. Amazon has 1 new copy for $250, and used copies are going for over $500. It might be worth checking a local library for a copy.

 

[justtesting]

I can honestly say that they do last longer, that is only improvement of the med. But the power of the oxycodone is in my opinion about 50% of what it was. I know this because I would take an 80 of the old and feel good relief in about 45min. When I got the op's, I tried taking two 80's at the same time, and when they took effect(usually after about 2 hours), the analgesic effect was inferior to the single 80 of the old formula.

Please, don't say it this way to anybody who might be in a position to help. When you say that you would "feel good relief in about 45 minutes", you are raising a red flag. The medicine is not intended to increase serum levels to an extent that could do so in such a short time. It is intended to maintain continuous serum levels. As soon as any medically sophisticated person hears this, it tells him that you are taking it in a manner that would cause serum levels to peak in a relatively short period of time. In other words, abnormal usage This is precisely what you do not want to say. As soon as they hear that they will tune you out, with the word "junkie" flashing across their mental blackboards. The medicines are, and always have been, designed so that an individual dose would gradually creep up and only start adding to the analgesia equation after two hours. When taken as intended, all the doses blend in together. The concept of the drug "kicking in" is not supposed to exist. And you do not want your audience to think that you think otherwise.

They were never thoroughly tested on human subjects, and the ones they did test on were not opiate users.

Correct. And even more to the point, they were being tested exactly as they are not intended to be used. This is a round the clock medicine. For the new drug to be equivalent to the old, you need to have serum level continuity from one dose to the next, such that each dose slowly adds to a "reservior of pain relief" at about the same rate that it is being drained, maintaining a constant level, so that there are no obvious peaks or troughs in relief, or bumps from an individual dose.

Yet the test protocol had the subjects take exactly one tablet with no opiate previously in the system, and no additional tablets to keep the reservoir full. This means that it was tested only for the effect and side effects of a single dose, and that there was no testing of the drug's ability to keep the pain relief reservoir at the same levels no matter how long it is until the next scheduled dose. And similarly, the single tablet nature of the test protocol did not allow for the possibility of the occurrence of adverse effects that might only present themselves after repetitive dosing. This is wrong in so many ways! I could write a book here. And the FDA should know better. The only thing more astonishing than the protocols used and the FDA's acceptance of the results, is that the FDA would make public how shoddy a series of clinical trials they would allow Purdue to get away with.

AND..do you realize these pills(op's) contain level 2 carcinogens in them, and this is a big reason why other countries forbid their sale?

Other countries forbid their sale for the same reason they forbid any other unapproved drug. They have not yet been approved.

If you are worried about BHT, for example (and there really isn't any reason you should be, but that's not to the point), there are any number of other antioxidants that could be used in it's place, when preparing the drug for approval in a foreign country.
I have seen the articles about "cancer causing ingredients" over in Topix, where it has gotten ridiculous. The ingredients that a few claim to be cancer causing, in fact, have a little controversy surrounding them, and some studies will claim that these ingredients are protective against certain cancers, while other studies done at the same time will suggest that they could cause certain cancers . Whether or they may cause cancer is a red herring that just diverts attention away from the main issues. When you start getting bogged down in details, you lose sight of the big picture. You don't know whether or not they cause cancer. Hell, even the experts can't agree on that. It is best to stick to what you do know, namely what the drug has done to you personally, and what you have learned from studying the clinical trial paperwork on THIS drug at clinicaltrials.gov (That is where I learned of the protocols that the trials used, and also where I learned about the major differences in side effect profiles between Oxycontin tablets made in Purdue's Totowa plant versus their Wilson Plant).

the cancer causing agents only become more dangerous after being heated

I never learned of this in my "Biology Of Cancer" class. Very interesting. What is your source? I would love to discuss this with them.

(especially in a microwave, which actually emits cancer causing radioactive waves of it's own).

Microwaves are just very short electromagnetic waves, that differ from light waves and longer radio waves only by their frequencies. (You do know that the radio waves used by your wireless router and cordless phones are in the same range as those used by microwave ovens, don't you?)

So are you saying that these radio waves somehow cause the expression of oncogenes, or inhibition of anti-oncogenes, or are you saying that this is done by some hitherto unknown form of energy emitted by microwave ovens at the same time that they generate micro waves?