|
Main Index Search Register Login Who's Online FAQ Links | |
||
|
|
|||
|
||||
| 2 Online, 0 Active | You are not logged in | |||
|
|
Stimulants | |
|
|
|
|
All 8 posts | Subject: potency just not the same | Please login to post | Down | |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
gloman (Stranger) 11-06-04 09:31 No 540009 |
|
potency just not the same | ||||||
|
can anyone shed some light on the reason when i dream of p-fed/I2/rp it just doesn't have the KICK it used to have say 3-4 years ago? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
syschk (Stranger) 11-06-04 09:42 No 540011 |
|
maybe | ||||||
|
your tolerance level is through the roof? or you need to start taking some good vitamins may help multi-vitamin / multi-mineral helps swim 
shadow man keeps me company |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
ChemoSabe (Hive Addict) 11-06-04 10:06 No 540015 
|
|
Tainted Pseudo? | ||||||
|
Odds are your precursor wasn't cleaned well enough. It for sure isn't if you are still extracting the same way as you did three years ago. But unless you give very specific details about how the product in question was made - extraction thru reaction - nobody here will really have the slightest clue about giving a somewhat concrete answer for you. And it absolutely, for certain has not become impossible to produce as high quality of product as used to be made. Barring some radical change in the nature of the physical universe the making of relatively pure meth cannot be made impossible. can't flush this |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
geezmeister (Of Counsel) 11-06-04 15:52 No 540032 |
|
one other prospect | ||||||
|
One other prospect: (-)(-) pseudoephedrine. Most likely the problem is inadequate cleaning. The new polymers are used to foil older extraction methods. mostly harmless |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
gloman (Stranger) 11-06-04 18:35 No 540047 |
|
thanks for the input I've been using the same... | ||||||
|
thanks for the input I've been using the same old method as always, take my p-fed pills and disolve in dh2o then base out w/that little devil and then pull w/toluene, and gas w/muratic. following the collection of crystals i wash in hot acetone seal in jar w/lid and put in freezer to recrystalize again, filter and let dry. then figure there ready for use. am i missing somthing? oh ya, i'm not new to this, been active for about 15 yrs. but had to take a break for several yrs. not by choice! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
geezmeister (Of Counsel) 11-06-04 20:56 No 540061 |
|
What you missed... | ||||||
|
What you missed was the introduction of Eudragit polymers. mostly harmless |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
ChemoSabe (Hive Addict) 11-06-04 21:23 No 540068
|
|
3 Years Out? | ||||||
|
You missed out on the most concentrated blitzkrieg of new and extremely annoying pill additives ever seen. As far as what to study to get up to date wareami made this post recently that should get you headed the right direction. Post 536468 (wareami: "Good advice Chemo...", Stimulants) What you're probably getting as end product now is only partially reduced and is one of the most common results of reacting precursor that still has some remaining eudragit with it along for the ride. It's truly "half baked" shit. Also, I think eudragit is a manufacturers trade name but not really a true compound name. Does anyone know if eudragit is yet listed on pill boxes as an inactive with a different compound name? For some reason cellulose acetate is coming to mind but I have no idea if that's really it or not. can't flush this |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
geezmeister (Of Counsel) 11-07-04 14:37 No 540193 |
|
not on the box | ||||||
|
Its not listed on the box because its not an inert ingredient; its part of the medicine's delivery system... and the FDA allows the companies to leave that information off the label... mostly harmless |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||