One pop meth synthesis method - wft is it?

mizledmizled Semo-Regulars
edited July 2010 in Man Cave
Not looking for details (yet) - just a general, somewhere in the ballpark basic description.

Comments

  • fr0st_Bytefr0st_Byte Sumpin' c00L
    edited July 2010
    mizled;21654 said:
    Not looking for details (yet) - just a general, somewhere in the ballpark basic description.
    Did you just see that on TV. On Drugs Inc.?

    Btw it was called the "one pot method".
    --[ Livin' Better Through Chemistry since '04 ]--
  • BungHoleBungHole Regular
    edited July 2010
    If this thread makes it to my forum, it will die.:)

    So you made a good decision posting it here.:)


    Here friend, I'll help you.:)


    Or even better.:)

    And if you can't make your meth in a single pot, you fail.:)

    EDIT: And just to be nice; One-pot is a term for when a synthesis is done entirely in one vessel, not including final purification work up. Usually a complete synthesis involves multiple reactions with one or more intermediates, and they often must isolate each intermediate and proceed in another reaction vessel. A one-pot synthesis is one which can proceed without isolating intermediates or transferring into a new vessel.

    You add the chemicals, give it the right conditions, the intermediate forms. You add more chemicals, give it the right conditions, the next one forms, until your target compound has been created, and is then isolated. All in one vessel. This significantly decreases mechanical loss of yield that occurs during the isolation processes of intermediates.

    It has little to do with the chemicals being used or made, or the reaction mechanism. It's just a technique used to increase yields and decrease labor. Although, the reaction itself must be specially tailored to be able to perform a one-pot synthesis.
  • AzureAzure Acolyte
    edited July 2010
    Is it as dangerous as the media says it is?
  • BungHoleBungHole Regular
    edited July 2010
    Azure;21765 said:
    Is it as dangerous as the media says it is?
    Let's just say I'd rather do a what some consider to be a one pot, the ketone--->imine--->amine method, rather than trying to do something like reduce ephedrine with a hydride in ether, and that the media lies/doesn't know shit......

    But no one really calls the ketone method a one pot, because isolating the imine is terribly impractical anyway, and some just ignore/don't realize there's an imine intermediate. Still safer than reducing with a hydride though..... By far....

    There's a one pot on Rhodium that uses benzyl cyanide and methyl iodide though. That might not be chemist friendly. And if you consider the iodine/phosphorus reduction a one pot(because there's an iodoephedrine intermediate before the reduction), well, I don't like phosphine much. Still better than a mixture of burning/exploding hydride and ether though.

    All depends on the specific one pot you're doing.....
  • AzureAzure Acolyte
    edited July 2010
    BungHole;21786 said:
    Let's just say I'd rather do a what some consider to be a one pot, the ketone--->imine--->amine method, rather than trying to do something like reduce ephedrine with a hydride in ether, and that the media lies/doesn't know shit......

    But no one really calls the ketone method a one pot, because isolating the imine is terribly impractical anyway, and some just ignore/don't realize there's an imine intermediate. Still safer than reducing with a hydride though..... By far....

    There's a one pot on Rhodium though that uses benzyl cyanide and methyl iodide though. Those might not be chemist friendly.....
    If I don't understand half of what you just said, is it still possible for me to make meth?
  • BungHoleBungHole Regular
    edited July 2010
    Azure;21799 said:
    If I don't understand half of what you just said, is it still possible for me to make meth?
    Maybe. Probably not.
    Azure;21799 said:
    I don't understand
    ^People seem to think this is no obstacle in meth synthesis. And it's not, if you like low yields, shit product, or just have Jesus looking after you, convincing the Gods of meth and the Gods of chemistry, who are much, much more powerful than Jesus, that you're a good guy and deserve some meth. Or you love inhaling phosphine, iodine vapors, or what ever reaction byproducts.

    Otherwise, no, stop being a cunt and read more.

    Anybody can get large quantities of meth by filling 55-gallon drums with P2P, alcoholic methylamine solution, and aluminum scrap that has been dipped in mercury chloride solution. But if you knew what you were doing, all those valuable supplies would would get you a lot farther than low yields of biker speed.
  • AzureAzure Acolyte
    edited July 2010
    BungHole;21804 said:
    Maybe. Probably not.


    ^People seem to think this is no obstacle in meth synthesis. And it's not, if you like low yields, shit product, or just have Jesus looking after you, convincing the Gods of meth and the Gods of chemistry, who are much, much more powerful than Jesus, that you're a good guy and deserve some meth. Or you love inhaling phosphine, iodine vapors, or what ever reaction byproducts.

    Otherwise, no, stop being a cunt and read more.
    I'll pass on it.
  • AnonymousAnonymous Regular
    edited July 2010
    Its a way to get blown up.

    Synth Methcathinone if you don't have any chemistry experience. (No explosions.)
    :facepalm:
  • edited July 2010
    Azure;21765 said:
    Is it as dangerous as the media says it is?
    From what I hear, the main danger comes from pressure building up inside of the vessel (Often a soda-bottle in these cases) and causing it to rupture, sending possibly volatile or corrosive shit all over the place.

    For the longest time though, I remember people saying that one-pot was bullshit.
  • fr0st_Bytefr0st_Byte Sumpin' c00L
    edited July 2010
    BungHole;21754 said:
    If this thread makes it to my forum, it will die.:)

    So you made a good decision posting it here.:)

    Yes I agree. If this thread had gotten posted in LT I'm sure it would have gotten laughed out of the fourm. It doesn't belong anywhere near LT.

    I just didn't kill it because I want as many legit (or semi-legit) threads on the bbs to increase content.

    To the poster: Man do a little reading before you post a thread asking for someone to tell you what to do. With ten seconds of reading you would have sounded 100% more informed. Atleast you would have gotten the name of the synthesis correct instead of calling it the "one pop method". That just shows that you did absolutly no reading before you posted.

    I'm not flaming you either man, just trying to help you out in your future threads.
    --[ Livin' Better Through Chemistry since '04 ]--
  • fr0st_Bytefr0st_Byte Sumpin' c00L
    edited July 2010
    JustAnotherAsshole;22144 said:
    From what I hear, the main danger comes from pressure building up inside of the vessel (Often a soda-bottle in these cases)
    Please, please don't even mention synthing meth in a soda bottle unless you are saying not to. Or any other glass vessel for that matter, besides proper chem ware such as Pyrex or VisionWare.

    I bet that is 80% of the reason for most meth lab explosions.
    --[ Livin' Better Through Chemistry since '04 ]--
  • edited April 2016
    I did write up a few teks that were up on totse and zoklet.
    Unfortunately I am not quite sure of the rules here yet and am not going to go just posting teks.

    If you are talking about the reduction of pse via lithium/ammonia. (commonly known as shake and bake, one pot method, there are many names). It is nowhere near as dangerous as some people / the media make it out to be,
    as long as you keep an eye on the pressure and have at least a bit of common sense you will be fine.

    Just don't be that dick head that does not do there research and reads its a good idea to add a cup of water ("because it makes it roll better" HAHA).
    Yes the reaction needs water... BUT, there is plenty enough water made as a byproduct in the reaction anyway... there is no need to add any water!
    H20 + lithium = fire... understand that.

    the only reason the lithium is spared from the h20 in this reduction is the fact that the lithium is coated in solvent.

    always remember while heating solvents not do it on a fucking gas stove top.

    I have also found that applying heat and an ice bath into the equation at the correct times also helped to get some quality stuff.
    followed by an acetone wash and 2x duel solvent re-crystallization and you have stuff that is about 99.99 percent.

    EDIT:: Sorry for digging up such an old post, i did not realize it was such an old thread
    Printf (" noob soldering I politely say "you are using the wrong type of solder you need electrical solder " noob stares at me ");
    echo ' noob then snaps "I'm a pro I know what I'm doing" .br/> ';
    /*
    I know the . is not meant to be there
    */
    Pringln (" I wait till he finishes his board and goes to test it and it doesn't work... Maybe next time he will take advice or at least check his solder wasn't acid ");

  • DfgDfg Admin
    enso;254303" said:
    I did write up a few teks that were up on totse and zoklet.
    Unfortunately I am not quite sure of the rules here yet and am not going to go just posting teks.

    If you are talking about the reduction of pse via lithium/ammonia. (commonly known as shake and bake, one pot method, there are many names). It is nowhere near as dangerous as some people / the media make it out to be,
    as long as you keep an eye on the pressure and have at least a bit of common sense you will be fine.

    Just don't be that dick head that does not do there research and reads its a good idea to add a cup of water ("because it makes it roll better" HAHA).
    Yes the reaction needs water... BUT, there is plenty enough water made as a byproduct in the reaction anyway... there is no need to add any water!
    H20 + lithium = fire... understand that.

    the only reason the lithium is spared from the h20 in this reduction is the fact that the lithium is coated in solvent.

    always remember while heating solvents not do it on a fucking gas stove top.

    I have also found that applying heat and an ice bath into the equation at the correct times also helped to get some quality stuff.
    followed by an acetone wash and 2x duel solvent re-crystallization and you have stuff that is about 99.99 percent.

    EDIT:: Sorry for digging up such an old post, i did not realize it was such an old thread
    It's fine no worries.
    Disclaimer: I am writer and I love writing fucked up things, I am not responsible if those fucked up things are accurate or get used for illegal purposes. Please, do not bother me."

    IRC: https://rizon.net/chat #totse
  • Anonymous;21919" said:
    Its a way to get blown up.

    Synth Methcathinone if you don't have any chemistry experience. (No explosions.)
    we used to do a lot of that back when ephedrine was clean and could buy cases of it for next to nothing . Good to shoot buy worthless up the snout
  • enso;254303" said:
    I did write up a few teks that were up on totse and zoklet.
    Unfortunately I am not quite sure of the rules here yet and am not going to go just posting teks.

    If you are talking about the reduction of pse via lithium/ammonia. (commonly known as shake and bake, one pot method, there are many names). It is nowhere near as dangerous as some people / the media make it out to be,
    as long as you keep an eye on the pressure and have at least a bit of common sense you will be fine.

    Just don't be that dick head that does not do there research and reads its a good idea to add a cup of water ("because it makes it roll better" HAHA).
    Yes the reaction needs water... BUT, there is plenty enough water made as a byproduct in the reaction anyway... there is no need to add any water!
    H20 + lithium = fire... understand that.

    the only reason the lithium is spared from the h20 in this reduction is the fact that the lithium is coated in solvent.

    always remember while heating solvents not do it on a fucking gas stove top.

    I have also found that applying heat and an ice bath into the equation at the correct times also helped to get some quality stuff.
    followed by an acetone wash and 2x duel solvent re-crystallization and you have stuff that is about 99.99 percent.

    EDIT:: Sorry for digging up such an old post, i did not realize it was such an old thread
    Had a friend that was washing his pills in denatured in the dark out in country and the wind blew fumes over to his camp fire and lit his ass up. burned him badly way down into meat. He would not go to hospital , thought he would get busted. When he showed me his legs they were all gang greened and pusssed up .Nasty . I recon he ended up dying from it as I never saw him again.
    Another got burned bad by spilling anhydrous on him after stealing a 5 gallon cooler full. froze the skin right off his legs
  • edited December 2016
    joe8567;254576" said:
    ]

    Had a friend that was washing his pills in denatured in the dark out in country and the wind blew fumes over to his camp fire and lit his ass up. burned him badly way down into meat. He would not go to hospital , thought he would get busted. When he showed me his legs they were all gang greened and pusssed up .Nasty . I recon he ended up dying from it as I never saw him again.
    Another got burned bad by spilling anhydrous on him after stealing a 5 gallon cooler full. froze the skin right off his legs


    This dickhead burns his leg trying to steal anhydrous ammonia for birch
    Printf (" noob soldering I politely say "you are using the wrong type of solder you need electrical solder " noob stares at me ");
    echo ' noob then snaps "I'm a pro I know what I'm doing" .br/> ';
    /*
    I know the . is not meant to be there
    */
    Pringln (" I wait till he finishes his board and goes to test it and it doesn't work... Maybe next time he will take advice or at least check his solder wasn't acid ");

Sign In or Register to comment.