Table of Contents Table of Contents

Eleusis: A thorough Thrashing Uncle Fester's "Secrets of Methamphetamine Manufacture"

Uncle Fester: Fester Flames Eleusis

Eleusis: Fester go home... response to UF's pathetic "defense"

Uncle Fester: Fester's response to Eleusis (go home) Eleusis: A thorough Thrashing of Uncle Fester's "Secrets of Methamphetamine Manufacture" It's no wonder the Feds don't give two shits about this book, as it's literally Festering with errors. Your compadre in improvised chemistry, Eleusis, has recently had the charming pleasure to read this humorous and entertaining tome. Normally I would strenously avoid any book with such a provocative title like this as it spells quick cash for the author to me, but since someone donated it to me for a free review, what the hell, right?



The introduction begins with what I would consider a warning, and what will later be proof that the American university system is in dire need of reform. U.F. says "It [this book] contains virtually everything I know about the subject [meth manufacture]".



Clearly, he doesn't know much.



Now mind you, Eleusis is just a silly old English major with no interest in methamphetamine whatsoever, but even my sorry ass can see the errors here. I'll save you the heartache and cash by illustrating a few of the most glaring ones, and perhaps even supply a correction or two. Chapter 1 "A well working aspirator produces a vacuum of 10 to 20 torr..."



Yeah, maybe in Alaska, where the tap water temperature is just above *freezing*, maybe.



A normal water aspirator can manage *10 to 20 torr above the vapor pressure of the water temperature*. The vapor pressure is a function of the amount of dissolved ionic solids and, more importantly, the *temperature* of the water. Tap water is usually close to 23C, which makes the vapor pressure around 22 torr. The best aspirator can get down to this + 10 torr, so the maximum attainable vacuum is 32 torr.



Doesn't sound like much of a difference? Well, it's the difference between MDP-2-P boiling at 150C and 190C.



As well, it should be obvious that any "chemical supply" listed in a book of this nature, just like any place posted in a.d.c, can no longer be considered a source for the "underground chemist".



Attempting to purchase anything from the companies listed in chapter one, assuming *any* of them are still in business, will get you a *lot* of attention. Chapter 2 The Leukart reaction is so hopeless it's not even funny. Kids, it makes a big mess, is ridiculously temperamental, and the precursors are *not* easily available, nor easily *made*.



Of more importance to me, it doesn't work for MDMA. Let's reiterate for all of you on the nod out there: it is not an effective process for making MDMA, and it's no picnic for Meth. The reason for this will be explained later.



Even better is that n-Methyl Formamide is produced by reacting *methylamine with formic acid*. Why bother when you can get better yields, in faster time and with less hassle from a standard reductive alkylation? Chapter 3 Most of the preps for Phenylacetone (Phenyl-2-Propanone) are correct, but U.F. is full of it for saying cooking oil is great for heating baths. Yeah, it's great if you like a lot of *smoke*.



Get a heating mantle if you want to go higher than 100C.



A claisen adapter packed with broken glass does not a good fraction column make. Why bother with that shit? If you need to fractionally distill something, at least get a tube longer than 15cm and *then* pack it with broken glass.



Also, sucking the moist air out of a flask which has been sitting in a 400F oven for 20 minutes is a good way to burn your trachea.



Kids, don't try this at home. Chapter 4 Preparation of N-Methyl Formamide? Skip it... "The methylamine can be obtained as a gas in a cylinder."? Yeah, right... Whew, that *is* funny.



Even better is the process by which he does this... If you want to make fairly dry methylamine gas, place some methylamine HCl in a flask, setup for simple distillation with a vacuum receiver adapter and real cold water running through the condenser and titrate in concentrated NaOH soln. Gentle heat from a heating mantle and stirring may be necessary, but other than that, voilla, loads of methylamine gas coming at you. It's the simple principle of "the strong base liberates the weaker base from it's salt".



As well, his purification of n-methylformamide is likely to give very poor results. The Leuckart is already a temperamental beast, and if you don't use the very purest n-methylformamide you can get (as well as everything else) you will be the proud owner, time and time again, of a nasty useless tar that is damn near impossible to get out of a flask. Chapter 5 I'm skipping most of it, because I just don't care, but who says you need "laboratory grade hydrochloric acid" to make dry HCl gas?



Just use the crap you find at a hardware store and don't sweat it.



However, what I *would* sweat is not having a anti-siphon trap in line with the gas outlet and the solution being bubbled with HCl! When the production of gas slackens on it's own accord, without a siphon you'll suck your (likely ether or benzene) solution right into the HCl gas generator. Kids, it will break your heart to come this far and see it all get ruined by something this stupid. Chapter 6 I have no comment on the supposedly effective tactics at procuring chemicals and evading federal scrutiny. If you want to get into "industrial scale production" you obviously don't have the same interest as I, and I don't really care whether you get busted or not.



Sorry, but considering how well U.F. has done so far, I'd take his "advice" with a grain of salt. Chapter 7 This is actually a pretty clever way of making P-2-P, but let's face it - a sodium alkoxide reduction is *not* within the grasp of the average chemical tinkerer. This is potentially dangerous stuff, you have been warned. Also, a ball of cotton is not an acceptable method of excluding water vapor from getting into the reaction unless you live in a desert region. Use an appropriate drying tube packed with Calcium Chloride or Sodium Hydroxide. Chapter 8 The tube furnace? You mean you want me to build a catalytic reaction tube packed with thorium oxide adsorbed onto pumic and run *what* through it?



Yes, it works, but no, the yields suck and the fumes - even god almighty will turn his nose up on heaven high if you fire this baby up. Chapter 9 Making phenyl-2-propanol is a snap, but not if you do it U.F.'s way. An underground chemist has no business attempting organometallic syntheses like the Grignard or the Corey-House.



React allylbenzene with cold, somewhat diluted sulfuric acid, then hydrolyse by heating with 10x moles of water. See ZWITTERION's method for making MDP-2-Pol for details.



The nitrostyrene method is standard and correct. Ammonium acetate is a better catalyst than n-butylamine 9 times out of 10, though. Chapter 10 This is a pet favorite of mine, too bad the reagents are so freaking expensive and it is subject to some fits of bad behavior as well as being a source of all sorts of noxious and dangerous fumes. The alkyl nitrites are nasty to inhale and the reaction inevitably produces enough NO2 to kill you if you aren't careful with the ventillation and have a good gas mask. NO2 is an "insidious poison" which is a term applied to something that will kill you without you knowing it. Chapter 11 Catalytic hydrogenations are well beyond the reach of even an advanced home experimenter. You don't have to believe me, but if you want to waste your time figuring it out, be my guest.



BTW - Raney-Nickel is extremely *pyrophoric* and should never be allowed to dry out. If it does, it will catch on fire, all by it's little self, and burn a hole halfway to China.



A champagne bottle as a hydrogenation bomb? No thanks, I'd rather drive down the Pacific Coast Highway blindfolded.



Also, no one knows why there is an induction period before a reaction occurs in his method of hydrogenation??? Bullshit. Metal catalysts work by adsorbing singlet Hydrogen molecules onto their surface. This takes a while (Platinum can adsorb up to 300 times it's weight in Hydrogen) and is the reason metal catalysts are so damn effective at reducing things: H2 is relatively inert, but H is extremely reactive. Chapter 12 The preparation of the aluminum amalgam is incorrect. It is not necessary nor desireable to wash the aluminum with dilute NaOH solution prior to amalgamating it.



I'll make no other comments, as little comparison can be made at this point between MDMA and meth, but even a moron can see that the reaction conditions for making meth are much more vigorous than making MDMA.



The comments about the Schiff base formed by a ketone and an amine salt in basic solution are correct, though, and a surprisingly good tidbit is found in the recommendation to add washed white sand to the reaction mixture so that filtering is easier.



One last thing... boiling chips will *not* prevent bumping in a vacuum distillation. Stirring is essential! This is so basic it's pathetic. Chapter 13 The process for making methylamine HCl is standard and covered in my FAQ on the chemical. U.F. makes it more difficult than it has to be, though. Chapter 14 Ahhhh! My favorite chapter! Here we have the Ritter reaction, which may be suitable for the amphetamines, but is likely to fall *way* short in making MDMA.



Unfortunately, the Ritter is at it's best when used with HCN gas. Using a nitrile is a poor substitute most of the time (and it could only get worse with the strong electronic effect exerted by the MD bridge in safrole) but the alternative is largely unacceptable for the underground chemist. Even still, carelessness in performing the Ritter reaction can lead to the death of you and those within the vicinity as a result of HCN gas escape (even with the nitrile!).



My advice? This is one secret better left as one.



The chapter gets even better, though, as Fester illustrates his greatest folly and the one most damaging to his credibility in my eyes.



He runs off on a tangent about making MDMA, which seems interesting enough, but what works for allylbenzene does not necessarily work for safrole (though the converse is true). Safrole cannot be brominated by 48% HBr. Period. In order to have a fighting chance at bromination, sulfuric acid *must* be added, or 66% HBr, as stated in Chemical Abstracts 14350, 1961, must be used. This isn't just a problem of having enough moles of Br available, as Fester foolishly assumes, but is also about having enough *concentration* as well as a suitably solving matrix. If you can't get safrole to dissolve enough so that contact with Bromine ions is made, how can it brominate? It can't!



A phase transfer catalyst which can transport Br ions would be an acceptable modification, perhaps, but as it stands, this will not and does not work.



No, heating it won't change it, either.



Let's assume that you do get 66% HBr made and are successful at brominating safrole at the number 2 carbon on the aliphatic chain. Great, does this mean that the "bomb" will still work? Yep, but what a shitty way to replace a halogen with an amine function.



See future posts by moi on alternative methods of doing this. It is beyond the scope of this book review at this time.



FWIW, though, the total yield of the bromination/bomb process is *comparable* to the total yield of Dr. Shulgin's methods, even with all of the improvements ZWITTERION and I have posted.



Something to think about, anyhow. Chapter 15 Oh jesus! U.F. is completely wrong about the stereochemistry of both (meth)amphetamine and (pseudo)ephedrine.



The d isomer is the desired one in (meth)amphetamine and is dictated by the amine bound carbon. The hydroxyl groups' chirality, which is what dictates whether you have ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, is *completely unimportant* to the final product! Why? Because it gets reduced to nothing, and if there aren't four different groups bound to a carbon, there's no chiral center. This of course means that pseudoephedrine and ephedrine will both produce the dextro isomer of methamphetamine since in both, the amine bound carbon is of the same chiral configuration.



Shame! And to think he had "6 years of education at prestigious universities"!



The process on extracting pills is ludicrous as well. He has obviously never done it, otherwise he would well know the frustrations of Methylcellulose. What is this? A binding agent that dissolves in *cold* water, but forms and insoluble sticky gum in hot. In any case, it clogs the fuck out of filter paper, and the only way to filter it under any circumstances is to use vacuum filtration.



The addition of a small amount of methanol helps keep the filter paper clear as well, reducing filtering time dramatically.



And if guaifenesin needs to be removed, extract with chloroform.



But these have all been well hashed out in a.d.c and I have no need nor interest in the ways of pill extractions.



The halogenation/reduction method seems fairly accurate to me, but, as should be apparent by now, it should be double checked.



As a side note, Zinc dust will more effectively remove the halogen atom in question if first washed with dilute HCl. A small amount of Zinc Chloride can be added to help boost yields as well.



Making Sodium Acetate from cheap vinegar? Please! Go get some glacial acetic acid, and add sodium hydroxide *solution*, diluted with enough water so that 3 moles of water are available for every mole of formed acetate (a little extra wouldn't hurt). Then with careful addition of the base you'll quickly get your sodium acetate in the stable trihydrate form.



The discussion of the Birch Reduction (dissolving metal) is mostly correct, but this process is *not* one a home chemist should attempt unless death and/or detection are high on the list of results desired.



The Wolff-Kishner? Clever, but the risks must be assessed appropriately, which is a rarity indeed for home chemisty troglodytes.



I'm not even going to touch the HI/Red P method. This one is a classic and very touchy about the ratio of reagents involved. Skip it. Chapter 16 Methcathinone? *Yawn*. Even more boring than Meth. Chapter 17 U.F. is clearly not interested in the "psychedelic amphetamines" (whatever they are) so if you are interested in this book because of them, I strongly suggest you spend your money on PiHKAL instead.



PiHKAL is an excellent work of fiction by Dr. Alexander & Ann Shulgin. It is available from Transform Press or can be ordered through major bookstores like Barnes & Noble. Chapter 18 Last time I checked, Ice was a non-deterministic word for either methamphetamine or 4-methylaminorex (U-4-Euh). I don't have the slightest clue whether U.F.'s method of turning "microcrystals of meth into large smokeable rock-like crystals" is accurate, but then again, I don't see why one would bother, either. Chapter 19 Correct and good advice here for calibrating one's vacuum pump, but why not go and by a vacuum gauge from a surplus or automotive supply store instead, and then there is no question how much vacuum your pump is capable of? Chapter 20 Keeping out of trouble? How about not buying this book. That'll keep you out of trouble. Chapter 21 This is useless... The legitimate uses of the chemicals are irrelevant and only serves to make the uninitiated less careful about their procurement. The warning that methylamine is the most risky to purchase is ridiculous, as there isn't a place I know of that will sell it in the first place.



Regardless of what U.F. may imply, theft is not an option for any of these things, and don't you think that might be rough on the old Karma anyway? Conclusion This book is an obvious attempt at profiteering. Perhaps Uncle Fester goes by this name in order to escape harassment by the Feds, but I'd say he would have more to worry about from disgruntled hack chemists that attempt to duplicate his "work".



As well, it is quite clear that old Fester didn't do most of what he writes about, because essential details are lacking at every step of the way. This may be intentional omission to reduce liability, but if so, why bother?



It is my opinion, then, that this book review is worth far more than the book itself. Enjoy!



- eleusis@netcom.com - Review of Uncle Fester's SOMM - 03/04/96 -



Uncle Fester: Fester Flames Eleusis It has come to my attention that someone going under the name eleusis has been spending an inordinate amount of time ripping my book, Secrets of meth manufacture 3rd edition, for some time now. It is my pleasure to respond to "Your Thorough Trashing" of my work, point by point. In reply to Chapter 1: Yes, a good aspirator will pull 10 to 20 torr, and you don't have to be in Alaska either. My home town is served by Lake Michigan water. The temperature at the bottom of that lake never gets above 40F. For the many months out of the year when the ground is even colder, the water arrives at tap well below that. Using the b.p. of safrole out of sassafras oil as a gauge, its b.p. of 110-115C puts the applied vacuum into that range. You should quit using those disposable plastic aspirators and get something decent. You claim tap water is usually 23C. What kind of tropical hell do you live in? The many millions of us who are served by the Great Lakes don't have to drink piss warm water. Your reference to dissolved ionic solids effecting water vapor pressure further causes me to wonder what kind of brackish swill you drink, and why you think this is a general condition. Besides, these ionic solids will lower the vapor pressure. Beyond all that, I repeatedly mention the marked rise of a substance's bp with diminished vacuum, and recommend calibration. In reply for Chapter 2: I found your tirade against the leukart reaction funny, but not particularly informative. Back when I was a meth cooker in the eighties, this reaction was my favorite route. It was safe, reliable, used simple glassware to run, and was fun to watch cook. It is true that it is a tempermental reaction, but plenty of details are given to avoid problems. I know a girl who used to be a guy before that offending part was chopped off, and with no chemistry training she set up shop using the benzaldehyde condensation with nitroethane to get phenylacetone, and then the leukart reaction to get meth. She had low yields on the first run, and after that no problems. Is she a better cook than you? You claim methylformamide doesn't work to make MDMA. This is bull. Both formamide and methylformamide react well with MD-P-2-P. See Chem Abstracts from 1953, column 11246. Also I have my own experience with the matter dating to the eighties in reaction with methylformamide. In reply to chapter 3; Your screed begins with a knock on the use of cooking oil as a heating bath, and you say to get a heating mantle. I think I'll pick one up at the neighbor's garage sale, for sure. The repeated theme in my book is to use industrial chemicals and simple equipment. Cooking oil doesn't smoke until it goes over 150C, and not badly until it goes over 180C. These temps aren't needed, so the oil works just fine. You further criticize the use of a claisen adapter as a fractionating column. It has been my experience that once packed with glass, it does a quite acceptable job, it comes along with the typical "kit", isn't prone to breakage, doesn't consume a large amount of the product wetting it, nor greatly add to the volume of space which must be evacuated by the aspirator, leading to better vacuums. Using such a set up, my producte always distilled water white, and the product I went down on my rap with assayed at 98% In reply for chapter 4: This tantrum begins with questioning the existence of dry methylamine in cylinders. The last time I checked, this was still how it is generally delivered to industry, from whence it can be put to better use by diversion from inside, theft, or by claiming the unwanted trash of industry through waste exchanges. I notice you don't mention the Chemical Diversior Act, which went into effect after I wrote the book in 192. You don't suffer from this time lag, so what's the matter? As to your second point, you claim my chapter four directions use methylamine HC1. Wrong. It calls for boiling the methylamine free base out of it's 40% solution through an ice cooled condenser. This procedure is analogous to the boiling out of ammonia from its strong solution. The procedure given was exactly the one I used back when I was cooking meth. You mouth is writing checks your brain can't cash. The purification procedure was tested over numerous batches, and works so well an untrained sex change girl can do it. My brain was kind of fried back then, so I should have experimented with heating the methylamine-formic acid product in a sealed pyrex container prior to distillation to get a higher yield, but what's past is past. Your unfamiliarity with the leukart reaction shows when you suggest that the dreaded red tar is viscous, and impossible to get out of the flask. It's useless, but not so thick. In reply for chapter 5: You show that you haven't even mastered making dry HCl from concentrated HCl mushed up with salt. So long as there are no puddles of liquid hydrochloric acid floating around with the salt, the pressure of the generator is always positive. As to why use the good quality acid, rather than hardware store HC1, I've seen plenty of those jugs turn green on the shelf. Chlorine attacks amine functions. Just thought you should know. In reply for chapter 6: You have no comment but I do. The proper ways to obtain chemicals are diversion from inside industry using industrial chemicals, theft, bringing the stuff across the Mexican border, or picking up their unwanted chemicals through exchanges or posing as a salvage marketer. In reply to chapter 7: So now this is supposed to be safe? Learn your trade, then proceed. In reply for chapter 8: Here was another opportunity for you to mention the Chemical Diversion Act, and still nothing. Some "Trashing". I'm being flayed by a pijmy. In my upcoming 4th edition I include two recipes for making phenylacetic acid from mandelic acid and mandelonitrile, since they are still unregulated. Benzyl cyanide and benzyl chloride are now listed. I should have included the recipe for phenylacetic acid using ethylbenzene and sodium dichromate (90% yield) but I forgot. Next printing. You say the yields suck from the furnace. 50% yield is what you get from the phenylacetic acid input using acetic anhydride. This procedure uses glacial acetic acid instead. The fumes are taken care of by the condenser and a line to an aspirator. All you do is complain. I know people like you, and they are a pain in the ass. In reply for chapter 10: You say that this reaction, taken from US patent 4,638,094 is a pet favorite of yours. Some English major you are as they are redundant. Pet = Favorite. Whats so expensive about sodium nitrite, methyl or ethyl alcohol, sulfuric acid and PdCl2? Last time I checked, 10 grams of pure PdCl2 from the plater's supply place cost $60, and the catalyst is reusable. You critique would have been more on the point if you would have noticed that the NO given off in the reaction, contrary to the patent's claims, goes on to react with water in the reaction mixture to make nitrous acid, which lowers pH, reacts with more alcohol to make more nitrite, and similar observations. Instead you are too busy shooting off your mouth. This reminds me of a Hustler cartoon I saw a couple of months back featuring "Doris Needlebaum-Cyber Slut". She was quite a sight to behold, just as you have cast yourself as the Cyber Cooker. You need a job. In reply for Chapter 11: In this you deride catalytic hydrogenation methods. They work quite well, and are conservative with chemical inputs. They are the wave of the future. You better become comfortable with them. A champagne bottle is designed to hold pressure. So long as it's not subjected to a lot of heat, it's very well suited to the task of holding pressure. Now lets get to the meat of your ignorance, that being the induction period before reduction of phenylacetone to meth begins. This isn't typical of how reductive aminations work, further, this is the case whether the catalyst is pre-reduced(i.e. already loaded up with H2)or not,this was the point being made, although you choose to ignor it. A champagne bottle is readily available, allows magnetic stirring of Pt catalyst, and hold pressure well. Your criticisms are shallow. In reply for chapter 12: The cyber slut wanna-be says that my preparation of aluminum alamgam is wrong. First he says that pre-treating the foil with some dilute NaOH is wrong. See Vogells Textbook of Practical Organic Chemistry 4th for the procedure, which is were I took it from. Further, I work (something the cyber slut can't do with all his time behind the keyboard) in the metal plating field. When we plate aluminum, the first thing done, after cleaning the article, is to break the oxide layer on the surface with some NAOH solution. This ex oses ure Al for further procedures. I note that Dr. Shulgin just goes with the foil as is when making MDMA. Further, other experimenter, when making meth, don't remove oxides prior to amalagamation. I should mention here that I saw youtgive directions for meth making using Al amalgam that didn't include reflux. This is very bogus. Once the reaction subsides, it must be refluxed for a couple of hours to get good yields. To hell with keeping the temp below 35C. Some extra NaOH and some salt in the mix are also helpful Finally you say that boiling chips won't prevent bumping on vacuum distillations. Having done quite a number of them myself, I must say that different substances behave in different manners under vacuum. Pumice footstone chips prevent phenylacetone and meth from bumping when heated directly on a hot plate. For members of the sassafras family, pumice foot stone chips prevent bumping when an oil bath is used. For the more viscous formamides, bumping is quite a problem, as was noted. Your sweeping condemnation was the result of shallow analysis. In reply to Chapter 13: I didn't make it complicated enough. I should have included the fact that periodic application of aspirator vacuum increases the yield of methylamine by forcing out of solution C02- You struck out again. In reply to Chapter 14: Here the skunk gets his run, although he doesn't explain why. At point here first of all, is the applicability of the Ritter reaction to safrole to make MDA. The point of fact is that I believed the liturature on the subject. See "An Evauluation of the Potential for Clandestine Manufacture of MDA Analogs and Homologs" by Terry Dal Cason in the Journal of Forensic Sciences. This guy isn't some low level slug in the DEA labs, he is one of their point men. He's the guy they will send as their expert witness at trial when they think they are in a difficult situation. See further a letter from a James B. Ellern PhD from the Chem Dept of USC writing to the same journal. Both of them praised the Ritter reaction as a source for MDA, and I took it from there. I was hoodwinked by their bullshit. As mail came in later, I further researched the field. Concentrated sulfuric acid is a potent cleaver of the methylenedioxy ring, causing polymers to form. See Cleavage of the Methylenedioxy Group, Chem Absracts Vol. 22 page 86. Your explaination of the problem is typically shallow.



As to point number two, where you also score, here again, I believed the published liturature. See Journal of the Alabama Academy of Science Vol 64, page 34-48 (1993). Here we deal with the usefulness of 49% HBr. This guy was paid by the DEA to see if 48 % HBr reacts with safrole, as they had some guy with the two of them. Low and behold, he says it works just fine. Money talks, and I believed the scientific liturature. Now lets get at your monkey like attempts to get around this 48% HBr is the ACS reagent, the others are quite rare, so lets make use of 48% HBr A phase transfer catalyst might work, but I don't have it at hand. Heating causes the cleavage of the ring. One must dehydrate the 48% acid. Sulfuric acid turns 48% HBr into Br2- I thought you knew that since you are so smart. Besides, it chews up the ring. There are two alternatives: dehydrate with P205 or my own invention- dehydrate by passing a stream of dry HCl through the solution. But then again, you don't know how to make dry HC1. This is my own invention- given in the forth edition of my book. The amount of dry HCl given off by dripping 75-100 ml of sulfuric acid onto a bed of salt and HCl will dehydrate a batch using 50 ml of sassafras oil and 100 ml of 48% HBr. But I'm here for answers, you're here to complain. As for better methods for turning the 2-bromo atom to an amine, the materials for a gabriel synthesis aren't down at the hardware store, so save it. The idea is to use industrial materials. Along a similar line of you being so smart, didn't you recommend to someone mixing phosphoric acid with NaBr or KBr to get dry HBr?-Don't you know that this doesn't work? In reply for chapter 15: The point of the section is that pseudoephedrine yields the weaker isomer of meth, while ephedrine yields the stronger one. I never stated that the atom bonded to the alcohol grouping had anything to do with this matter, it was clearly stated that the chiral center on the iso ropyl atom bonded to the nitrogen was at play. You rely upon an ignor-ant audience to hear your diatribe, although I admit I mixed up the d and the l there, it didn't effect the reading of the section. Now, let's move on to your criticism of the pill extraction procedure. Back in ?92 when I wrote the book, those pills were 30-40% active ingredient and the fillers were not water extractable. If you've gotten out behind your keyboard, you would have noticed a steady trend. First more fillers, including that methoxycellulose to make filtering more difficult and so an. That can be countered be a looser filter, cooler water, and so on. Then they started adding more scientific fillers. Why? Here was you chance to look smart again and you blew it. The Chemical Diversion Act promises them freedom from regulation if they can make their pills "difficult to extract". You blew it again. Shame! What school did you go to? So what do they do? First of all the two ingredient pills containing guifenesin came out, which puts them under the definition of ?mixture?, in the Chemical Diversion Act.' Also , a more ingenious filler was introduced which causes emulsion upon water extraction, making alkaline, and solvent extraction. Probably some fatty acid which forms a soap at alkaline pH. The proper procedure with these new pills is, grind, wash with toluene(no, my hardware store doesn't have chlorform) let dry, extract with water, evaporate down volume, make alkaline, extract with mineral spirits(it doesn't dissolve guifensen) then use the solution of the free base, or precipitate, by bubbling dry HC1, but you don't know how to do that. Your criticism of distilled white vinegar as a source for acetic acid is unfounded. It's made by diluting glacial acetic acid to 5% strength. The process is the same.



Then we come to another section where your mouth writes a check your brain can't cash, the topic is the HI/P reduction of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine to meth. If you knew something about it, maybe you would have something to say. The ratios of the reactants is very unimportant. The important things are to make sure that the concentration of the HI is 50%+, and that there is enough red P to keep pace with the reaction. One mole of red P per mole of ephedrine is more than enough. Other than that the reaction is very simple, just a reflux for a day's length. The prescence of fillers from the pills causes an emulsion when made alkaline. Very simple. In conclusion, you are a petty and envious man, who can?t handle your present station in life, so to puff yourself up, you look for four year old manuscripts to poke holes in the areas that have since changed, or were honestly taken from the scientific liturature. My third edition of Secrets of Meth Manufacture is a good teaching tool for the field, and will be updated to present conditions with the release of the fourth edtion within days. My advice - get a life.



Fester Eleusis: Fester go home... response to UF's pathetic "defense"

> It has come to my attention that someone going under the name eleusis has been spending an inordinate amount of

> time ripping my book, Secrets of meth manufacture 3rd edition, for some time now.



Actually, it took "eleusis" approximately 45 minutes to skim through the book then write about it.



> Yes, a good aspirator will pull 10 to 20 torr, and you don't have to be in Alaska either.



If the temperature of the flowing tap water is approximately 0C, yes, it will.



> My home town is served by Lake Michigan water. The temperature at the bottom of that lake nevergets above 40F.

> You should quit using those disposable plastic aspirators and get something decent.



Like a Sargent-Welch DirecTorr with Peltier-effect Device (do you even know what a Peltier-effect device is?) cold traps? Perhaps a KNF teflon head "roughing" pump (good for 10 torr @ 3Lpm flow) is good enough for you?



They both are certainly adequate for me. Aspirators are for amusement, much like your writing.



> You claim tap water is usually 23C. What kind of tropical hell do you live in?



The south...



In general, though, tap water, if it has travelled in it's pipes long enough and at a sufficient depth in the earth, will maintain a temperature of 55F (~13C). This is the constant mantle temperature (review: plate tectonic theory) within 10 degrees latitude of the poles.



Even still, the best aspirator will attain only 23 torr at this temperature at it's optimal flow rate. Flow rate can be increased up to a certain point, thereby increasing aspirator capacity, but due to turbulence and frictional heating, efficiency decreases to a point that a further increase in dynamic pressure results in a breakdown of aspirator function (review: hydrodynamics).



> The many millions of us who are served by the Great Lakes don't have to drink piss warm water.



1) Those served by the Great Lakes for their drinking water constitute a minor percentage of the population of the United States and Canada, and a miniscule percentage of the planet. To wit, this is poor rationale.



2) Urine is generally at a temperature of 37C.



> Your reference to dissolved ionic solids effecting water vapor pressure

> Besides, these ionic solids will lower the vapor pressure.



If you reread carefully, I did not say that such dissolved ions *increase* the vapor pressure of water, rather that vapor pressure is a function of dissolved solids, temperature.



I did not mention laminar flow resistance, which significantly affects it as well, but only when cavitation is possible (in a properly designed and machined aspirator, laminar flow resistance is kept to a minimum).



> I found your tirade against the leukart reaction funny, but not particularly informative. Back when I was a meth

> cooker in the eighties, this reaction was my favorite route.



For methamphetamine, this is indicated as an acceptable reaction, reagent modifications notwithstanding (ie - making n-methylformamide from methylamine is a ludicrous slap at efficiency). However, for making ring substituted phenylpropylamines, such as MDMA, MDA, MDOH, FLEA, etc..., this is an exceptionally *poor* reaction method. The conditions are relatively harsh and yields poor in general.



What does the Leuckart reaction offer over, say, a reductive alkylation with the ketone and amine?



Think about it... the chemicals for performing the Leuckart are controlled under the CDA as well as those for the Red.Alk., but the Leuckart has lesser applicability, higher danger, poorer yield, and the additional difficulty of transforming already controlled (but easily synthesized) amine precursors into also controlled formamides.



There is no logic to this.



In all fairness, this book was written before the CDA, but since it has not been updated and people are still buying it, it would be plain fraud to perpetrate it as a source of reliable and practical methodologies.



> is true that it is a tempermental reaction, but plenty of details are given to avoid problems.



You admit it's intemperance, yet are so bold to suggest it as a reasonable process for different compounds?



> I know a girl who used to be a guy before that offending part was chopped off, and with no chemistry training she

> set up shop using the benzaldehyde condensation with nitroethane to get phenylacetone, and then the leukart

> reaction to get meth. She had low yields on the first run, and after that no problems.



..And I hear from people everyday on the net asking for help with their "fester problems". In fact, it was because I (and several others) got so tired of fixing your book's inadequacies that I wrote the "review" of SOMM.



> Is she a better cook than you?



Who said I was a cook? Hell, I don't even eat breakfast at home 50% of the time.



> You claim methylformamide doesn't work to make MDMA. This is bull.



Of course it is bull, but I did not, in fact, say that. Please read carefully to avoid such obvious errors.



> Both formamide and methylformamide react well with MD-P-2-P.



Not giving the same product, of course (MDA and MDMA, respectively).



> Your screed begins with a knock on the use of cooking oil as a heating bath, and you say to get a heating mantle.

> I think I'll pick one up at the neighbor's garage sale, for sure. The repeated theme in my book is to use

> industrial chemicals and simple equipment.



A three-neck flask is "simple equipment" whereas a heating mantle isn't? Do you know which one you *can't* purchase in Texas?



In furtherance, DOT 5 silicone brake oil is much preferred for heating baths which need to go to 200C or so. Cooking oil constitutes a *major* fire hazard at 125C and above being prone to auto-ignition.



> Cooking oil doesn't smoke until it goes over 150C, and not badly until it goes over 180C.



Oh really? I emphatically disagree.



> You further criticize the use of a claisen adapter as a fractionating column. It has been my experience that once

> packed with glass, it does a quite acceptable job, it comes along with the typical "kit", isn't prone to breakage,

> doesn't consume a large amount of the product wetting it, nor greatly add to the volume of space which must be

> evacuated by the aspirator, leading to better vacuums.



Your rebuttal to this is excellent. I am inclined to agree with you after such, except for the slight fact that a short Vigreux column possesses many of the same advantages of your hacked "claisen column" while also being inexpensive and much more effective.



Additionally, in contrast, all packed columns have a higher holdup ratio than a Vigreux...



> This tantrum begins with questioning the existence of dry methylamine in cylinders. The last time I checked,

> this was still how it is generally delivered to industry, from whence it can be put to better use by diversion

> from inside, theft, or by claiming the unwanted trash of industry through waste exchanges.



Incorrect. I state not that methylamine isn't available in this form, just that it would be the most *unlikely* way to get it legitimately. However, if, as you blatantly suggest, theft is the way to "obtain" materials, then anything goes, doesn't it?



However, if it came to a choice of running with a "10lb tank of gas" or 1kg of methylamine HCl, I think I'd skip the greediness and go for the kg of solid...



> I notice you don't mention the Chemical Diversior Act, which went into effect after I wrote the book in 1992.

> You don't suffer from this time lag, so what's the matter?



Huh? These two sentences make no sense.



> As to your second point, you claim my chapter four directions use methylamine HC1. Wrong. It calls for boiling

> the methylamine free base out of it's 40% solution through an ice cooled condenser.



No, once again it appears you need to read what I wrote more carefully. I suggested a much better method of obtaining dry methylamine gas than you, not attributing it to you in the slightest.



However, this point is moot, in correlation with my opinion on the Leuckart reaction.



> You[r] mouth is writing checks your brain can't cash.



Incorrect. You have mistaken my condemnations of your book as statements that your methods are completely wrong, whereas, if you were a critical and careful reader, you would see they are, in fact, condemnations on the *choices*. It is my opinion that most of the methods you present in SOMM, in a word, suck. Analogously speaking, since you have well-demonstrated an inability to comprehend the subtleties of the English language, your methods are like growing a tomato plant to get a slice of tomato for a burger when it is so much easier, less chancey and more convenient to merely buy one from the local market.



With some glaring exceptions, which I duly noted in my review, much of your book is *technically* valid, much of it, *practically* speaking, is not.



> My brain was kind of fried back then,



You said it, I only implied it.



> Your unfamiliarity with the leukart reaction shows when you suggest that the dreaded red tar is viscous, and

> impossible to get out of the flask. It's useless, but not so thick.



You are correct. I am wholly unfamiliar with the Leuckart reaction in a personal way, however, many of whom I have corresponded with supplied me with exacting empirical observations and data to corroborate my statements.



> You show that you haven't even mastered making dry HCl from concentrated HCl mushed up with salt. So long as

> there are no puddles of liquid hydrochloric acid floating around with the salt, the pressure of the generator

> is always positive.



Once again, you fail general physics.



The pressure of the generator will always be positive with respect to atmospheric pressure, with the provisions you indicate, however, it may *not* be positive with respect to the *system* pressure.



To wit, if the generator, for example, produces 3psi of HCl gas when it begins, then suddenly drops to 2psi, the net pressure in the generator as compared to the entire system (comprised of bubbler (or a resistance to flow), tubing and gas generator) will be -1 psi.



Under this exceedingly common condition, the liquid which is being bubbled by the HCl generator will "suck back" into the generator.



If you doubt this, the same principle is at work when you quickly blow into a straw partially submerged in liquid then allow the liquid to "bounce back".



> As to why use the good quality acid, rather than hardware store HC1, I've seen plenty of those jugs turn green on

> the shelf. Chlorine attacks amine functions. Just thought you should know.



Chlorine attacks many functions, but the green color is not the result of Chlorine, rather it is from the chloride salts of metal contaminants, predominantly copper and tin. Just thought you should know...



> You have no comment but I do. The proper ways to obtain chemicals are diversion from inside industry using

> industrial chemicals, theft, bringing the stuff across the Mexican border, or picking up their unwanted chemicals

> through exchanges or posing as a salvage marketer.



Fine... I guess I am being old-fashioned when I say I do not advocate theft from private enterprise.



> So now this is supposed to be safe? Learn your trade, then proceed.



It is definitely more safe than the rat-trap contrivance you try pass off in a *published book*.



> Here was another opportunity for you to mention the Chemical Diversion Act, and still nothing.



You forget... I prefaced the book review with something along the lines of "I don't care about methamphetamine, so I'm not going to put too much effort into suggesting alternative methods here".



I didn't know I was required to not only point out your mistakes but also provide improved alternatives. It's not like I was getting paid, you know.



> Some "Trashing". I'm being flayed by a pijmy.



Perhaps you mean "pygmy".



> In my upcoming 4th edition I include two recipes for making phenylacetic acid from mandelic acid and

> mandelonitrile, since they are still unregulated.



And boy, you can buy both of those at the local hardware store, too!



Wait... no you can't.



Hmmm... Try again if you wish to make this "accessible to the home chemist".



> You say the yields suck from the furnace. 50% yield is what you get from the phenylacetic acid input using acetic

> anhydride. This procedure uses glacial acetic acid instead.



Shall I clap my hands for you? No. Because once you go through all the trouble to build this furnace shit, and then get your dismal 50% yield while stinking up the neighborhood, you then have to contend with racemization of your final product as the result of using an sp2 hybridized intermediate.



> The fumes are taken care of by the condenser and a line to an aspirator.



Indeed they are, but you don't happen to mention the fact that without provisions to catch the fumes, one's ass will be painted with a big red target.



> All you do is complain. I know people like you, and they are a pain in the ass.



Au contraire. I provided many improvements to your inefficient and/or dangerous methods - little of my diatribe is actual complaining.



> You say that this reaction, taken from US patent 4,638,094 is a pet favorite of yours. Some English major you are

> as they are redundant. Pet = Favorite.



Incorrect. "Pet" is more accurately defined here as "diminuitive" or "little". The phrase then becomes "little favorite". You're somewhat out of your league with chemistry, but you are definitely *way* out of your league trying to correct my English.



> Last time I checked, 10 grams of pure PdCl2 from the plater's supply place cost $60, and the catalyst is reusable.



When was this? 10 years ago? Current price is $150/10g in my area which is certainly not bad in relation to the expected "profit" one would get, but sufficiently high to make the process a poor choice for a first-time method.



As well, any process using P-2-P would be less desirable than, for example, reducing (pseudo)ephedrine due to the inevitable racemization which occurs. With MDMA the racemization is *desired*, but, with your "pet favorite", that makes half of the product useless crap.



Keeping this in mind, additional critical detail is warranted for any process that must involve P-2-P, as it will automatically have a 50% yield at best, as far as the human mind is concerned.



> You critique would have been more on the point if you would have noticed that the NO given off in the reaction,

> contrary to the patent's claims, goes on to react with water in the reaction mixture to make nitrous acid, which

> lowers pH, reacts with more alcohol to make more nitrite, and similar observations.



The patent indicates only that the NO given off can be recycled - it makes no statements concerning it's uptake by the reaction medium. Indeed, the claimaints profess ignorance as to the exact mechanism by which the reaction proceeds. What makes you think you are right? Do you have GC, titrimetric, IR and NMR data for numerous aliquots of the reaction mixture(s)? I did not think so, yet, you are more than willing to boldly state the reaction's definitive mechanism.



If you actually compare results among the variations presented in the patent, you would see that the nature of the palladium salt and the selection of the nitrite have more to do with the yield than this half-baked "nitrous acid" bullshit.



> You need a job.



I'll take that under advisement.



> In this you deride catalytic hydrogenation methods. They work quite well, and are conservative with chemical

> inputs. They are the wave of the future. You better become comfortable with them.



Catalytic Hydrogenation is a versatile and generally high yield process for many reductions, yet, in keeping with the theme of your book, not what I would consider applicable or "within the reach" of your target audience (which seems to vary between idiot ex-felon and ACS Laureate). I am most comfortable with the construction and operation of a Parr Shaker, actually, but this isn't about dick-sizing for me as it is for you.



> A champagne bottle is designed to hold pressure. So long as it's not subjected to a lot of heat, it's very well

> suited to the task of holding pressure.



The glass is also fairly thick to make up for the fact that it is not tempered like pyrex, and therefore incapable of dissipating heat rapidly if necessary. Many reductions can become quite exothermic and therefore, your champagne bottle hydrogenation vessels consititutes a serious hazard.



> Now lets get to the meat of your ignorance, that being the induction period before reduction of phenylacetone to meth begins. This isn't typical of how reductive aminations work, further, this is the case whether the catalyst is pre-reduced (i.e. already loaded up with H2) or not,this was the point being made, although you choose to ignore it.



This makes no sense whatsoever - becoming a little agitated here?



My analysis is flawless at this point, and only as shallow as your book deserves. You are surely familiar with the biblical phrase "casting pearls before swine", are you not?



The mechanism of the reaction you described is not debateable, it is well-known. It was your ignorance which showed when you said you "didn't know why there was an induction period", certainly not mine when I answered it.



> The cyber slut wanna-be says that my preparation of aluminum alamgam is wrong. First he says that pre-treating

> the foil with some dilute NaOH is wrong. See Vogells Textbook of Practical Organic Chemistry 4th for the

> procedure, which is were I took it from.



No shit you took it from Vogel's... in fact, it was practically copied out of there by hand. The method described in Vogel's, however, produces finely divided Al-Hg, which is usually much too reactive for a reductive alkylation. Using this prep, one will have a difficult time controlling the reaction temperature when making ring-substituted phenylalkylamines. I clearly state that there is an obvious and drastic difference between the reaction conditions required for MDMA and meth, and refrain from commenting extensively - did you fail to catch that? As well, since the aluminum is already finely divided, one loses the visual indicator of reaction completion from the aluminum settling to the bottom.



> I should mention here that I saw youtgive directions for meth making using Al amalgam that didn't include reflux.

> This is very bogus. Once the reaction subsides, it must be refluxed for a couple of hours to get good yields.

> To hell with keeping the temp below 35C.



Huh? I provided no alternative directions for making meth...



> Your sweeping condemnation was the result of shallow analysis.



And your book is soooooooo deep, isn't it?



> I didn't make it complicated enough. I should have included the fact that periodic application of aspirator

> vacuum increases the yield of methylamine by forcing out of solution C02- You struck out again.



Ummm.. no, not really. See Synthesis, March 1979 for the golden prize.



> Here the skunk gets his run, although he doesn't explain why. At point here first of all, is the applicability

> of the Ritter reaction to safrole to make MDA. The point of fact is that I believed the liturature on the subject.



My main complaint is that you casually indicate this is a possible and likely methodology without giving any *warning* whatsoever to the potential dangers involved. I imagine this is more the result of your ignorance rather than oversight.



> See further a letter from a James B. Ellern PhD from the Chem Dept of USC writing to the same journal. Both of

> them praised the Ritter reaction as a source for MDA, and I took it from there. I was hoodwinked by their bullshit.



What do you expect from the Narco Swine's Journal? I take everything I read from there with a grain of salt, much as one should take your tripe.



> As mail came in later, I further researched the field. Concentrated sulfuric acid is a potent cleaver of the

> methylenedioxy ring, causing polymers to form. See Cleavage of the Methylenedioxy Group, Chem Absracts Vol. 22

> page 86. Your explaination of the problem is typically shallow.



Thank you for the reference, I'll be sure to look it up next time I'm at the library.



However, it has already been demonstrated that slightly diluted sulfuric acid, in the cold, is an effective hydrating agent for safrole, converting it to the alkyl hydrogen sulfate which upon boiling with excess water gives the secondary alcohol.



Concentrated sulfuric acid, hot or cold, will indeed form a *catechol*... not a polymer as you blithely assume.



To wit, there are many examples of the methyelendioxy ring withstanding "this potent ring cleaver"... See Boeseken, et. al. in Rec.Trav.Chim., v48, pp363-69 (1929). Concentrated sulfuric acid is added to acetic acid to catalyze the formation of the peracid upon addition of H2O2. As much H2SO4 is used here as would be to catalyze the attack of 48% HBr on safrole, except that this oxidation is conducted at 40C with *no ring cleavage*.



In a simple phrase, then, fuck you.



> This guy was paid by the DEA to see if 48 % HBr reacts with safrole, as they had some guy with the two of them.

> Low and behold, he says it works just fine. Money talks, and I believed the scientific liturature.



Yes, my point was that you obviously did not try any of this, yet illustrate it in your book as if it was workaday stuff. You misrepresent...



> Heating causes the cleavage of the ring.



That's pretty much why I say don't heat it...



> One must dehydrate the 48% acid. Sulfuric acid turns 48% HBr into Br2 - I thought you knew that since you are so

> smart. Besides, it chews up the ring.



At cold temperatures it will not chew the MD bridge. Since I am not, in fact, so smart, I merely read the literature much as you claim to do. See Vogel's for the section on making alkyl halides. In there you will find several examples of adding H2SO4 to 48% HBr in order to promote bromination. Of course, this is for halogenating alcohols, primarily, but the trick is valid and making the alcohol from safrole is exceptionally easy (using lovely H2SO4, to reiterate).



> There are two alternatives: dehydrate with P205 or my own invention - dehydrate by passing a stream of dry HCl

> through the solution. But then again, you don't know how to make



Dehydrate with P2O5? Your own invention? Sorry... it's been done before.



And hey, that P2O5 is right off the shelf from my local auto parts store, excellent!



> This is my own invention- given in the forth edition of my book. The amount of dry HCl given off by dripping

> 75-100 ml of sulfuric acid onto a bed of salt and HCl will dehydrate a batch using 50 ml of sassafras oil and

> 100 ml of 48% HBr.



Clever. For this I'll give you two points.



> As for better methods for turning the 2-bromo atom to an amine, the materials for a gabriel synthesis aren't down

> at the hardware store, so save it. The idea is to use industrial materials.



Ummm... I think you have already obviated this objective...



> Along a similar line of you being so smart, didn't you recommend to someone mixing phosphoric acid with NaBr or

> KBr to get dry HBr? - Don't you know that this doesn't work?



So, come here often, eh Fester? Is this where the mighty uncle fester scoops deep to get the material for his book?



This is something I've personally never tried, so no, I didn't know whether it works or not.



> The point of the section is that pseudoephedrine yields the weaker isomer of meth, while ephedrine yields the stronger.



Bullshit! Cease & Desist, NOW!



The chirality of the nitrogen is the SAME in BOTH PSEUDOEPHEDRINE and EPHEDRINE.



Both, upon reduction of the hydroxyl group, yield d-meth.



> You rely upon an ignor-ant audience to hear your diatribe, although I admit I mixed up the d and the l there,

> it didn't effect the reading of the section.



Go home, you are tiresome with your errors and have no right to even criticize me. At least I don't play "drug synthesis author" with real books. In this forum, what I say is open to criticism, whereas in yours, people will blindly accept what you have written without having the advantage of cross-examination. You think my "audience" is ignorant? How about yours? With such an enticing title as "Secrets of Meth. Manufacture" what sort of idiot do you think you're attracting?



> Your criticism of distilled white vinegar as a source for acetic acid is unfounded. It's made by diluting glacial

> acetic acid to 5% strength. The process is the same.



Yeah, and then you have 95% water to remove... My criticism is *really* unfounded. Uh-Huh. It's not like you can't go to the photographic supply store and get Glacial Fucking Acetic Acid off the shelf, so why not use something that's 95% water? Sure, I love to make life more difficult than it need be.



> I'd say you blew it... But that's more than obvious from this pathetic attempt at a rebuttal.



> topic is the HI/P reduction of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine to meth. If you knew something about it, maybe you

> would have something to say. The ratios of the reactants is very unimportant.



Bullshit, once again. I'll say no more, but you are way out of your skull if you try to pass this one off.



> In conclusion, you are a petty and envious man, who can’t handle your present station in life, so to puff yourself

> up, you look for four year old manuscripts to poke holes in the areas that have since changed, or were honestly

> taken from the scientific liturature.



Your book is still for sale, so regardless of it's age, it's fair game in my eyes.



My advice? Don't be so stupid to give away where you live in Usenet. Happy hunting!



Uncle Fester: Fester's response to Eleusis (go home)

> > It has come to my attention that someone going under the name eleusis has been spending an

> > inordinate amount of time ripping my book, Secrets of meth manufacture 3rd edition, for some

> > time now. It is my pleasure to respond to "Your Thorough Trashing" of my work, point by point.



Eleusis claims he spent 45 minutes on this project, his repeated reposting but,his screed show a great deal more attention to the project than claim- ed. This dissembling and sets a trend for the whole of his reply. Read on and make up your minds for your self. In reply to Chapter 1: In his reply to my first chapter's defense, we get a quite convoluted and defective response. First he claims that the temperature of the ground at a depth is related to the mantle temperature. This laughable character should be made aware that the temperature of ground and ground water below a surface active layer of a few feet is reflective of the average annual temperature, not the temperature of the mantle, hence the existence of permafrost in cold areas. Beyond this small point, lets go back to the old scientific literature, wherequoting of boiling points is routinely in the 10-20 torr range. They too had "well working aspirators”. It would appear that before the invention of air conditioning, anyone with an ounce of brains stayed out of nature's steam boxes. Let me repeat, calibration of vacuum was prescribed, and it's effect on the boiling point repeatedly mentioned. Apparently, making such a simple connection is too much to ask. In reply for Chapter 2: In his reply to the second chapter's defense, an attack is once again made on the leukart reaction, calling it's consumption of amine "a ludicrous slap at efficiency". Recycling of the unused amine from the reaction into the next batch's load of formic acid is very convenient, and the procedure given in the book. With this recycling, amine consumption is similar to other methods.



The claim is further made that the yields are low, and the conditions harsh. My typical yield from my cooking days using this method was 60-70%, which I would hardly classify as low. The maximum temperature used was 150-155C, which doesn't put it in the harsh category. As for use with substituted phenylacetones a great number of them were cooked in a leukart reaction to yield the desired amine, with generally good to very good results. I would suggest a reading of the open literature from the thirties and fourties covering the leukart, when this research was done. The Chem Abstracts reference cited above, with it's associated patent claim a 70% yield of MDA, with a maximum temperature used 150C. These are not what I call low yields or harsh conditions. Having done many of these reactions, I'm also puzzled as to how this procedure could be classified as suffering from "higher danger" Then we get to some more of my favorite parts, the lying. In Tantrum 1 you deny making the statement that methylformamide won't react with MD-P2P, and advise me to read carefully to avoid making such errors. To quote from your original tirade: "Of more importance to me, it doesn't work for MDMA. Let's reiterate for all of you on the nod out there: it's not an effective process for making MDMA, and it's no picnic for Meth". God, that was fun! Next the claim was made that cooking oil, once heated above 125C, constitutes a "major fire hazard and is prone to auto-ignition-" It always amazes me how people can't take their experience from one area of life and apply it to another. The typical deep frier runs at about 375F, which roughly translates to 180C. This is the temperature at which I claim that cooking oil starts to smoke really bad, and shouldn't be used. I don't see too many MacDonalds burning down from cooking their fries, yet this is way above the temperature at which the claim was made that cooking oil is "prone to auto-ignition". In reply for chapter 5: Here this wanna-be repeats his claim that a drop in pressure inside the dry HCl generator will suck the solution of the free base back into the HCl generator. We start with the agreed fact that the pressure inside the generator will always be positive with respect to atmosphere, but then he goes on to say that "Once again, I fail general physics". That statement will make this refutation especially fun. He starts by trying to obfuscate the matter by talking about "system pressure". Such an attempt to confuse the matter won't work with me. The solution being bubbled with dry HCl is open to the air, so the pressure working against the generator is atmosphere, plus the weight of the depth of solution in which it is inserted. That value will vary, depending upon how deep it's put in, but remains constant. If it takes +3 units of pressure inside the generator to blow a stream out the bottom of the tubing, having it drop to +2 units doesn't make it -1 to the system, it makes it + 2 to the system, and the stream of HCl will only make it's way 2/3 down below the surface of the solution. It will not come back up the tube unless pressure is negative with respect to atmosphere. To pull liquid up a straw, you must suck on the straw, not blow less hard. As a practical matter, when HCl generation slows to the point where bubbles aren't fairly rapidly coming out the end of the tubing, crystals form inside it and plug it up tight. Then you have to take a toothpick and poke it open again so bubbling can continue. The screed-meister has said a couple of times that he doesn't know how to cook, and its showing. The show then continues with a denial that hardware store muriatic acid is likely to contain chlorine. My Merck Index says "industrial grades are likely to be colored by the presence of iron, chlorine, and organic materials. Why would there be chlorine in this cheap acid? Because one of the main industrial methods for making it is direct union of the elements. For this cheap grade of acid, they aren't too concerned about a little of the chlorine staying in the product. Just thought you should know. In reply for chapter 8: In the reply to my defense for this chapter, we get treated to a further display of ignorance from someone who deemed himself qualified to write "A Thorough Trashing" of my book"Secrets of Meth Manufacture" and follow through with "A Response to My Pathetic defense" of said book.



The focus of the afore mentioned ignorance? An attack on phenylacetone as a precourser to meth manufacture. He writes "and then you have to contend with racemization of your final product as the result of using an sp2 hybridized intermediate, This statement is followed by "As well, any process using P-2-P would be less desirable than, for example reducing ephedrine due to the inevitable racemization which occurs. With MDMA, racemization is desired, but with meth that makes the product half crap. Keeping this in mind, additional critical detail is warranted for any process that must involve P-2-P, as it will automatically have a 50% yield at best, as far as the mind is concerned."



You will get a lesson over my knee, whether you like it or not. The high from the meth racemate is superior to the pure d form produced from reducing ephedrine. This has been my experience, and I'm not alone in this judgement that the racemate's high is more invigorating, while the pure d isomer tends to be more enervating. See the May 1996 issue of Philadelphia magazine for a fine article on meth cooking in that area. One quote from the article "When hardcore users want the true meth high, they want the P-2-P high, the Philly high." said AUSA(asst. DA) David Webb. I wholeheartly concur, having done both varieties. One's sex life is considerably better using the racemate. Potency per unit weight doesn't equal desirability. In reply for chapter 10: Reply- I didn't need all that fancy equipment to come up with this mechanism. All I needed was pH paper to see the pH drop into the 2-3 range toward the end of the nitrite addition, and the paucity of N02 fumes from the reaction mixture. Back before the invention of such instruments good research was done, I suggest you stop handicapping yourself with a reliance on them. In reply for Chapter 11: The ignorant are at their most ignorant when they imagine themselves informed. Let's further consider this particular area of E’s ignorance, that being the induction period during the catalytic reduction of P-2-P and methylamine to meth.



His "brilliant explaination" ? “ Metal catalysts work by absorbing singlet hydrogen onto their surface. This takes a while... “ Who is casting the pearls, and who is the swine? See for example Catalytic Hydrogenation in Organic Synthesis, by Freifelder p. 102 for proceedure variations in the reduction of phenylacetone with a variety of amines. It is only with phenylacetone and methylamine that an induction period exists, so much for the explaination that the catalyst absorbing the H2 is the problem. The catalyst and the reduction conditions are the same for all the amines used.



We are then further treated to a display of either feigned or actual ignorance by ignoring the fact that this induction period is the same even if pre- reduced catalyst is used. A pre-reduced catalyst is one that was put in the bomb first, and already loaded up with hydrogen prior to adding the phenylacetone and methylamine. So much for this "brilliant explaination". In reply for chapter 12: First of all I quote the plater's supply shop price, and you come back with the Aldrich price, compare apples to apples. You didn't pay much attention to the recipe. Vogel uses 10% NaOH, whereas I use .1% NaOH, just enough to clean the surface of the foil. Vogel states that a major purpose of the NaOH pre-treat is to open pores in the Al and to expose a clean surface.



Then in another display of ignorance, “E” states "finely divided Al is usually much too reactive for reductive alkylations". Al grit is often used with phenylacetone. See for example J. Chem. Ed. Vol. 51, page 671 (1974), but this is irrelevant here, as .1% NaOH will only tickle the surface of the foil.



Then we get to more of my favorite parts- the lying. The claim is made that “E” never gave out directions for cooking meth using Al amalgam lacking the crucial reflux requirement. See message ID: 4gauhq$d90-001@anetcom-com#l/l, from you talking about Pitbull's recipe. You direct adding the ingredients into a beaker, and stir briskly while ensuring that the temp doesn't rise above 35C, nor fall below 15C. Stir for 5 hours. You leave a paper trail, you lie and you will be called on it. In reply to Chapter 14: I dont “blithely assume" that a polymer is formed. The CA reference cited above states the case. You’d better load up your brain before shooting off your mouth.



Your continued attempts to defend the use of sulfuric acid as a dehydrator for 48% HBr is troubling. Go ahead and just ignore the fact that the Br2 formed will add to the double bond in safrole much faster than any HBr formed will. This is the essence of being a desk bound putz.



Paying more attention to what you read will also serve you well, as I only claim the dry HCl method of drying as my own. Also, I don't hang out on the web to get cooking ideas. I carry on correspondence, as it is a good deal more private, and more reliable to boot. You being case in point. A fellow author at Loompanics mailed me your rantings, and I decided it was time to launch on your ass and nuke your butt. I don't even own a computer- my kid would wreck it. This is coming to you via a neighbor of mine's hook-up. In reply for chapter 15: The battle continues over the relative usefulness of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine. For reduction of ephedrine to d-meth, and racephedrine to d,l meth see: Chem Abstracts - 54:7654b (1960); 46:6606g (1952); 23:3452-3454 (1929); 34:3761 (1940); 38:1219 (1944); 43:1025g (1949).



For the reduction of racemized pseudoephedrine to d,l meth see CA 34: 7297 (1940). You are welcome to supply examples from the scientific liturature for the conversion of pseudoephedrine to d meth by the methods given in the book. Good luck! I also note which materials the heat is most anxious to ban- ephedrine and racephedrine. You have a point to prove, then do so with specific examples. Also keep in mind that meth racemate is superior to the d isomer. Your reply to the HI/P section is really deep-"Bullshit!" haw-haw. I have experience doing this reaction, how about you? We can talk fine detail for all to hear, such as smell, look, etc. Let's play!



Fester