I don't think they're his friends

___________________
I'm the trouble starter, fuckin' instigator.
I'm the fear-addicted, danger illustrated.

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp E was never and will never be pure mdma. E is usually a combination of (traditionaly speaking) caffeine and mdma or speed and mdma....

I agree. I hope you weren't thinking that I thought that exctasy = pure MDMA...b/c I am aware it isn't...

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp o and for the record, just because a chemical has the word amphetamine in its name doesnt mean its produced inteh same way as meth....

Haha...obviously :P (I agree...)

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp Cooking speed causes explosions, not mdma

I agree that making speed (a.k.a. amphetamine) can cause explosions. However, there are certain methods in making MDMA which can also cause explosions...

You can do a literature search on it...and you will find that there are many synthetic methods of making MDMA in which the by-products are highly explosive if the procedure is not done correctly.

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp more often than not you will not find much if any mdma in pills. they use substitute chemcicals since mdma is harder to produce becuase of gov't bans on the chemicals used to produce it.

Not necessarily, most chemical suppliers do in fact supply the chemicals which they are starting materials for making MDMA. But they supply these materials in small amounts (they are aware that people who order these materials may use it to make...illegal substances...haha). Therefore as a safeguard they supply the material in 1 mg amounts. And often they are crazy ass expensive...so its not even worth making it if you intend on making a lot of them and then selling it. Therefore, people who make the pills often use the other types of amphetamines which are cheaper and readily available, and add other shit (I believe you mentioned a couple earlier...) which can be dangerous (i.e. rat poison).

At one point, I was seriously thinking about making this stuff myself (in small quantites), but it's the expense...and I live with my 'rents...I don't think they'll like the idea

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp either way, you cant look at a pill and even guess its composition, you need a test kit or in sticky's case a spectrophotographic analyzer... that may be a bit overboard however.

Haha...I was joking...an IR spect usually sell @ around $300,000 CAD...

Hmmm...does anyone know if those test kits work? If so, how much do they cost? If I ever wanted to pop a pill I'd probably want to test it first...there are ways in which one can get rid of "other stuff"...I won't mention the exact methods b/c I might get into trouble here...

quote:

Originally posted by sticky_shoes does anyone know if those test kits work?

Yes.

http://www.eztest.com

___________________
- rabbit.joker [funny¿rabbit] | www.rabbitjoker.com |www.ddtt.org

Dark Dirty Tech Tribal. | Hands in air (trance) and feet on the floor (house).

quote:

Originally posted by sticky_shoes Not necessarily, most chemical suppliers do in fact supply the chemicals which they are starting materials for making MDMA. But they supply these materials in small amounts (they are aware that people who order these materials may use it to make...illegal substances...haha). Therefore as a safeguard they supply the material in 1 mg amounts. And often they are crazy ass expensive...so its not even worth making it if you intend on making a lot of them and then selling it. Therefore, people who make the pills often use the other types of amphetamines which are cheaper and readily available, and add other shit (I believe you mentioned a couple earlier...) which can be dangerous (i.e. rat poison).

I doubt that the people making E buy the chemicals for it legally.

___________________
I'm the trouble starter, fuckin' instigator.
I'm the fear-addicted, danger illustrated.

quote:

Originally posted by rabbitjoker Here's a video of someone G'ing out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeXd6UrpDvI --------- Be careful folks.

GHB is sickening, I have seen a couple of people do this and act this way! Visually UGLY!

___________________
DALLAS STAR ™ °¤§£¤y°

Treat people as if they are what they ought to be and you may help them to become what they are capable of being.

Shouldn't this thread be taken over to the Ecstasy Discussion forum at Bluelight?

Chemistry's my bag, baby.

quote:

Originally posted by sticky_shoes Goshness...dude!!! Of course MA and MDMA will never be the same...but I didn't say they were...But, WTF? Not a very good analogy...actually the silliest "chemistry" thing I've heard! Obviously CO2 and CO are different...in terms of their chemical scaffold...(pls. refer to your chem text!!!) Hmmm...Time for a chemistry lesson... Methamphetamine... MDMA... If you notice by their chemical structure...They share the same chemical scaffold...however...the MDMA is modified (dioxygen ring by the benzene ring)...but still a TYPE (maybe the word form would have been more appropriate) of methamphetamine... I didn't say they were the same...MA is the generic form and MDMA is the modified... But...I do admire your tenacity...muahaha....don't mess with the chemist, dude

Sorry hun, atoms are legos for grownups. They don't look the same no matter what you attatch to them.

What your arguement ignores entirely is electronegativity, which severely warps electron clouds. I don't want to get into submolecular quantum physics here, but electrons in wave form exist in shapes around their nuclei, but because they repel each other when you put multiple orbits near each other they bend away from each other. This creates some fascinating effects (see benzene, the C6H6 ring central to meth, mdma, and countless other organic compounds). The important part to realize here is that while these orbits are usually portrayed as peripherial in highschool chemistry, they are billions of times larger (and completely surrounding) their nucleus, and repel each other. In essence they form a shell which is all the area an atom occupies except a tiny spec somewhere near the middle.

Keeping it simple here, for a lot of reasons caused by proton/electron count and ratio, oxygen is considerably more electronegative than carbon. This causes the bonds around them (including the phenyl group's large and curious oscillating sigmas) to change shape and pull towards the O's. Meaning that anything anywhere near an oxygen molecule (the whole thing, but mostly left of the methyl group and leftwards) doesn't actually look the same in MDMA as it would if it were methamphetamine.

For the same reasons, your point about synthesizing MDMA being a form of synthesizing meth are complete bollocks. It is for all practical purposes impossible to turn methamphetamite directly into MDMA. You can't just glue on the OCO group wherever you want. Synthesing a chemical involves putting two ingredients in and letting them sort themselves out, and they play by their own rules. Putting CO2 and methamphetamine in a beaker results is CO2 and methamphetamine. Heating the mixture will likely decompose the meth into a few, useless compounds, and will definitely not cause the CO2 to react to it. The two chemicals require completely different reagents and conditions to create (not the least of which being pressure), and the precursors are not terribly similar.

Ok I feel better. Continue.



edit: I didn't read to the end of the thread, it appears my lecture wasn't really neccecary. But... yeah, while cooking this stuff in your basement would require some serious dodgyness, the explosion risk is low with most methods (the poison gas risk is another story) and the high polarity and shape differences between meth and MDMA change their reactivity (and thus everything about them) quite a bit.

___________________
some psyhead

Last edited by LiamK on Jul-28-2006 at 02:59

quote:

Originally posted by Cosmic Fur I doubt that the people making E buy the chemicals for it legally.

grrrrrrrrr

___________________
DALLAS STAR ™ °¤§£¤y°

Treat people as if they are what they ought to be and you may help them to become what they are capable of being.

quote:

Originally posted by LiamK Chemistry's my bag, baby. Sorry hun, atoms are legos for grownups. They don't look the same no matter what you attatch to them. What your arguement ignores entirely is electronegativity, which severely warps electron clouds. I don't want to get into submolecular quantum physics here, but electrons in wave form exist in shapes around their nuclei, but because they repel each other when you put multiple orbits near each other they bend away from each other. This creates some fascinating effects (see benzene, the C6H6 ring central to meth, mdma, and countless other organic compounds). The important part to realize here is that while these orbits are usually portrayed as peripherial in highschool chemistry, they are billions of times larger (and completely surrounding) their nucleus, and repel each other. In essence they form a shell which is all the area an atom occupies except a tiny spec somewhere near the middle. Keeping it simple here, for a lot of reasons caused by proton/electron count and ratio, oxygen is considerably more electronegative than carbon. This causes the bonds around them (including the phenyl group's large and curious oscillating sigmas) to change shape and pull towards the O's. Meaning that anything anywhere near an oxygen molecule (the whole thing, but mostly left of the methyl group and leftwards) doesn't actually look the same in MDMA as it would if it were methamphetamine. For the same reasons, your point about synthesizing MDMA being a form of synthesizing meth are complete bollocks. It is for all practical purposes impossible to turn methamphetamite directly into MDMA. You can't just glue on the OCO group wherever you want. Synthesing a chemical involves putting two ingredients in and letting them sort themselves out, and they play by their own rules. Putting CO2 and methamphetamine in a beaker results is CO2 and methamphetamine. Heating the mixture will likely decompose the meth into a few, useless compounds, and will definitely not cause the CO2 to react to it. The two chemicals require completely different reagents and conditions to create (not the least of which being pressure), and the precursors are not terribly similar. Ok I feel better. Continue. edit: I didn't read to the end of the thread, it appears my lecture wasn't really neccecary. But... yeah, while cooking this stuff in your basement would require some serious dodgyness, the explosion risk is low with most methods (the poison gas risk is another story) and the high polarity and shape differences between meth and MDMA change their reactivity (and thus everything about them) quite a bit.

Okay...I hope you feel better getting that out of your system...

Because...

You completely missed the point of my post...

Pls. re-read...and if you still don't get it...PM me...

Nowhere in my post (well the one that you quoted) did I mention about the "synthesis of MDMA being the form of synthesis of MA"...I was just simply making structural comparisons between the two...

But really, thank you for that brilliant regirgitation of the principles electronegativity and ...much appreciated...by those who actually understood it I know you were trying to put out a rationale behind your argument...but keep in mind that most of the people on this forum probably don't remember (or don't want to remember) or have no clue about most of the things you have mentioned...haha...

If this comment was directed at me alone...PM could have been more appropriate

I get the giggles when those who are not experienced talk drugs.

What we do NOT need is more scare-tactics promoted by false information and generalization; rather, we desperately require E education and the provision of honest information (particularly to today's youth), e.g. both the neg and pos aspects of the drug and its use.

quote:

Originally posted by preppie chick bitch, please. I thought you were a fashion guru... it's all about them LV's!

LOL I hactually had a couple of those when I could manage to get them. Pretty good, I must say

Back to conversation though, I just really dislike the total lack of information when things such as these are reported. But what can you do...
Never in my right mind would I actually try to explain some of the inconsistencies to those uninformed..