Silk Road forums
Discussion => Drug safety => Topic started by: 34trimethoxy on April 04, 2013, 05:14 pm
-
Why I hate the question:
“Is it hard to synthesize X”
Which I see on these boards all too often. Or "Is acid harder to synth then an NBOMe?".
LSD is magnitudes upon magnitudes immensely more challenging to produce then NBOMe’s (N-Benzyl-OrthoMethoxy), or phenethylamine based molecules in general.
Just compare the structures - one is a (relatively) simple phenethylamine skeleton, and the other a highly complex, chiral indole based molecule with amines, amides, Diels-Alder addition rings (which get messy fast), amongst many other accomplishments of chemical synthesis.
Even looking at them both from a retro-synthesis standpoint, if you've taken some years of organic, LSD will still give you a headache and a sense of "where the fuck do I begin?!" compared to its phenethylamine cousins.
The phenethylamines are silly easy to create in comparison. Precursors are of much less concern, and if they do come up as an issue they can be synthesized themselves quite easily.
Most LSD routes us E.T. or another ergotamine derivative, of which one-shoting in a flask is considered impossible, and itself very hard to acquire - and dangerous to work with (in that respect, most of the chemicals chemists work with are, like PCC). LSD also requires an inert atmosphere (usually Nitrogen).
It's not a dump and stir reaction like changing and alcohol to a ketone or even something like a palladium/H2 reduction from a nitro to an amine. The amide itself has to be formed from a multistep synthesis, either by reaction of a ketone or aldehyde with (most aryl ketones) with an amine to get an imine intermediate, and rearrangement to the subsequent amide there from acylation.
I really dislike when people ask questions like this - people think of chemistry as just adding two things into a beaker and demanding "cook!” It's not that simple at all. You have to recognize what you are doing in the lab, which takes practice - experience.
You need to know all of you reactions. You need to know that your retro won't work if you're trying to get that carboxcylic acid on a benzene ring via a Fridel-Crafts acylation (as I learned on an exam a long time ago - thinking I was all smart and had the answer down :D - how far I've come) - sure you can use an alkylation and get a methyl on first and then oxidize that to the acid, but this brings the inherent problems of over-adding the methyl group (the reaction over running).
I'm just trying to give an idea to the non-chemist the challenges of doing chemical synthesis retro-ly, working backwards, and the challenges that arise from them. You need to keep in mind what's going to direct Meta, what's ortho/para directing. What should be added to the ring first?
A lot of people like to add a nitro group and then reduce that to an amine. This is more difficult with an amide. You need a ketone to begin with just to get to the enamine and then reduce to the amide.
There's so much to this question. I hope I brought some clarity.
It’s also very important to know how to test your product – melting points, IR data (although we don’t really fuck with that much anymore), HNMR, CNMR, and mass spec in general. You don’t need LC/MS at all if you are a skilled chemist. All the tools are there for one to work with and get results if he is skilled.
I’ll answer any questions you may have, feel free.
In short - yes. 8) Chemical synthesis is not easy. ;)
-
Great stuff.
Now for some more questions to hate:
Do you regret pursuing chemistry?
Was taking organic chemistry worth the suffering?
pl0x respond
-
Great stuff.
Now for some more questions to hate:
Do you regret pursuing chemistry?
Was taking organic chemistry worth the suffering?
pl0x respond
These are good questions and I will answer them briefly yet contently before my obligations, and can elaborate on them more after if you would like.
Do I regret pursuing chemistry?
100% no. Chemistry is my passion. I love sitting with my white board and drawing routes to products. Sometimes I see how many ways I can go from say methyl benzoate to benzyl alcohol or something like this (that was just an example off the top of my head).
As you go further and further in chemistry, past general and into the grips of organic, brilliant patterns begin to appear that you learn to appreciate, and suddenly the size of the molecule doesn't matter - Mirkovnikov's principle still applies to an alkene no matter the size. Nucleophillic attack of a carbon is in my opinion a major aspect of most of these reactions, Wolf-Kirschner, Friedel Crafts, etc. There are a number of these "classic" reactions that we were made to memorize in school, because they are a) fundamentally important for organic reactions or b) show a mechanism very well. The latter is true for a large array of reactions, for example by knowing the mechanism of a nitration, you not only know the subsequent sulfonation mechanism, but also learn why it is that a nitro (NO2) is meta directing and not ortho / para. From that nitro group you can make the subsequent amine via reduction.
I'm on a little bit of a tangent here, but what I'm getting at is that the reactions and trends that one sees in organic chemistry are like a deck of cars, so eloquent and beautiful - but if you don't have a firm foundation the whole thing turns into a big mess. Sure, some of it is brute memorization, but that's part of the fun ;)
So to answer your question, was taking organic worth the suffering, I think I have already answer it in a way.
For me, it's not suffering. I looked forward to being in the 4 hour class 3 times a week every time. Drugs are what got me into chemistry, and the deeper you go into it gives you a deeper understanding not only of drug chemistry / biochemistry, but also how these molecules and the whole organic world are made / interact. It's awesome to be able to look at the structure for say Ketamine and not just see a bunch of rings and lines like most people do, to know what that crazy IUPAC name means to the T, and know what steroposition it is in and where it's chiral center is. That's because I'm passionate about the subject though. I had a great time pondering how the third nitro group of TNT was added to the toluene with all the steric hindrance going on for example.
While I see some in the class were certainly not happy about o-chem and taking it only because they need to, and a lot of this was reflected in their grades on exams and such (I'm the same way with physics and engineering - not for me in the same way), there are a few odd balls like myself who enjoy the subject and go after all it has to offer.
I'd like to end with saying my experiences in the laboratory have been wonderful, and learning all the proper techniques for various reaction vessel set ups and orientations such as vacuum filtering, taking a MP value, recrystallizing, etc have shown that the theory learned on the board works in practice. Quite amazing.
With that being said, O-Chem is not for everyone, but if you do like it - if you do have an interest in it, please go ahead an pursue it. It's enjoyable, and we need more chemists with passion.
Feel free to ask anymore questions or comments on the piece I have written.
3,4
PS I know my name is 3,4TRI methoxy, and not DI ;)
-
Thank you for reading my thoughts by the way. I hope I can inspire somebody to pick up an orgo book!
-
I've been GREATLY interested in chemistry for a while. I've taken inorganic, but not organic because I ran out of money.
I really want to pursue it and it interests me greatly as does biology. Although biology is mostly just interesting for how chemistry can affect it.
What are your thoughts on Dr. Deep Woods guide for acid?
-
I've been GREATLY interested in chemistry for a while. I've taken inorganic, but not organic because I ran out of money.
I really want to pursue it and it interests me greatly as does biology. Although biology is mostly just interesting for how chemistry can affect it.
What are your thoughts on Dr. Deep Woods guide for acid?
Definitely take organic! It's lots of good fun!
I'm not familiar with the Woods guide, can you link it?
Then I can give my thoughts.
-
I've been GREATLY interested in chemistry for a while. I've taken inorganic, but not organic because I ran out of money.
I really want to pursue it and it interests me greatly as does biology. Although biology is mostly just interesting for how chemistry can affect it.
What are your thoughts on Dr. Deep Woods guide for acid?
Definitely take organic! It's lots of good fun!
I'm not familiar with the Woods guide, can you link it?
Then I can give my thoughts.
The guide must be purchased from vendor Ron Paul here on the road ;)
-
As a chemist i get this question quite often too. My usual answer to it is "from what?"
People obviously wonder how hard it is to 'make' something, often without having little clue about synthesis reactions or required precursors.
So the answer to it is also very variable. Synthesizing heroin from the elements is virtually impossible, but synthesizing it from morphine is almost trivial.
I suppose its just a broad misconception about how chemistry works though. Many people assume you can synthesize anything from scrap: have some soot, hydrogen gas, oxygen and nitrogen from the air and make heroin out of that. Obviously is it possible to do the process from the element, but the most efficient step in that ordeal by prove to simply cultivate poppies as those do most of the hard work for you.
Many recreational drugs actually require a biological step in their production. Something like crack is often considered to be lab-made, but doing so would not be feasible without using coca plants to do the initial work.
-
As a chemist i get this question quite often too. My usual answer to it is "from what?"
People obviously wonder how hard it is to 'make' something, often without having little clue about synthesis reactions or required precursors.
So the answer to it is also very variable. Synthesizing heroin from the elements is virtually impossible, but synthesizing it from morphine is almost trivial.
I suppose its just a broad misconception about how chemistry works though. Many people assume you can synthesize anything from scrap: have some soot, hydrogen gas, oxygen and nitrogen from the air and make heroin out of that. Obviously is it possible to do the process from the element, but the most efficient step in that ordeal by prove to simply cultivate poppies as those do most of the hard work for you.
Many recreational drugs actually require a biological step in their production. Something like crack is often considered to be lab-made, but doing so would not be feasible without using coca plants to do the initial work.
Good to have a fellow chemist chime in :)
I agree with many of the misconceptions that you notice as well.
-
Completely spot on man!
Chemistry should be left to the chemists. I can't help but cringe when I hear about people with no chemistry knowledge talking about doing a synthesis.
-
Thanks for the posts.
Completely spot on man!
Chemistry should be left to the chemists. I can't help but cringe when I hear about people with no chemistry knowledge talking about doing a synthesis.
People planning one or actually attempting one?
-
34Trimethoxy, you make the point very articulately! I have not yet reached those heady heights of designing molecules myself (I always seem to be retro analysisng someone else's :p) but then I'm not a chemist yet. Last year of study though.
You have it spot on about organic chemistry, the possibilities unfold before the minds-eye, giving an infinite (looking) plane of new compounds.
on the downside I loath physical chemistry and I am only on the coldest acquaintances with inorganic. I know they are both necessary but I don't think I will ever be persuaded to like them.
speaking of chemistry, those textbooks won't read themselves.......
-
Completely spot on man!
Chemistry should be left to the chemists. I can't help but cringe when I hear about people with no chemistry knowledge talking about doing a synthesis.
Thanks man.
People planning one or actually attempting one?
I would say both to be honest. I've seen people attempt to do a simple 'cook' as they call it and the thing is, while they might get some product out of a simple reduction like the one so commonly used in methamphetamine production, they don't know at all what they are getting into. They don't have the knowledge or experience to properly recrystallize, choose a solvent/solvent pair that will only dissolve your product, how to check for reaction completeness with even simple TLC, etc. While these people get buy with no formal chemical knowledge, I'd argue they are more so following a set of steps they've learned from someone else where as the chemist actually know what he is doing and why.
It's like these young children growing up and learning maths on a calculator - they don't necessarily, know why 2 + 2 = 4, they just know that if they enter that algorithm correctly that little machine spits out the answer they want - 4.
With that being said, I'm all for people attempting extractions on plants / bark / what have you. Nature put these things there for a reason! And I've seen some friends get very good DMT yields with little to no chem knowledge.
34Trimethoxy, you make the point very articulately! I have not yet reached those heady heights of designing molecules myself (I always seem to be retro analysisng someone else's :p) but then I'm not a chemist yet. Last year of study though.
You have it spot on about organic chemistry, the possibilities unfold before the minds-eye, giving an infinite (looking) plane of new compounds.
on the downside I loath physical chemistry and I am only on the coldest acquaintances with inorganic. I know they are both necessary but I don't think I will ever be persuaded to like them.
speaking of chemistry, those textbooks won't read themselves.......
Thank you! I'm glad you guys have read my post.
I agree 100% with what you have said about PChem and inorganic - I hate PChem too. I honestly don't know who does - like I said I also hate physics though.
However, more and more inorganic chem is growing on me. If you look at some of the work those guys do, it's really quite amazing. Plus also the chemist relies heavily on the inorgo chemist for many of our catalysts - such as DIBAlH. Love that one.
Also, Inorganic focuses most on organic molecules - the same rings and chains - just attached to say an Ru or Cu instead of a carbon.
Get back to hitting those books lol
3,4
-
Interesting, thx & subd.
-
My view on this subject is that anybody competent enough to synthesize LSD will know how to search and read the literature. They won't need to buy a guide on the internet. Owsley Stanley learned to make acid by walking into the Berkeley library and looking up Hofmann's published synthesis. He didn't buy a tutorial from other people who have also never synthesized LSD.
-
Also, most journals are behind pay walls, but all universities have subscriptions, and most universities have public wifi access points, like around their student centers. You don't have to be a student, but you can sit nonchalantly in the student center and get access to most research journals for free.
If you are incapable of understanding the literature and need a recipe-style guide instead, then you are not ready to make LSD, because you don't understand the underlying theory enough to fix problems in your synthesis.
-
I agree, seeing non-experts attempt to navigate or claim knowledge of a field you've spent years working hard to master can be very frustrating, but I'd really advise patience. The question may be ignorant, but its still a question - they're not sure, and are seeking the knowledge of someone who knows. Maybe after a few episodes of breaking bad, a garage tinkerer may think, "I'm handy, and pretty good at science-y things, maybe I'll try my hand at some organic chemistry, and of course LSD is the holy grail of DIY chemistry.
Look at the popularity of homebrewing going around (at least in the states), people like making their own 'stuff.'
So while it may frustrate us when someone comes in with their cold water extraction of LSA, a few beakers, burners, and a lot of enthusiasm, asking for a recipe to make acid, they've probably got some passion for the same chemistry we're ripping on them for being ignorant of.
I mean, in the case of acid, we're assuming its going to be out of a passion for the stuff...
by all means deride basement chemists trying to make a buck, but they won't be trying to make acid, they'll go for the easiest / most profitable synths. Meth didn't just become huge because it was more addictive or fun than anything before it, it could be made by any competent group of people who had the patience and at least one science-smart member.
-
I agree, seeing non-experts attempt to navigate or claim knowledge of a field you've spent years working hard to master can be very frustrating, but I'd really advise patience. The question may be ignorant, but its still a question - they're not sure, and are seeking the knowledge of someone who knows. Maybe after a few episodes of breaking bad, a garage tinkerer may think, "I'm handy, and pretty good at science-y things, maybe I'll try my hand at some organic chemistry, and of course LSD is the holy grail of DIY chemistry.
Look at the popularity of homebrewing going around (at least in the states), people like making their own 'stuff.'
So while it may frustrate us when someone comes in with their cold water extraction of LSA, a few beakers, burners, and a lot of enthusiasm, asking for a recipe to make acid, they've probably got some passion for the same chemistry we're ripping on them for being ignorant of.
I mean, in the case of acid, we're assuming its going to be out of a passion for the stuff...
by all means deride basement chemists trying to make a buck, but they won't be trying to make acid, they'll go for the easiest / most profitable synths. Meth didn't just become huge because it was more addictive or fun than anything before it, it could be made by any competent group of people who had the patience and at least one science-smart member.
:) hahah that last sentence.
It is completely true though. Meth exploded because of it's home-brew chemistry. You simply reduce the beta ketone off an off-the-shelf chemical at your local pharmacy. It's just so funny to see it to a point where people are "cooking" while driving in a two litre soda bottle. Chirst.
That leads me back to your former point, about non experts attempting to navigate or claim knowledge in a field in which I've put in the time to master and understand at a level which they completely overlook. They just want to have sex with the girl, if you know what I mean, not be in a relationship.
Which I'm all for, btw.
What I'm getting at is damn this GHB is good.
But I'm also getting at...
I'll revisit this.
3,4
You had very valid points
-
I will admit that I am contributing to the non-chemists attempting synthesis/extraction problem at home by attempting to extract DMT. Sorry!
I honestly wish I had taken chem in high school; I hadn't as when I had the teacher for intro to chem she spent more time e-flirting in five different IM clients than she did any semblance of teaching.
-
I heard from a few different sources, of a so called LSD recipe- think it came from some whacked version of the anarchist's CB ( as if the OG version was any better ). Now I'm no where near what 34methoxy in his grasp of chemistry, but Ive read Ive read the standard recipe before- most of which went way over my head-but it sounded like they took some of the major steps and tried to simplify the procedures and substitute the ingredients with common store bought items......
It went something like: letting rye bread get moldy, take that mold and add model airplane glue, put that concoction with some other crap- and place that portion of crap in a centrifuge- ice bath..... pull a layer off, filter it.........you get the just of it anyways.
anyhow , now i forgot the point I wanted to make damnit........but if you didnt understand some chemistry , you just might actually try some of that bathtub L.
-
I agree 100% with what you have said about PChem and inorganic - I hate PChem too. I honestly don't know who does - like I said I also hate physics though.
However, more and more inorganic chem is growing on me. If you look at some of the work those guys do, it's really quite amazing. Plus also the chemist relies heavily on the inorgo chemist for many of our catalysts - such as DIBAlH. Love that one.
Also, Inorganic focuses most on organic molecules - the same rings and chains - just attached to say an Ru or Cu instead of a carbon.
Get back to hitting those books lol
3,4
Nice to know its not just me then! However I tend to give organometallics and transition (and other) metals complexes a day pass, its really more inorganic reactions that I dislike, chromate to dichromate equilibrium being a prime example.
I am aware that's not an officially recognised distinction or anything :p
Don't forget BuLi, they all have their place but for me that is firmly within organic chemistry :
The siren song of the books beckons
-
I heard from a few different sources, of a so called LSD recipe- think it came from some whacked version of the anarchist's CB ( as if the OG version was any better ). Now I'm no where near what 34methoxy in his grasp of chemistry, but Ive read Ive read the standard recipe before- most of which went way over my head-but it sounded like they took some of the major steps and tried to simplify the procedures and substitute the ingredients with common store bought items......
It went something like: letting rye bread get moldy, take that mold and add model airplane glue, put that concoction with some other crap- and place that portion of crap in a centrifuge- ice bath..... pull a layer off, filter it.........you get the just of it anyways.
anyhow , now i forgot the point I wanted to make damnit........but if you didnt understand some chemistry , you just might actually try some of that bathtub L.
Lol I would never put anything in my body that was made with direction from the OG anarchists cookbook.
And it's likely that the ergot on the rye would kill you from just looking at it wrong!
You;d be better off just sniffing that airplane glue ;)