Sciencemadness Discussion Board

[edit]

cyberzed - 23-7-2006 at 11:56

[Edited on 8-1-08 by cyberzed]

[Edited on 8-1-08 by cyberzed]

Nicodem - 23-7-2006 at 12:08

Are you sure you did not confuse this forum with a certain other forum.
Anyway you are lucky no crystals precipitated at the end since otherwise you would have just wrote the admission of having broke the law since unless you live on Antarctic continent you would be breaking the laws of your country. And I’m not even sure you would be safe from UN regulations on Antarctica. If any crystals would precipitate, by al misfortune, they would be crystals of a compound illegal to manufacture and posses practically al over the world.

Organikum - 23-7-2006 at 12:30

Here where I live I am allowed to do such things provided that I destroy the product immediately after identification and quantification.

You never know what may form in the end.

But in the writeup there are to many possible points of failure. Starting with the question of the purity of the substrate, quality of the HI (but this sounded ok, 4 hours should have been enough though), to the point of the missing step of drying the toluene before gassing with HCl.


For I always think the best of people I believe that the member didn´t really break a law. At least not more then the people who are making TNT here.

regards
/ORG

PS: Hey! You didn´t basify the post reaction mixture, how do you think to extract what you want? You must add LYE and not water and then SEVERAL portions of toluene, and mix the stuff decently, damn it!
Your extract shouldn´t be red.
Now you know where your stuff is. Basify, extract, gas, identify and destroy. Thats the usual way this is done. Destruction of explosives is usually done by controlled explosion. Your stuff can be destroyed by bleach or biological degradation.



[Edited on 23-7-2006 by Organikum]

Nicodem - 23-7-2006 at 13:10

But Organikum, how can you be so sure he was not trying to synthesize iodine by oxidation of HI with ephedrine? After all he seams to be after the reddish stuff:
"...after a good swirl, the reddish seemed to go in the toluene, the aqueous bottom layer seemed to clear up..."
In such case I believe he almost did well to remove the byproducts by extraction of the acidified solution with toluene. If he would basify it first, then the extract might get contaminated by the reaction side product which is a base. Furthermore, the iodine disproportionates to iodide and hypoiodite with the addition of lye. So I2 could not be extracted. I however have no idea where he heard that I2 can be precipitated from toluene by gassing with HCl. He must have made confusion with some other procedure. I also don’t know how he is going to isolate I2 from toluene in any simple way. It would have been much more advisable to use CH2Cl2 to do the extraction as it has a low enough b.p. to allow for evaporation from I2, though with great loss due to sublimation.
All in all, I have to admit this is a very ingenious way to oxidize tediously self made HI to I2 and a viable way for its preparation. Provided that you destroy the side products, of course. Biodegradation? Yeah sure, that should do. But check the local law anyway.
:P

chemoleo - 23-7-2006 at 17:35

Sorry for asking this almost newbish thing... I am not really into all this :o

From what I understand, the starting compound P.E.


is to be converted to one where the OH is replaced by H.

With HI, it would form the I-R. The question is, what is the mechanism of conversion to H-R. I understand why NaOH etc is required (to make the free amine, which dissolves in toluene), but noone actually commented on this required conversion.


[Edited on 25-7-2006 by chemoleo]

Organikum - 23-7-2006 at 23:00

R-OH + HI = R-I + H2O
R-I + HI = R-H + I2

DDTea - 24-7-2006 at 13:30

Quote:
Originally posted by Organikum
R-OH + HI = R-I + H2O
R-I + HI = R-H + I2


If water is formed in the first step, adding silica or some other desiccant should help the reaction along.

Organikum - 24-7-2006 at 13:53

H3PO4 or GAA are the means of choice to keep the concentration of the HI up. I would recommend H3PO4. The reaction proceeds as long as the concentration of the HI is >45%. Of course one can just add red phosphorus ....

[Edited on 24-7-2006 by Organikum]

garage chemist - 24-7-2006 at 13:59

What about adding gaseous H2S? It reacts with iodine, forming sulfur and HI.

Organikum - 24-7-2006 at 14:07

H2S and iodine form HI only up to a concentration of 35% or so says Herr Erlenmeyer, HI produced from H2S and I must be redistilled to be useful for such reductions.

chemoleo - 24-7-2006 at 15:14

Why this choice of H3PO4, or GAA? Why not just H2SO4?
Also, what's the reaction then between rP and I2? PI3/PI5, which then hydrolyses with H2O to form HI?

Organikum - 24-7-2006 at 15:35

H2SO4 if not very diluted oxidizes HI. The choice of H3PO4 over GAA is mainly that it doesn´t stink so badly. HCl could be used as a cosolvent but this requirers then a pressurized setup.

3I + P = PI3
PI3 + 3H2O = 3HI + H3PO3
The H3PO3 itself reacts again with iodine and water:
2I + 2H3PO3 + H2O = 2HI + 2H3PO4

On a sidenote:
The PI3 formed in the first step also is able to iodinate the alcohol directly IIRC

[Edited on 24-7-2006 by Organikum]

hodges - 24-7-2006 at 16:08

Don't forget to add some water or something to slow the reaction down. My apologies if this link has been posted here before. I thought it was pretty funny. This guy may even be eligible for a Darwin award, considering one of the parts of his body that was burned ;)

<a href=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127839,00.html>link</a>


Hodges

len - 24-7-2006 at 16:22

cyberzed. I do hope you posted and registered from the uni library or something because the internet only appears anonymous. and Im sure this forum is watched

DeAdFX - 24-7-2006 at 16:34

[paranoia]Or it could be one of the watchers trying to see if we are drug forum[/paranoia]

Nicodem - 24-7-2006 at 22:53

I don't think anybody gives a f**ck about somebody trying to do a 1g batch. Especially since without having the basic knowledge of what he is doing would most likely take care of the punishment by himself in form of injuries or burns. The fuss of tracking down internet communications would certainly not be in proportion to the (non)severity of such law breaking.
My reply to Cyberzed was only to scare the guy as it was obvious from his post that he did not really take enough care to learn basic chemistry before starting. It was not to provoke paranoia.
Paranoia is completely out of place here, at least unless you live in the US or unless if it is stimulants induced paranoia (which is actually the same thing).

Organikum - 24-7-2006 at 22:56

This paranoia is nonsense, the discussion of chemistry is still legal.

Here at SCM you can discuss everything science and in special chemistry related, the only restrictions are:
- use of scientific language and not druggie/cook/kewl speech.
- pictures and movies of the detonation of explosives are only permitted if the compound is new or employed in a new and sophisticated way.
- if insensitive questions are asked which are aimed to the preparation of problematic compounds one better has gathered some serious knowledge and present it or you most probably go to Detritus.
- you have to use proper capitalisation ;)

/ORG

Organikum - 24-7-2006 at 23:04

But back to the really rather interesting question of the reduction of alcohols by HI and ways to do this.

I read once an old german article where they employed 95% H3PO4 as solvent and used NaI or KI instead of iodine with a rather small amount of red phosphorus to recycle the formed I to HI again.
Thats an elegant solution:
- it calls only for NaI/KI whats much easier to get and not so nasty as pure I.
- the H3PO4 dehydrates the reaction and ensures an always very high concentration of free HI in the reaction.
- the H3PO4 mediates the heat formed in the reaction

Using H3PO2 or H3PO3 instead of the P would be even better.

/ORG

Filemon - 25-7-2006 at 04:31

Quote:
Originally posted by Organikum
H2SO4 if not very diluted oxidizes HI.

[Edited on 24-7-2006 by Organikum]


I have used H2SO4 to make HI, I have not seen crystals of I2.

How much time takes the reaction of oxidation at ambient temperature?

H2SO4 + HI ---> H2S + I2 + H2O

Organikum - 25-7-2006 at 04:37

Care to elaborate how concentrated the H2SO4 was and what concentration of HI resulting was?

All literature states that this is no feasible way to produce HI of a useful concentration + the question of separation.

And it is:
H2SO4 + HI = SO2 + I + 2H2O, the Bunsen reaction.
This reaction is reversible depending on concentration of HI and H2SO4.


Also this page claims that HI is in the laboratory produced from conc. H2SO4 and NaI I say thats plain bullshit and every better chemistry textbook says the same. I suppose it´s knowingly misleading information related to WoD.

[Edited on 25-7-2006 by Organikum]

len - 25-7-2006 at 04:54

Organicum, what you want and what the law allows are quite different. Not capitalising wont get you time in jail, but making drugs will. There is no fuss in "tracking internet communications", I can see where people visiting my site are and where they have been. Sometimes I can tell both the company and the city. And Im not the police. Would you rather engage in chasing dangerous criminals through the streets, or tracking net traffic in a warm office? Plus Im sure site management has presented this as a good reason to be allowed to keep the forum, that way things are under control. You have to strike a balance between paranoia and naivity.As far as the reaction goes its a piece of chemisty trivia, given the basic structure is already there, of interest only to drug makers who want the simplest route possible.

Organikum - 25-7-2006 at 05:05

Then chemoleo who asked for some information about this reaction is a "drug makers who wants the simplest route possible"? Interesting.

Anyways, it´s not your board and not mine, but Polverones. The topic whats allowed was discussed before and I just repeated the outcome. Take it or leave it.

And whats this board about? To a very big part it´s about the discussion of ways to produce compounds one wants by the simplest way available to amateurs.

/ORG

[Edited on 25-7-2006 by Organikum]

[Edited on 25-7-2006 by Organikum]

Nicodem - 25-7-2006 at 12:30

Quote:
Not capitalising wont get you time in jail, but making drugs will.

That is simply not true. Only few drugs can get you in jail. Many of the best drugs are completely legal in most countries. One should always check the regulations before planning the synthesis of a psychoactive compound and if the compound is scheduled, rather make a legal analog instead. That's where literature search skills and knowledge on structure-activity relationships comes handy.
And I do believe that not capitalizing can get you in jail, though indirectly. It shows ones’ illiteracy, which leads to stupidity and stupidity is one of the main factors on why people end in jail.
Quote:
There is no fuss in "tracking internet communications", I can see where people visiting my site are and where they have been. Sometimes I can tell both the company and the city.

Well, except for a couple of countries with totalitarian tendencies, the police needs a warrant in most others to get such information from the site manager. That's why I said that there is no need for paranoia except if you live in US. Sorry if I forgot Australia, but I'm not familiar with what's going on down under. Surely there are other such countries where freedom is not valued, but only the minority of the world population has the misfortune to live there.
I trust Polverone to not worry if he can access my IP loggings and I trust that he has chosen a trustworthy server provider. And even if he did not, why should I care. Neither do I do any noteworthy illegal activities neither do I live in the country where the server is located. As far as for such fools that send confessions on the board, they are responsible for themselves. It is not the responsibility of the administrators or members to keep them out of troubles.
Quote:
As far as the reaction goes its a piece of chemisty trivia, given the basic structure is already there, of interest only to drug makers who want the simplest route possible.

The HI mediated reduction of alcohols is anything but trivia and is mechanistically a very interesting reaction. I find it very fascinating even though I'm not a "drug maker" making meth from ephedrine. And I'm sure Chemoleo is not the only non "drug maker" interested in the underlying mechanism of this reaction. So Organikum's explanations and commentary is quite probably interesting to some other members as well.

len - 25-7-2006 at 16:03

Look, you both misunderstood me. I was not attacking Organikum. I dont think chemoleo is a drug maker (judging by his postings, I dont know him) and its not for me to judge his cursory interest in the reaction. But cyberzed certainly is a maker. I note he only posted once and then waited for the returns (watching as guest of course). If he was just interested in the hydrogenation of alcohols he might have chosen a less dangerous example.

The point is this forum is acquiring people from a recently closed down forum. And might just follow it. Do you want that.

I dont see the challange in this reaction. A carpenter was recently busted for doing it, it was in the papers, which shows you dont need to know any chemistry for it. That is why most makers prefer it. Its only consequence for me is that iodine and iodides can only be purchased with a lot of paperwork. Thanks cyberzed!

[Edited on 26-7-2006 by len]

Organikum - 25-7-2006 at 16:21

Hey len, may I suggest that you just look around a little bit here on this board and make yourself comfortable so know the conventions before you start to tell members what they have to do, what they have to post and what not etc?

You may discover for example that here we talk absolutely open about sources of chemicals. Duh! Horrifying I know but we do. Since years.

Also I have all respect of carpenters. I should, as I learned this craftmanship before I went to the university. This experience makes me believe that a lot of the good old chemistry is better done by a craftsman then by one of these Sigma-Aldrich addicts.

Finally I want to ask you a question len: Do you by accident take amphetamines? Prescribed ones or others? You sound to me a little bit like a acute case of speed paranoia. I should know this. I was on speed for years, but then I layed off the habit with the help of a lot of LSD. But to be true, I don´t think I was ever so paranoid as you are now although I knew quite some methheads who beat you still. Talking to the shadowpeople and such.

So what I wanted to say is: Relax.

regards
/ORG

PS: I don´t do drugs any more except a joint occasionally whats more or less legal here where I live.


[Edited on 26-7-2006 by Organikum]

chemoleo - 25-7-2006 at 16:34

Heh, easy everyone.
I see my interest in this similar to all my other interests. Recently I checked out the nucleararchives.org site, and was quite fascinated by it. Doesn't mean I want to acquire fissible material or whatever, or that I intend to build one. Or, I looked up the molecular structure of Ricin, and its mechanism of action, just because I thought it fascinating that a single proteinaceous molecule can have such a devastating effect on the organism. Doesn't mean I want to poison someone or myself. Or I check historical facts, doesn't mean I use that as a basis for some fanatical terrorist action in the future. Similarly, many a time I heard in the news of the use of rP and I2 in the Meth manufacture. Being a semi-chemist, but really a biochemist in nature, I wonder of course how the reaction works. Doesn't mean I am planning to make 10 kg of the stuff to sell it for large sums of money :o The same goes for a little thermite here or there - it's small scale harmless pyrotechnics, and as most of us here we are simply fascinated by the chemistry, and the effects it may or may not have. Without us people wondering and questioning, the world would be a much poorer place. Without the ability to wonder, and to follow up experiments ourselves as in amateur chem, physics and biology, science will undoubtedly decline. Already, in my research environment, I see this trend- most people simply don't have a 'natural' interest in science. Instead, they study because they think it 'might' be interesting, then do a PhD because they think it might be good for the career, and some end up to become professional scientists because they don't know what else to do, or maybe because at last they became interested. This is quite in contrast to the great minds in the past, where they were free to pursue their interests, and where this was actively encouraged, and where this interest could grow from childhood onwards, in an unregulated manner. Regulation has its price.

All this aside - the thread originator may well ask what he does, there were many similar threads to this, although not necessarily such a high profile well-known example. Check the ppa thread for instance, I don't even know how ppa might be useful, but after some playing around with the structures I might see how. The point is, they approach it from the chemistry, and not the cookbook angle, and this is what this forum is about. THe particular use is not our concern, as people are responsible for themselves what they use it for. Also, the reactions described there may well apply to other interesting examples. For that reason I have actually considered renaming this thread to 'Reduction of alcohols - a case study' or something like that, to reduce the attention this seems to be getting, and also to make this thread somewhat more generic.

For example, I'd be interested to see on what other systems this type of reduction could be used. I.e. tartaric acid, getting succinic acid, which could be used to make N-bromo succinimide for instance. Or, reduction of Tris, to get tertiary butylamine. Plenty of possibilities.

At last, what other methods are there for the reduction of alcohols?

len - 25-7-2006 at 16:45

chemoleo, my thoughts precisely. I see the same happening to science around where I am. But it was never so beaurocratically difficult to those great minds of the past as it is now. Of course most of my colleagues at work don't give a damn, to them what they do is a tool to promote themsleves. Plus I agree with Polverone, once somtheing is regulated, the beaurocrats want let it from their grasp. They will say in the future: look no more cyberzed's, thats because iodine is regulated.

Thanks Organikum, everythings clear to me now.

Organikum - 25-7-2006 at 17:04

I think discussing other ways of reducing alcohols would be too much for this thread - please open a new one for this purpose. I agree though that we should discuss here the scope of the HI system. It deserves it not at least for all the fog and pseudowisdom which lays like a fog over the topic.

So on topic:

HI is told to rip oxygen out of virtually any organic molecule - sometimes harsh conditions regarding temperature, concentration and pressure are required.
Next to oxygen HI takes nitrogen.

An optimized (for the amateur scientist) HI reduction system would IMHO look like this:

- 85-95% H3PO4 as solvent/reagent
- NaI/KI as iodine source
- H3PO2 (or H3PO3) for recycling the formed iodine back to HI

The system is useful for most substrates it covers a temperature range up to about 150°C* without requirering specialised hardware the reagents are even nowadays to get without to much hassle and it´s one-pot.

*thats of course deadly for some substrates

Depending on the substrate either a catalytic (with certain esters/ethers IIRC) or at least equimolar amount of iodine (as NaI or KI) is used.


Other systems which have been employed in the past (NOT ephedrine specific!)
- rP/I in H2O
- rP/I without solvent
- HI 57% to 72%
- HI + HCL (pressurized vessel)
- rP + I + acetic acid
- H3PO2 + I
- H3PO3 + I
and combinations thereof.

At the end of the 19th century the reduction of organic compounds by HI was an indutrial standard in Germany. And that was the only country which counts at this time. The process was discontinued after the formation of the IG-Farben when the processes of synthesis where streamlined over all german producers and these kind of reductions got obsolete because other substrates where availabe. There was also switch from batch to continous processes, not to forget that iodine was never really cheap.

Thats just from memory. If there is interest I dig up some more stuff.

/ORG


edited one typo where I wrote H3PO4 instead of H3PO3

[Edited on 27-7-2006 by Organikum]

wa gwan - 26-7-2006 at 13:31

You said twice H3PO4 recycles I2 to HI. Show me please.

Organikum - 26-7-2006 at 14:50

Quote:
Originally posted by wa gwan
You said twice H3PO4 recycles I2 to HI. Show me please.
Where?

hodges - 26-7-2006 at 15:00

Quote:
Originally posted by Organikum
I think discussing other ways of reducing alcohols would be too much for this thread - please open a new one for this purpose. I agree though that we should discuss here the scope of the HI system.

HI is told to rip oxygen out of virtually any organic molecule - sometimes harsh conditions regarding temperature, concentration and pressure are required.
Next to oxygen HI takes nitrogen.

An optimized (for the amateur scientist) HI reduction system would IMHO look like this:

- 85-95% H3PO4 as solvent/reagent
- NaI/KI as iodine source
- H3PO2 (or H3PO4) for recycling the formed iodine back to HI

The system is useful for most substrates it covers a temperature range up to about 150°C* without requirering specialised hardware the reagents are even nowadays to get without to much hassle and it´s one-pot.



Okay, question. So this will reduce just about any alcohol? Lets say if for some odd reason I decided to mix H3PO4 and KI with isopropyl alochol. Will I see propane gas start bubbling out of the system?

Hodges

Organikum - 26-7-2006 at 23:37

Probably not. The boiling point of IPA is to low, so the necessary reaction temperature cannot be reached without pressurisation (thats a guess, I never tried to reduce this alcohol). The reaction should proceed but VERY VERY slowly.

ORG

meth is a fucking shitty drug

wa gwan - 27-7-2006 at 05:13

Quote:
Originally posted by Organikum
Quote:
Originally posted by wa gwan
You said twice H3PO4 recycles I2 to HI. Show me please.
Where?


"- H3PO2 (or H3PO4) for recycling the formed iodine back to HI

I can't seem to find the first mention but I may have misread something.
It should also be said that the straight HI deoxygenation has been reported elsewhere to be very unproductive even with gross excess of HI.

H3PO3 is more optimal reactant for amateurs than H3PO2.

Organikum - 27-7-2006 at 06:49

Was a typo - obviously. I edited it ok?

Now this thread really attracts the methheads, I suggest to close it.

Those interested in the specific reduction of (pseudo)ephedrine to the amine please go to:

http://www.wetdreams.ws



[Edited on 27-7-2006 by Organikum]

skippy - 27-7-2006 at 18:24

http://designer-drugs.com/pte/12.162.180.114/dcd/chemistry/p...

They have an interesting phenylacetic acid synthesis from mandelic acid where the reaction is in a phosphoric acid solution with a greatly reduced (to my cursory glance) need for red phosphorus. I guess at elevated temperatures the phosphoric acid establishes an initial HI concentration that reduces the need for elemental iodine recycling.

chemoleo - 30-7-2006 at 15:32

On the matter of phenylephrine, the pseudoephedrine substitute -- it doesn't work as a decongestant! Funnily enough I noticed precisely the same with my recent cold!

Phenylephrine lacks the beta methyl, but has an extra OH on the phenyl group - interesting that it'd make such a difference!


Quote:
Pharmacists Rap New Version of Decongestants

By Randy Dotinga
HealthDay ReporterFri Jul 28, 11:54 PM ET

FRIDAY, July 28 (HealthDay News) -- Starting in late September, Sudafed and similar cold medications will only be available from behind pharmacy counters because their active ingredient can be used to make the street drug methamphetamine.

So, consumers may be tempted to try a new type of drug that will be easier to buy. But two pharmaceutical researchers contend there's a big problem with the new nasal decongestants: They don't work.

In a peer-reviewed letter released this week to the editor of the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, University of Florida researchers argued that there's little evidence to suggest that the active ingredient in the new Sudafed PE or similar medications will do anything to relieve a stuffy nose.

But Pfizer, the maker of Sudafed PE, stands by its product and says it's effective. "We've seen some positive results with how consumers are responding to it," said company spokeswoman Erica Johnson.

Under the USA Patriot Act, any drug containing pseudoephedrine must be kept under lock and key starting Sept. 30. That means consumers won't be able to find the drugs on store shelves; instead, they'll have to ask a store employee for the drug, show identification, and sign a sales log. Some states, such as Oregon, are adopting even tougher laws, requiring prescriptions for drugs containing pseudoephedrine.

The law is designed to make it more difficult for people to get their hands on pseudoephedrine to make methamphetamine.

But according to University of Florida pharmacist Dr. Leslie Hendeles, what the law really does "is perhaps provide the prosecutor with a trail if you're caught, but it doesn't prevent anyone from getting a large quantity and making meth out of it."

If consumers want to avoid the hassle of speaking to a pharmacist and signing a logbook to buy a nasal decongestant like Sudafed or Claritin-D, they have other options. One of those options is Sudafed PE, whose active ingredient -- phenylephrine -- can't be used to make methamphetamine. Sudafed PE has been on the market since February 2005.

In their letter, Hendeles and colleague Dr. Randy Hatton contended that when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the use of phenylephrine in 1976, the agency was only able to find four studies that suggested it worked at a dose of 10 milligrams, the size of Sudafed PE pills. Two of those studies were sponsored by drug companies, and all were unpublished and not reviewed by peers, Hendeles said.

Seven other studies, according to the authors, found that phenylephrine didn't work better than a placebo.

"It does nothing," Hendeles said. "Clearly the 10 milligram (dose) does not work."

According to Hendeles, it seems that phenylephrine is simply not absorbed well by the body when taken in pill form. In a nasal spray, by contrast, phenylephrine works fine, he said.

Hendeles and Hatton wrote that it's unclear if larger oral doses of phenylephrine would work better.

Johnson, the Pfizer spokeswoman, said five studies showed that phenylephrine works in pill form. "We're pleased that people are recognizing there are alternatives, they have a choice," she said.

So, what should you do if you have a cold and need to unstuff your nose?

There aren't many good answers, since there's actually little research suggesting that any cold remedies are effective, including the ingredient in the original Sudafed, said Dr. Bruce Barrett, associate professor of family medicine, at the University of Wisconsin Medical School at Madison.

To make matters worse, "none of the approved cold treatments is clearly beneficial with benefits outweighing risks," he said.

Nasal steroids do work in people with allergies, Barrett said. Hendeles recommended decongestant nasal sprays for people with colds.



[Edited on 30-7-2006 by chemoleo]

JohnWW - 30-7-2006 at 16:02

Why are they so sure that phenylephrine cannot be made into methamphetamine, like ephredine and pseudoephredine? Judging by its molecular structure, it very probably CAN be. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how that could be done?

Vitus_Verdegast - 30-7-2006 at 17:38

Phenylephrine lacks the alpha-methyl group, so it cannot be made into methamphetamine.

compare:

phenylephrine




Suppose one could remove the beta-OH group from phenylephrine, the resulting compound 3-hydroxy-N-methylphenethylamine will certainly be inactive.

One reason for this is the fact that the alpha-methyl group is needed to block the amine from attack by the body's monoamine oxidase enzymes.

Another reason is that phenolic phenethylamines or amphetamines are not lipophylic enough to cross the blood-brain barrier.

The increased hydrophility is also why (pseudo)ephedrine is so much weaker than methamphetamine, due to the beta-OH group.

[Edited on 31-7-2006 by Vitus_Verdegast]

JohnWW - 31-7-2006 at 02:40

Do you mean alpha to the N atom? (The methyl group)? Chemoleo said "beta methyl".

BTW For a fair comparison, you would also need to remove the phenolic 3-OH from the benzene ring. I wonder whether this compound has been made, and compared with ephedrine or pseudoephedrine as a decongestant? And whether the other OH (alpha to the benzene ring) has also been removed, to make N-methylphenethylamine, and compared with methamphetamine as a narcotic? That would certainly reduce the hydrophility.

Vitus_Verdegast - 31-7-2006 at 05:12

It's the alpha-methyl group, chemoleo made a mistake. Beta would be next to the ring.

amphetamine stands for alpha-methylphenethylamine.

N-methylphenethylamine would be completely inactive as it is a perfect substrate to be attacked by the body's MAO-enzymes. The alpha-methyl group is necessary to block it from this attack.

This is also why in general, if you look at PiHKaL, you will see that the various substituted amphetamines are more active and/or more potent than their phenethylamine counterparts.

Un-ringsubstituted PEA however, will be attacked. N-substitutions don't matter.
Have a look at http://www.erowid.org/library/books_online/pihkal/pihkal142....


Of course, when taken in combination with a MAO-inhibitor such as harmaline this is a different issue, but such a combination is highly discouraged considering the effects on blood pressure and the cardiovascular system.


N-methyl-beta-hydroxy-phenethylamine is in the Merck Index under the name halostachine. According to this paper it has mild sympathomimetic properties.

It is not possible to remove the phenolic 3-OH group and leave the beta-OH group intact.

[Edited on 31-7-2006 by Vitus_Verdegast]

Nicodem - 29-4-2007 at 12:22

Hector, I truly think you don't have a clue what does the word stabilized mean in the context of phosphorous, but in any case I can assure you that no chemical stabilization can prevent red phosphorous from reacting with iodine.

Organikum - 30-4-2007 at 02:24

I doubt that Merck adulterates the red phosphorus - many professional chemists all over the world would be outraged. Not to forget that Merck is not a primary source of methcooks - only few can order from them.
I suppose that the problem is somewhere else.

But thats easily tested: Just mix some red phosphorus with iodine and add some water, heat and you will see the HI forming.

Ozone - 30-4-2007 at 20:29

Please see Gattermann on this (via PI3)! Recycling via H2S might actually make industrial reduction financially do-able (if the feds can be convinced that we are not releasing it:().

Cheers,

O3

Nicodem - 30-4-2007 at 20:54

Hector, how is that red phosphorous stabilized? Please check the package. It is usually written bellow the chemical name. Is it a chemical stabilization at all or is it only a paraffin coating or other similar physical stabilization?

solo - 1-5-2007 at 05:38

Acidity is basically controlled by effective stabilization of the product. Stabilized Red Phosphorus keeps the pH neutral when dispersed in water for longer time. On storage, Red Phosphorus gradually starts releasing toxic phosphine gas & also starts forming different types of phosphoric acids. The phenomenon shown in the diagram below is accelerated in improperly stabilized Red Phosphorus.

If the properly stabilized Red phosphorus is not used then the Phosphoric acids, which are formed, will start eating away the striking surface & thereby lower the life of matchboxes. The strike surface does not withstand the repeated impact of matchsticks & does not live up to the expectation of lighting the number of matches it is expected to do.

Higher acidic Red phosphorus when used over a period of time will also badly affect the printing drums by eroding the surface. In view of this, it is necessary to use red phosphorus with lower acidity levels.


............source.

http://www.starchemicals.com/app_rp.htm

Eclectic - 1-5-2007 at 07:18

The stabilizer may be the dangerous and highly restricted compound NaHCO3 (baking soda).

Nicodem - 1-5-2007 at 07:23

Quote:
Originally posted by hector2000
Mr Nicodem in the label wrote phosphorus (red)(stabilised) for synthesis
it is in metal can.(assay >=97)
no paraffin coating

In such case, when on the label there is no mention of a chemical stabilizator, you can safely assume that they consider the words "red" and "stabilized" as synonyms in the context of phosphorous (since you can consider the red allotropic modification of phosphorous as the stabilized form of this element). Or perhaps it is just meant that it is stabilized by removing all traces of contaminants that speed up its deterioration (see Solo's post above). In any case this is not the reason of your friend's failure in using Merck's red phosphorous for iodine reduction.

Matchheads - 11-5-2007 at 16:17

you guys kind of sorted yourselves out. i don't know what it is. it may be alike to reading the reagent over the arrow, this thing i do of transferrence of admiration for those with the most posts, like Organikum. you should read the sm and the product and come up w/ the rgt to pass the test.

it is true that the chat room consists of typing only and not drugs.it should be protected due to the omnibus "Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act of 2000", seeing that that was struck down as unconstitutional through the efforts of the ACLU.

however, if you get busted the ACLU is nowhere around. The First Amendment is the sort of thing that it is worth the risk to exercise our First Amendment rights. There's no guarantee. You have to be willing to fight for it.

Everyone would love to make meth w/ HI only. Can't be done. To know why, you'd have to do experiments to get rates, and from them mechanisms. You don't just write it. The course I took was "Reaction Rates and Mechanisms" or YEAH: "Reactor Kinetics". chemical engineering. very enjoyable. Many of us are starting to think a hydride mechanism may be implicated, because that is the nature of the H in HI. I minus has such a large diameter, a diffuse charge. so does hydride ion, H minus.

P has so many valences it probably shifts around from 3 to 5-substituted. Organikum said "H3PO2 or H3PO3". I don't think so. Hypophosphite's the anion of interest. It wouldn't be both of those. Uncle Fester says to use sodium hypophosphite or just plain electroless nickel solution, to help those who can't get good phosphorous. I believe him. He works in electroplating.

I've bought sodium hypophosphite. The electroless nickel solution was too expensive. The proprietary formulation was too hard for me to match. You have to put ammonia in there too. I now suspect the additives. The plating actually consists of a nickel-phosphorous alloy. At this point the NaH2PO2 traffic is probably under scrutiny.

BTW, whoever said meth was easy I would disagree. Benzyl methyl ketone is harder to get to than phenyl ethyl ketone, IMHO.