RCs Novel opioid Tetrahydrofuranfentanyl

[roi]

Saturated analogue of Furanylfentanyl and also related to the recent Cyclopentylfentanyl.

 

[diacetylacid]

All of these fentanyl analogs and none of them compare to the real stuff. They're the perfect drug for protected millenials. Order them online and they'll be in your mailbox in a week. You don't even have to meet anyone.
Still, they all lack a soul compared to real deal opiates.

 

[Amaraline]

^^Definitely agree, I like to stick to what's known.

 

[Twigs]

Order them online and they'll be in your mailbox in a week. You don't even have to meet anyone.

The same can be said for heroin and oxy. Never heard of darknet?

 

[strity1994]

Another useless drug prolly. Why can't the rc opiate folks come up with a rc version of oxy? Something that ends with codone or morphone you know?Or be at least half as decent as rc benzo folk

 

[spacejunk]

^ probably because oxy is a semi-synthetic derivative of thebaine and (i assume) requires cultivated opium as a starting point.
Same goes for 'codone' or 'morphone' drugs; they are all plant derivatives as far as i know.
If an easy, cost effective synthesis were possible for narcotic analgesics, pharma companies would not spend so much time and effort growing, processing and refining opium poppies in places like Tasmania.

 

[Twigs]

Yes, they are churning out fentanyl analogues because they are simple molecyles, which are cheap and easy to make from easy available precursors.

 

[spacejunk]

I assume you meant these semisynthetics instead of just "narcotic analgesics". In that case it's true, the full synthesis of morphine is like 30 steps.

yes, i was specifically referring to the post above mine which was referring to semi-sythetics:

Another useless drug prolly. Why can't the rc opiate folks come up with a rc version of oxy? Something that ends with codone or morphone you know?Or be at least half as decent as rc benzo folk

I'm not a chemist, pharmacologist or whatever; nor to i pretend to be.
But yes, i am very much aware of the existence of fully synthetic opioids used both in medicine and sold as "research chemicals".

Without getting too much into synthesis discussion, i was merely pointing out that there is a good reason why analogues of popular semi-synthetic opioids and opiates are viable for the RC market.

 

[Tryptamite]

Roi I don't think you should have posted that synthesis route.

I know it's just simple outlining and easily available with one Google search but technically it probably breaches the "no synth talk rule".

 

[tacodude]

Roi I don't think you should have posted that synthesis route.

I know it's just simple outlining and easily available with one Google search but technically it probably breaches the "no synth talk rule".

That's very true plus it's damn simple..... It's three steps any Chinese lab could probably do with their eyes closed

 

[roi]

That was like the third google result, it's really not a secret. Pretty much just a not very detailed scheme, useless to both manufacturers (they already know!) as well as you, me and most others (are fentanyl lab explosions a thing, full redneck style)?

Also it would be illegal!

Back on topic, there's absolutely no mentions of tetrahydrofuranfentanyl in the literature, not even a pubchem entry. It should be very very close to furanylfentanyl though in potency and effects. The cyclopentylfentanyl on the other hand is probably rather weak, like valerylfentanyl maybe.

 

[white55]

How would it breach the no synth talk rule? He didn't say a word about the synth, he just posted a picture...

 

[muie]

roi, how do you get that cyclopentylfentanyl is weak like valerylfenanyl?
I know from reports that valerylfentanyl was reportedly very weak, some saying that Tylenol 3's has more recreational potential.

- sorry but I have to say this, you seem to be like a kid in candy store, giving advice on all drugs most which you obviously haven't tried but im sure you think that if you've had diazepam then oxazepam has the same effects. Speculating stuff based on molecular structures....honestly the more you open your mouth the more I understand you are a lost cause! What I'm saying is: LSD, you can look at the molecular structure up and down, you can read as much as an encyclopedia and you still aren't going to get what you expected nor be prepared! The same goes for a lot of what you are saying. I never post unless I have experience with that topic! At first you sound 'professorial' but the more I read I see only a disorganized mind, speed induced maybe not even, just the way you are, talking over everybody, finishing everyone's sentences because you know all there is to know - when really you don't have anything to say! You posted however when you read it you really didn't say anything that wasn't already said!

p.s. Don't turn this into a flaming war! This is a great thread! My apologies to everybody for this post as it is in no way constructive, I promise this is the end of it.

 

[kleinerkiffer]

Just a quick reminder, synthesis discussion is not allowed!

 

[roi]

roi, how do you get that cyclopentylfentanyl is weak like valerylfenanyl?

Basic observation of higher homologues of fentanyl (propionyl -> butyryl -> valeryl). Notice the pattern? Now take a look at the cyclopentyl ring...

Janssen and others created and tested hundreds of derivatives over the years, the SAR is fairly well known. Valerylfentanyl clearly proves that further extending the alkyl chain doesn't work. With just two carbons more there's already barely any activity anymore. Alkoxy groups are better supported (methoxy is less potent than fentanyl (ED50 of 0.053mg/kg compared to fentanyls 0.018mg/kg, data from doi: 10.1002/med.2610110404, read it); also check out its better known 2-fluorophenyl analogue Ocfentanyl. As you might know, furanylfentanyl is very potent (again, not as potent as fentanyl), the alkoxy group is fused into the furan ring (same applies to tetrahydrofuranylfentanyl here); however the cyclopentylfentanyl doesn't have that. There's no reason to expect it to be highly potent.

I never post unless I have experience with that topic!

Yeah, for example right now. You clearly know...oh, nvm.

Don't turn this into a flaming war!

eleGiggle

What about just asking nicely in the future? It could work!

 

[Refluxer]

Strange how Noone seems to comment on the fact that the compounds making the rounds are not phenylpiperidine amides, at least not looking at the structure and supposed iupac name at one of the major suppliers. Calling these compounds fentanyls is just plain stupid if they do indeed lack the nitrogen necessary to make them amides.

 

[Solipsis]

That is incorrect: they are still amides, the nitrogen is still present there right there in the middle on the left hand side of the formula in the OP.

You would have to share the formula that confused you, but it is quite possible that another order of nomenclature resulted in some reshuffling or a change in terms used to make up the name.

The compound of this thread still has a phenyl and a piperidine besides being an amide. The only difference is that the amide residue is not a simple aliphatic alkyl here but a heterocyclic group: the tetrahydrofuranyl. Which doesn't mean it gets a completely different and novel classification.

As for muie: roi has been called various things as 'thanks' to all the RC threads he creates - out of suspicion that he shills or doesn't know what he is talking about or whatever is going on in your mind. It's silly because it is based on nothing really than your dumbfoundedness that he creates these threads.
Yes it often has been curious to me, but I have long since accepted and embraced that he meticulously lists and catalogues research chemicals and does a lot of homework for the rest of us. The hate couldn't be more misplaced. Roi proves to be an ally. Maybe not originally a chemist afaik but makes up excellently for it. Sometimes he is more excited / enthoused about a compound than at other times but certainly not enough to suspect anything imo. The posts are informative and stubs are great if only for completeness' sake.

 

[Refluxer]

Solipsis - yes, in the op. But the highly likely source of the available materials (their appearance on market coincide, and the non-amide has been listed by vendors under name tetrahydrofuranfentanyl and cyclopentylfentanyl) does not list the amides. Roi cites comments from Swedish forum Flashback. But these comments on flashback is highly likely to actually be comments on the non-amides, not the real fentanyl derivative.

 

[Refluxer]

To make it clear: Point is that non-amide phenylpiperidines are being sold by a large Chinese vendor as fentanyl derivatives. They even list the elemental composition as only containing one nitrogen. I believe this has led a lot of folks to hastily assume there is a nitrogen where there isn't.

 

[Solipsis]

This is really not helpful until you post names of non-amide analogues this may get mixed up with...

Sharing names of falsely advertised compounds is not source discussion?

If there is say a vendor that lists products that on the one hand have the same structural formula but on the other hand list very different chemical formulae or names... the fault is not with this thread but with the vendor.

Who knows what is making the rounds and if the mistake is with the structural formula or the name - the compounds may be the correct amides after all?