# Amphetamine synthesis report (but failing, searching for solutions)



## ACAB

Hello, 
here is my report about an amphetamine synthesis, which unfortunately did not go very well due to the yield at the end.
First of all about me, I recently came across this forum and had already had a little experience with amphetamine synthesis. 
But here I found someone I could ask all kinds of questions and who also gave me the courage to publish my report here. Mr. G.Patton was a great help to me, he always has an open ear and answers every question, no matter how stupid it may be.

I did not describe every step exactly, because for this the instructions in the forum are much better, I took a lot of photos and mostly just highlighted the differences to the instructions.

I'll briefly give my stakes for the synthesis and then we'll start directly. For the A/B extraction and the subsequent acetone wash I don't give any details here, either in the report below or take from the instructions here in the forum.

Stakes:
IPA: 2x 250ml
Acetic acid: 2x 125ml
Water: 2x 50ml
P2NP: 50g (5g+45g)
Alu: 60g
NaOH/Water: 250g/250ml
Mercury(II) nitrate: 0.5g

I have driven 3 syntheses, this one with the next photos was the last one.

The amalgamation was started with about 2 liters of water, aluminum and mercury salt.
It took over 40 minutes until the reaction was ready, quite violent reaction, I have never waited so long.
I took a picture almost every 5 minutes after I put the mercury salt in and kept shaking it in between. You can see very well the different phases including the peak of the reaction and the subsequent decay. From minute 25 the temperature slowly went up and reached the maximum temperature of 70°C from minute 35. 


Spoiler: Amalgam

























After drained the water i do not rinsed the aluminium.
I make 2 solutions by halving the input amounts of the liquids, one with 10% of P2NP and one with 90% of P2NP. The one with the 10% goes directly into the flask to start the reduction. The one with 90% I let run slowly through a funnel, I use an overhead stirrer, and watch the temperature. This time, however, the reduction had to be kicked off with a little mercury salt. I also did this again at the end, about 1 hour later.


Spoiler: Adding P2NP










I usually filter the reaction mass before adding caustic soda, because I use a separating funnel afterwards to separate the phases. (no photos)
I dry this phase over MgSO4 overnight and then salt out.
I always collect all liquids before I recycle or reprocess them. When I tipped the isopropanol together after vacuum filtering, I noticed that something settled at the bottom of the beaker. I measured the pH value of all 3 tipped together filtrates, which was approx. 6.5.
And I thought, I will add sulfuric acid and filter again, but first I put it in the freezer and see what happens.
What I got to see after about 3 hours was amazing (photo), I titrated the "waste" solution down to about pH6.0 with additional 7ml 1:5 H2SO4:IPA solution and filtered, the yield was the largest optical of the 4.
I will only use the scale always at the end, when the product is consumable, all other is waste what don't care.

So now I have 4 yields instead of 3. If I didn't care, from now on I would also throw everything together and determine a total yield. 

So far, it looks like the first synthesis was a lucky strike, because it was done without complete amalgamation. 
Also that my first synthesis is the cleanest shows that my way to filter the reaction mixture after the reduction is the right way. All the others look so dirty and disgusting, no one needs that.

For the second synthesis, I waited about 40 minutes for amalgamation, but then I made a mistake. When I changed the round bottom flask and the 90% P2NP solution slowly ran in, the reduction did not start. I hesitated too long or waited until I decided to add mercury salt again. I saw it too late that the funnel was already 2/3 empty, I should have acted before, so now I had a large reaction mass in the flask, which could become a problem for me, if I am not careful. I provided cooling and fetched something to catch for the hot soup that could shoot out of the top of the reflux cooler.
And so it happened, the reaction was not to tame despite cooling, it went through cooler and splashed out the top, by a beaker what I put over the top was the worst prevented, I had to make then only some cleaning. Have I once again lucky.
Here, too, I performed a filtration after the reduction before I made the alkalinization. I think the discoloration was caused by the strong reaction, also the smallest yield we saw here.

Third synthesis, 40 minutes amalgamation, addition of mercury salt to start the reduction, but this time only with the 10% in the round bottom flask, I left the funnel closed this time. After the start, with cooling and feeding with solution, I regulated the temperature to 60°C-70°C and towards the end I started the reduction again with mercury salt, which was also successful.
This time alkalinization was done before filtering, but filtering didn't help much, I had to fill this gray soup in my separating funnel for phase separation.

These were the three preliminary stories, each a little different from the other, but still decisive in the result. Now the pictures of the salting and the chance find of the fourth yield.

Still briefly to the pictures:
You will see an electric pH meter with glass body and probe, which I use for titration. Since some assume that you can't properly determine pH with such a device, when there is no water in the solution, I used an analog way for comparison. I do not do that normally, I trust the device because I tested it, the pH determination is perfect, in my opinion, there is nothing more convenient in the titration by using such a device.


Spoiler: Salting























Spoiler: fundling










The four first yields after first salting.


Spoiler: yields














I dried the four yields and then ground them with a grinder.


Spoiler: dry and grind










Now I dissolved the salt in water under a little heating, then filtered off the solids and brought the solution to below pH6 with a drop of hydrochloric acid.
Then the solution was washed/shaken out 3 times with 30ml,20ml and 10ml of petroleum ether respectively the solution was then separated using a separating funnel. The petroleum ether was discarded. After washing out the non-polar impurities, the solution was then brought to a pH greater than 13 with sodium hydroxide. And again, the solution was then washed/shaken out three times with 60ml, 40ml and 20ml of petroleum ether, respectively, and then separated with a separating funnel, by the addition of NaCl.
MgSO4 was then added to the separated petroleum ether and placed in the freezer for 3 hours, then the MgSO4 was filtered off and the petroleum ether was evaporated using temperature control on a hot plate at 40°C.


Spoiler: A/B extraktion






































The pure amphetamine oil is poured into a beaker which is filled with isopropanol. Then, as before, it is salted out by titration, filtered and dried. I always used a heat lamp for drying before I had a desiccator, which works very well and also goes relatively quickly.


Spoiler: last salting




















Finally an acetone wash is done, for this I use a grinder and sieves to get the sulfate as fine as possible to get the surface as large as possible for good cleaning.
Again, the lamp was taken, the lamp should be hung so high that the product does not get much warmer than 60°C.


Spoiler: acetone wash


















Yes and unfortunately my very poor result of 18.5g, that is only 33% of 70%. Not even half of what is usual.
This is just frustrating. I just don't know what I'm doing wrong here that I'm so bad.
After this result I did not make the other 3 separately any more but threw them together, resulting in a total of about 20g. All in all not very much, but very clean product.

I am open to any suggestions.


----------



## ASheSChem

thank you for sharing all your experiences with us!
I'm going to try the same soon so I'm following it very closely 

I'm not pro enough to give you advice; on the other hand, I notice that you don't do everything the same as the video, but it may be equivalent, I don't know


----------



## G.Patton

I'm very appreciated for your detailed report!


----------



## G.Patton

@Pennywise Do you have pic of your p2np? Are you sure in quality of P2NP?


----------



## ACAB

G.Patton said:


> @Pennywise Do you have pic of your p2np? Are you sure in quality of P2NP?



G.PattonMy P2NP has a beautiful yellow and when I recrystallize it in isopropanol I have a loss less than 0.1g, so I think it is very clean and pure.


----------



## MadHatter

Thank you for taking the time to share your work and experience! 
As for yield: sorry, I can't see what your crude yield was? Before A/B and wash? Did you loose a lot of yield in the purification process or was your yield low even in crude product?


----------



## ACAB

ASheSChem said:


> I'm not pro enough to give you advice; on the other hand, I notice that you don't do everything the same as the video, but it may be equivalent, I don't know



ASheSChemYes that's right, but you will find out that once you choose the amount of P2NP and aluminum higher than 5g, it's not so easy to keep the reduction under control with a little shaking and cool water. With 20g of P2NP and 30g of aluminum you will get a nasty surprise, if your round bottom flask has not the right size and you don't cool it with really cold ice water, it will puke everything out of the top, I promise you. For this reason, I slowly increase the amount of P2NP in the flask so that the reaction is much slower.
Whether this is the right technique now and whether it also works properly as I imagine is another matter.
But I have solved the problem of the uncontrollable reaction in this way.
That I first filter the reaction mass before the alkalinization, is because in the separating funnel the thick soup would clog everything. I find that is the more elegant solution, also that I have less dirt when salting out,
I find an advantage, you only have to rinse the filter properly.
The two cleaning steps at the end, have always been part of the sysnthesis for me. And I haven't really done much else differently.



DocX said:


> As for yield: sorry, I can't see what your crude yield was? Before A/B and wash? Did you loose a lot of yield in the purification process or was your yield low even in crude product?


As I tried to share, I never weighed the intermediate steps until I completed the cleaning step, the weight is not interesting because there is simply still dirt in it.
I'm happy to weigh it, but what's the point? I'm only interested in the clean and pure product at the end and that's how I measure success.


----------



## MadHatter

Pennywise said:


> As I tried to share, I never weighed the intermediate steps until I completed the cleaning step, the weight is not interesting because there is simply still dirt in it.
> I'm happy to weigh it, but what's the point? I'm only interested in the clean and pure product at the end and that's how I measure success.



PennywiseWell, it's important if you want to find out what in the reaction went wrong to minimize your yield. You do this by analyzing the product in every step, like when you try to find out what's wrong with an electrical circuit by measuring the voltage and current in different parts of it.
If your intermediate, crude yield is much higher than your final yield, you know you have a lot of impurities. These can be unreacted, dried precursor, or side products. Together with the color, smell and texture of the intermediate product one can determine what those impurities are, and what part of the reaction that causes them.
Also, it's good to know how much is washed out in different parts of the purification process, to better determine what those impurities are.
But if your crude and final yield are somewhat similar, that means you have washed out a lot of unreacted precursor prior to drying the crude product.
If you don't have any measurements, all you can do is guess and try again, blindly.

Also, to better control your reaction with the amalgam using larger amounts of P2NP and amalgam, you should try one or more of these steps:
1. Invest in a pressure- equalizing dripping funnel and do the addition more slowly.
2. Have a proper salt/ice bath under your reaction vessel, or alternatively a jacketed reaction flask in which you can adjust the flow of salty ice water.
3. Use thicker aluminum. The reaction will be less violent and easier to control. This can also increase your yield, if the problem is unreacted precursor.


----------



## ASheSChem

Just to know, have you tried smaller quantities like in the video?
like
10 g 1-phenyl-2-nitropropene;
100 ml isopropyl alcohol;
12 g aluminum (in the form of sliced household foil);
0.1g mercury nitrate;


----------



## ACAB

DocX said:


> Also, to better control your reaction with the amalgam using larger amounts of P2NP and amalgam, you should try one or more of these steps:
> 1. Invest in a pressure- equalizing dripping funnel and do the addition more slowly.
> 2. Have a proper salt/ice bath under your reaction vessel, or alternatively a jacketed reaction flask in which you can adjust the flow of salty ice water.
> 3. Use thicker aluminum. The reaction will be less violent and easier to control. This can also increase your yield, if the problem is unreacted precursor.



DocXThanks for your thoughts, I will also weigh the intermediate steps in the future to be able to answer your unanswered questions.

To your points:
1) I use this type of funnel to control the feed.
2) I always have a large bowl of ice salt water which is cooled to -21°C ready and if the temperature is too high, I also cooled. For large reaction masses even this cooling is no longer sufficient, a controlled feed is in my opinion the best idea so far.
3) I use industrial aluminum foil which is much thicker than normal kitchen aluminum foil, this one has 36μm. But the next roll will have 50μm.


ASheSChem said:


> Just to know, have you tried smaller quantities like in the video?
> like
> 10 g 1-phenyl-2-nitropropene;
> 100 ml isopropyl alcohol;
> 12 g aluminum (in the form of sliced household foil);
> 0.1g mercury nitrate;


Of course, I started with small amounts, I slowly felt my way in and slowly increased the amounts.
There have also been better yields, but for me it looks more like luck than that it can be due to my way of working or the techniques I use, but I can't believe that. There will be something I need to pay closer attention to that I don't have in mind yet.


----------



## Mclssmxxl

At 30g rno2 and paper thin cut foil is a surefire recipe for overflow hehe.When I go over 5g of substrate i ball up my alu by hand, making not too loose not too tight balls.Helps keep the reaction under control, may need some heat to drive it to the end, but not all the time.


----------



## MadHatter

Pennywise said:


> There have also been better yields, but for me it looks more like luck than that it can be due to my way of working or the techniques I use, but I can't believe that. There will be something I need to pay closer attention to that I don't have in mind yet.



PennywiseWell, luck always plays a part. Organic chemistry is cooking, after all, and just as the very experienced chef will always succeed in making a soufflé just by _feeling _when it's time to take it out and how to mix the ingredients, a less experienced cook will fail half the time, cursing and not knowing why , Alexander Schulgin said: "Organic chemistry is for people who like to cook". 
But thank you so much for trying and sharing your experience, it's extremely valuable. I long for the more experienced chemists to jump in and give feedback also.


----------



## ACAB

DocX said:


> Well, luck always plays a part. Organic chemistry is cooking, after all, and just as the very experienced chef will always succeed in making a soufflé just by _feeling _when it's time to take it out and how to mix the ingredients, a less experienced cook will fail half the time, cursing and not knowing why , Alexander Schulgin said: "Organic chemistry is for people who like to cook".



DocXI really like cooking, but to be successful, more intuition in the use of spices is the way to go. When cooking with chemistry, it will probably be more the technique and how to implement it, especially when trying to consistently achieve the quality of the product. What I mean by luck is rather the result of the reaction, that this is not predictable and it is always random, how much P2NP is now reduced to amphetamine, under always the same conditions. As if I can't influence the reaction and have to take it as it comes. And I don't believe in that, there must be a technique that guarantees me that I always consistently get a certain amount with a certain quality out.


----------



## ACAB

Mclssmxxl said:


> At 30g rno2 and paper thin cut foil is a surefire recipe for overflow hehe.When I go over 5g of substrate i ball up my alu by hand, making not too loose not too tight balls.Helps keep the reaction under control, may need some heat to drive it to the end, but not all the time.



MclssmxxlAs I said, I use slightly thicker industrial aluminum foil and shred it with a shredder, which is very fast and very uniform. I have never used other techniques here.


----------



## William Dampier

Pennywise said:


> As I said, I use slightly thicker industrial aluminum foil and shred it with a shredder, which is very fast and very uniform. I have never used other techniques here.



PennywiseIf it's crumpled foil, there may be a problem. Large pieces of chemical quality aluminum (granules) react when the oxide film is removed and aluminum becomes active, reacting with water (acid). In your case, industrial aluminum is not an accurate concept.


----------



## ACAB

William Dampier said:


> If it's crumpled foil, there may be a problem. Large pieces of chemical quality aluminum (granules) react when the oxide film is removed and aluminum becomes active, reacting with water (acid). In your case, industrial aluminum is not an accurate concept.



William DampierWait, I shouldn't use foil? I've always done it that way until now, what's wrong with that?


----------



## T0R

Pennywise said:


> Wait, I shouldn't use foil? I've always done it that way until now, what's wrong with that?



Pennywise
you have different thickness in allu foil standard is 15 micron thickness
but if you search you find also 5 micron .
this one works much better I think ;-)


----------



## ACAB

Saul said:


> this one works much better I think ;-)



Saulok, so it is because of my foil, then you can also explain this and also tell why despite the foil completely different yields are possible, because I have never used another than this and there were already very good syntheses with much and good yield. If I understand why thicker foil is the reason why my results are so different, it would help me a lot. As far as I have read and understood, thin foil reacts much faster and more violently in contrast to thick foil which reacts slower and is easier to control.


----------



## Mclssmxxl

Pennywise said:


> ok, so it is because of my foil, then you can also explain this and also tell why despite the foil completely different yields are possible, because I have never used another than this and there were already very good syntheses with much and good yield. If I understand why thicker foil is the reason why my results are so different, it would help me a lot. As far as I have read and understood, thin foil reacts much faster and more violently in contrast to thick foil which reacts slower and is easier to control.



PennywiseWell, I would think in general a reaction that runs to the end at a constant say 60 C, compared to a reaction that quickly goes to 80 C, then is cooled, heated again etc will have a better yield.Just my thinking, maybe somebody can correct me.Have you tried straining on a loose mesh and not filtering after rno2 addition? 2 times I filtered after this step on paper and both times my yields were low, but it might be coinidence.A bit of Al is fine before alkalization, it’s just gonna react with the soda and dissolve in the water layer.
Don’t stress it too much also, just keep doing small scale over and over and you’re gonna get consistent yields soon.


----------



## Loooow

Pennywise said:


> Hello,
> here is my report about an amphetamine synthesis, which unfortunately did not go very well due to the yield at the end.
> First of all about me, I recently came across this forum and had already had a little experience with amphetamine synthesis.
> But here I found someone I could ask all kinds of questions and who also gave me the courage to publish my report here. Mr. G.Patton was a great help to me, he always has an open ear and answers every question, no matter how stupid it may be.
> 
> I did not describe every step exactly, because for this the instructions in the forum are much better, I took a lot of photos and mostly just highlighted the differences to the instructions.
> 
> I'll briefly give my stakes for the synthesis and then we'll start directly. For the A/B extraction and the subsequent acetone wash I don't give any details here, either in the report below or take from the instructions here in the forum.
> 
> Stakes:
> IPA: 2x 250ml
> Acetic acid: 2x 125ml
> Water: 2x 50ml
> P2NP: 50g (5g+45g)
> Alu: 60g
> NaOH/Water: 250g/250ml
> Mercury(II) nitrate: 0.5g
> 
> I have driven 3 syntheses, this one with the next photos was the last one.
> 
> The amalgamation was started with about 2 liters of water, aluminum and mercury salt.
> It took over 40 minutes until the reaction was ready, quite violent reaction, I have never waited so long.
> I took a picture almost every 5 minutes after I put the mercury salt in and kept shaking it in between. You can see very well the different phases including the peak of the reaction and the subsequent decay. From minute 25 the temperature slowly went up and reached the maximum temperature of 70°C from minute 35.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Amalgam
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 4820View attachment 4821View attachment 4822View attachment 4823View attachment 4824View attachment 4825View attachment 4826View attachment 4827View attachment 4828
> 
> 
> After drained the water i do not rinsed the aluminium.
> I make 2 solutions by halving the input amounts of the liquids, one with 10% of P2NP and one with 90% of P2NP. The one with the 10% goes directly into the flask to start the reduction. The one with 90% I let run slowly through a funnel, I use an overhead stirrer, and watch the temperature. This time, however, the reduction had to be kicked off with a little mercury salt. I also did this again at the end, about 1 hour later.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Adding P2NP
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 4829View attachment 4830
> 
> 
> I usually filter the reaction mass before adding caustic soda, because I use a separating funnel afterwards to separate the phases. (no photos)
> I dry this phase over MgSO4 overnight and then salt out.
> I always collect all liquids before I recycle or reprocess them. When I tipped the isopropanol together after vacuum filtering, I noticed that something settled at the bottom of the beaker. I measured the pH value of all 3 tipped together filtrates, which was approx. 6.5.
> And I thought, I will add sulfuric acid and filter again, but first I put it in the freezer and see what happens.
> What I got to see after about 3 hours was amazing (photo), I titrated the "waste" solution down to about pH6.0 with additional 7ml 1:5 H2SO4:IPA solution and filtered, the yield was the largest optical of the 4.
> I will only use the scale always at the end, when the product is consumable, all other is waste what don't care.
> 
> So now I have 4 yields instead of 3. If I didn't care, from now on I would also throw everything together and determine a total yield.
> 
> So far, it looks like the first synthesis was a lucky strike, because it was done without complete amalgamation.
> Also that my first synthesis is the cleanest shows that my way to filter the reaction mixture after the reduction is the right way. All the others look so dirty and disgusting, no one needs that.
> 
> For the second synthesis, I waited about 40 minutes for amalgamation, but then I made a mistake. When I changed the round bottom flask and the 90% P2NP solution slowly ran in, the reduction did not start. I hesitated too long or waited until I decided to add mercury salt again. I saw it too late that the funnel was already 2/3 empty, I should have acted before, so now I had a large reaction mass in the flask, which could become a problem for me, if I am not careful. I provided cooling and fetched something to catch for the hot soup that could shoot out of the top of the reflux cooler.
> And so it happened, the reaction was not to tame despite cooling, it went through cooler and splashed out the top, by a beaker what I put over the top was the worst prevented, I had to make then only some cleaning. Have I once again lucky.
> Here, too, I performed a filtration after the reduction before I made the alkalinization. I think the discoloration was caused by the strong reaction, also the smallest yield we saw here.
> 
> Third synthesis, 40 minutes amalgamation, addition of mercury salt to start the reduction, but this time only with the 10% in the round bottom flask, I left the funnel closed this time. After the start, with cooling and feeding with solution, I regulated the temperature to 60°C-70°C and towards the end I started the reduction again with mercury salt, which was also successful.
> This time alkalinization was done before filtering, but filtering didn't help much, I had to fill this gray soup in my separating funnel for phase separation.
> 
> These were the three preliminary stories, each a little different from the other, but still decisive in the result. Now the pictures of the salting and the chance find of the fourth yield.
> 
> Still briefly to the pictures:
> You will see an electric pH meter with glass body and probe, which I use for titration. Since some assume that you can't properly determine pH with such a device, when there is no water in the solution, I used an analog way for comparison. I do not do that normally, I trust the device because I tested it, the pH determination is perfect, in my opinion, there is nothing more convenient in the titration by using such a device.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Salting
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 4831View attachment 4832View attachment 4833View attachment 4834View attachment 4835View attachment 4836View attachment 4837
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: fundling
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 4838View attachment 4842
> 
> 
> The four first yields after first salting.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: yields
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 4843View attachment 4844View attachment 4845View attachment 4846
> 
> 
> I dried the four yields and then ground them with a grinder.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: dry and grind
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 4847View attachment 4848
> 
> 
> Now I dissolved the salt in water under a little heating, then filtered off the solids and brought the solution to below pH6 with a drop of hydrochloric acid.
> Then the solution was washed/shaken out 3 times with 30ml,20ml and 10ml of petroleum ether respectively the solution was then separated using a separating funnel. The petroleum ether was discarded. After washing out the non-polar impurities, the solution was then brought to a pH greater than 13 with sodium hydroxide. And again, the solution was then washed/shaken out three times with 60ml, 40ml and 20ml of petroleum ether, respectively, and then separated with a separating funnel, by the addition of NaCl.
> MgSO4 was then added to the separated petroleum ether and placed in the freezer for 3 hours, then the MgSO4 was filtered off and the petroleum ether was evaporated using temperature control on a hot plate at 40°C.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: A/B extraktion
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 4849View attachment 4850View attachment 4851View attachment 4852View attachment 4853View attachment 4854View attachment 4855View attachment 4856View attachment 4857View attachment 4858View attachment 4859View attachment 4860View attachment 4861View attachment 4862View attachment 4863View attachment 4864
> 
> 
> The pure amphetamine oil is poured into a beaker which is filled with isopropanol. Then, as before, it is salted out by titration, filtered and dried. I always used a heat lamp for drying before I had a desiccator, which works very well and also goes relatively quickly.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: last salting
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 4865View attachment 4866View attachment 4867View attachment 4868View attachment 4869View attachment 4870View attachment 4871
> 
> 
> Finally an acetone wash is done, for this I use a grinder and sieves to get the sulfate as fine as possible to get the surface as large as possible for good cleaning.
> Again, the lamp was taken, the lamp should be hung so high that the product does not get much warmer than 60°C.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: acetone wash
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 4872View attachment 4873View attachment 4874View attachment 4875View attachment 4876View attachment 4877
> 
> 
> Yes and unfortunately my very poor result of 18.5g, that is only 33% of 70%. Not even half of what is usual.
> This is just frustrating. I just don't know what I'm doing wrong here that I'm so bad.
> After this result I did not make the other 3 separately any more but threw them together, resulting in a total of about 20g. All in all not very much, but very clean product.
> 
> I am open to any suggestions.



Pennywise


----------



## Loooow

I have heard from people who had exactly the same problems with the aluminum foil!!! And although the reaction should probably be stronger the thinner and smaller the foil is at the end, the most effektieveste way was to tear the aluminum foil into 2x2 to 3x3 cm. pieces and then put them into an electric coffee bean crusher and mix for 20-30 seconds until granules were present.
In addition, the synthesis instructions used at the beginning were probably not the most suitable either! It took a few tries before anything at all came out of the syntheses in the end! Which was probably very discouraging....  
Then tried the synthesis instructions from the video!!! 
With the only difference being that instead of mercuric nitrate 2, they dissolved mercury in nitric acid and used that solüng for synthesis instead of the dry mercuric nitrate!
The exothermic reaction is really quite violent if you are not prepared for it and have not experienced something like this in full action! Nonetheless, it is possible to perform it with a 50 g. P2NP synthesis with sufficient cooling (and good aeration and deaeration in my opinion) it can be handled well!
You could try to react your mixture of isopropanol, P2NP and acetic acid all at once. 
Since the FIRST attempt following the instructions in the video, the yield after washing twice with anhydrous acetone is still very close to the yield indicated in the video!!!!
I must mention that none of the people involved in the synthesis, including myself, have any prior knowledge of chemistry!


----------



## ACAB

Loooow said:


> Since the FIRST attempt following the instructions in the video, the yield after washing twice with anhydrous acetone is still very close to the yield indicated in the video!!!!



LoooowYou do not perform cleaning with an A/B extraction after sysnthesis? Then you scale all the impurities as well.


Loooow said:


> the most effektieveste way was to tear the aluminum foil into 2x2 to 3x3 cm. pieces and then put them into an electric coffee bean crusher and mix for 20-30 seconds until granules were present.


You talk about efficiency and shred aluminum foil into small squares with scissors? You're not serious, are you?
This is one of the most complicated and time-consuming methods I can think of for preparing aluminum foil.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's not effective in any case. 
If small solid balls of foil are so good, why not use aluminum granules? That would be the ideal, but again no one recommends it. If someone could tell me which physical property is most important for aluminum reduction with P2NP, it would help me a lot.

Since my first attempt to produce amphetamine, I also succeed, sometimes more sometimes less well, I'm interested in the background, the subtleties of what you have to pay special attention to. I have already tried so many things changed without knowing exactly what for and why, this must now be an end, if then there must be an explanation for the change, a difference that makes sense and brings me further to always get the same amount in the same quality.

I am still open to any suggestion, but please with a reason, gladly also say what is wrong and what can not work and why that does not work.
To try out everything practically has no sense for me because of the large number of possible variations.
I hope you have some understanding for this.


----------



## Loooow

Pennywise said:


> You do not perform cleaning with an A/B extraction after sysnthesis? Then you scale all the impurities as well.
> 
> You talk about efficiency and shred aluminum foil into small squares with scissors? You're not serious, are you?
> This is one of the most complicated and time-consuming methods I can think of for preparing aluminum foil.
> I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's not effective in any case.
> If small solid balls of foil are so good, why not use aluminum granules? That would be the ideal, but again no one recommends it. If someone could tell me which physical property is most important for aluminum reduction with P2NP, it would help me a lot.
> 
> Since my first attempt to produce amphetamine, I also succeed, sometimes more sometimes less well, I'm interested in the background, the subtleties of what you have to pay special attention to. I have already tried so many things changed without knowing exactly what for and why, this must now be an end, if then there must be an explanation for the change, a difference that makes sense and brings me further to always get the same amount in the same quality.
> 
> I am still open to any suggestion, but please with a reason, gladly also say what is wrong and what can not work and why that does not work.
> To try out everything practically has no sense for me because of the large number of possible variations.
> I hope you have some understanding for th



Pennywise


----------



## Loooow

Man washes the aluminum foil after amalgelieren 
3 X with water that should probably be enough to remove any mercury nitrates still present.... if you do it attentively!!!! 
Your Freebase is present after the boiling process dissolved in IPA ! Then mercury nitrate should be soluble in IPA to end up in the final product, if it is still present after washing the aluminum foil or? 

And to the aluminum foil .... you just tear it into larger and smaller pieces and then mix them briefly!!!! 
This is the best method so far ... apart from the fact that I would also cut with the nail scissors in 0.5 X 0.5 cm large pieces if I would not's otherwise remain if that would be my problem to the goal!!!! ) Purchased aluminum granules for the laboratory is probably the most ideal solution, except for the fact that it probably costs twice as much as household aluminum foil and that another order that could make you conspicuous is not desirable.
I am also sorry that I have not expressed myself clearly enough on certain details . . . that was never really my goal!
Since the first synthesis attempt according to video instructions ( with mercury in nitric acid anstadt mercury nitrate 2 dry) the yield is stable in quantity and quality . . . in my opinion!!! I consume for a long long time daily and with conviction amphetamine with this result I am 100% satisfied!!!I need 3 to 4 small traces and am clear ,active and Alkehol does not become a problem so quickly!!!!
That also all I have to say about it! I would like to exchange the whole day here but my available time is limited!
My tip if something doesn't go as expected with your synthesis ... do it exactly as in the synthesis that is shown in the video.that in any case better than trying to start in a matter of which you have exactly considered not much idea (I always assume my lack of understanding).
Sunny greeting´s........


----------



## ACAB

Loooow said:


> Your Freebase is present after the boiling process dissolved in IPA ! Then mercury nitrate should be soluble in IPA to end up in the final product, if it is still present after washing the aluminum foil or



LoooowFirst, the mercury salt was dissolved in water, once you make the finished reaction mass alkaline the mercury salt remains mainly in the aqueous phase.
Secondly, I ALWAYS perform an A/B extraction after the synthesis, where I separate the phases with petroleum ether, which would then ensure the complete separation of the salts.
The final acetone wash would also wash away the very last residues. I don't worry about mercury.


Loooow said:


> And to the aluminum foil .... you just tear it into larger and smaller pieces and then mix them briefly!!!!
> This is the best method so far ... apart from the fact that I would also cut with the nail scissors in 0.5 X 0.5 cm large pieces if I would not's otherwise remain if that would be my problem to the goal!!!! )


I just start the shredder, it couldn't be easier.


Loooow said:


> Purchased aluminum granules for the laboratory is probably the most ideal solution, except for the fact that it probably costs twice as much as household aluminum foil and that another order that could make you conspicuous is not desirable.


You would be surprised if you did some research, aluminum has almost always the same kilo price, no matter what form it is and there are other ways to order granules besides lab supply stores. 
I would use it if someone tells me why granules would be a better choice. Read that first time from granules, otherwise there is always talk about foil.


Loooow said:


> Since the first synthesis attempt according to video instructions ( with mercury in nitric acid anstadt mercury nitrate 2 dry) the yield is stable in quantity and quality . . . in my opinion!!!


So you think nitric acid is the secret ingredient for consistent yield and good product?
Must I disappoint you, I use it from the beginning and each synthesis is different, sometimes good sometimes bad and sometimes disastrous, so it must be something else.


Loooow said:


> I consume for a long long time daily and with conviction amphetamine with this result I am 100% satisfied!!!I need 3 to 4 small traces and am clear ,active and Alkehol does not become a problem so quickly!!!!
> That also all I have to say about it! I would like to exchange the whole day here but my available time is limited!
> My tip if something doesn't go as expected with your synthesis ... do it exactly as in the synthesis that is shown in the video.that in any case better than trying to start in a matter of which you have exactly considered not much idea (I always assume my lack of understanding).
> Sunny greeting´s........


My knowledge of amphetamine synthesis consists of what I have found to read and my several attempts, almost all of them producing something useful. Only the number of possible procedures or modifications seems to be endless, so I am looking for a solution that works well.
What bothers me about the video, the amalgam is made differently than in the instructions, the extraction of the freebase I do with separating funnel, there you should not necessarily pour the reaction mass, so I filter before and at last the end product is snow-white without any further cleaning. I find that is impossible, every reaction mass of mine was discolored and thus the freebase also. You can still clean before salting out, but would be again different procedure.
And no A/B-extraction is done and an no acetone wash is done, these two steps are always the end of any synthesis done without steam distillation of the freebase.

Thank you for taking the time to reply to me and I wish you all the best. If you want to add something you are welcome.


----------



## T0R

Pennywise said:


> ok, so it is because of my foil, then you can also explain this and also tell why despite the foil completely different yields are possible, because I have never used another than this and there were already very good syntheses with much and good yield. If I understand why thicker foil is the reason why my results are so different, it would help me a lot. As far as I have read and understood, thin foil reacts much faster and more violently in contrast to thick foil which reacts slower and is easier to control.



Pennywise
The reaction depends on off the quality from the Mercury nitrate. 
I suppose a lot of people are looking for this. And since it is a prohibited substance.
It seems very unlikely to me that the quality is equally good everywhere.
Therefore, it is very important for everyone to share everything here on the forum. 
so that you are more sure of its quality.
Almost no people share useful information here. 
and because off this it takes allot off time and resources to improve it. 
it has to come from both sides. Just taking doesn't work. 
personally, I think it is wrong to use the forum without creating an account.


----------



## Loooow

Pennywise said:


> First, the mercury salt was dissolved in water, once you make the finished reaction mass alkaline the mercury salt remains mainly in the aqueous phase.
> Secondly, I ALWAYS perform an A/B extraction after the synthesis, where I separate the phases with petroleum ether, which would then ensure the complete separation of the salts.
> The final acetone wash would also wash away the very last residues. I don't worry about mercury.
> 
> I just start the shredder, it couldn't be easier.
> 
> You would be surprised if you did some research, aluminum has almost always the same kilo price, no matter what form it is and there are other ways to order granules besides lab supply stores.
> I would use it if someone tells me why granules would be a better choice. Read that first time from granules, otherwise there is always talk about foil.
> 
> So you think nitric acid is the secret ingredient for consistent yield and good product?
> Must I disappoint you, I use it from the beginning and each synthesis is different, sometimes good sometimes bad and sometimes disastrous, so it must be something else.
> 
> My knowledge of amphetamine synthesis consists of what I have found to read and my several attempts, almost all of them producing something useful. Only the number of possible procedures or modifications seems to be endless, so I am looking for a solution that works well.
> What bothers me about the video, the amalgam is made differently than in the instructions, the extraction of the freebase I do with separating funnel, there you should not necessarily pour the reaction mass, so I filter before and at last the end product is snow-white without any further cleaning. I find that is impossible, every reaction mass of mine was discolored and thus the freebase also. You can still clean before salting out, but would be again different procedure.
> And no A/B-extraction is done and an no acetone wash is done, these two steps are always the end of any synthesis done without steam distillation of the freebase.
> 
> Thank you for taking the time to reply to me and I wish you all the best. If you want to add something you are welcome.



PennywiseThey say: If one makes the mixture alkaline at the end the salt remains in the aqueous solution! Which confirms my speech. Since one then also only the Freebase in IPA is dissolved from the lower gray puddle separates and with diluted sulfuric acid the salt precipitates!
Furthermore, it is urgent to remove the mercury nitrate at the end of your procedure somehow, because you neither wash the aluminum foil after the amalgamation with water ..... and next during the reaction of the P2NP to amphetamine after a certain time NO MORE mercury nitrate to the reaction mass to add because the reaction after 60 min. apparently decreases! I have no prior knowledge of chemistry and what I write here is based solely on my own opinion after what I have read in their reports!The nitric acid is in my opinion nothing to do with a secret ingredient but contribute to the fact that in conjunction with the added mercury nitrate 2 is formed if I'm not all wrong.I only mentioned this because it is just times so.... I do not think that it makes any difference to the final result if you use it correctly... sunny greetings!!!


----------



## MidasMad

Pennywise said:


> ok, so it is because of my foil, then you can also explain this and also tell why despite the foil completely different yields are possible, because I have never used another than this and there were already very good syntheses with much and good yield. If I understand why thicker foil is the reason why my results are so different, it would help me a lot. As far as I have read and understood, thin foil reacts much faster and more violently in contrast to thick foil which reacts slower and is easier to control.



Pennywise


----------



## MidasMad

well, my experience is using aluminum amalgam reduction of PMK with nitromethane to get MDMA. I tried several types of aluminum foil, but the only one that gave a positive result was the extra heavy Reynolds brand, especially those oven bags (these are hard to find these days). despite being more expensive, the quality makes up for it and if there are other flaws you can exclude the possibility of being aluminum, using this brand


----------



## Marvin "Popcorn" Sutton

I think it's not right to guess the reason for low yields without fixing intermediate measurements. This methodology of amphetamine synthesis requires a certain amount of experience. It is easier to deal with the cause of the problem by estimating the unwashed yield. 

I noticed that at all stages both base and powders look pretty clean. The author pays special attention to the purification and extraction procedure. But it is important to keep in mind that each purification procedure may carry a loss of yield and may be unnecessary. Therefore, I recommend weighing the product before each subsequent washing step. From experience I can say that multiple cleaning of the product could significantly reduce the yield, but I don't know if that was the reason in this case. 

What is the activity of the resulting amphetamine?


----------



## ACAB

Marvin Popcorn Sutton said:


> What is the activity of the resulting amphetamine?



Marvin Popcorn SuttonThank you for your words, how do I measure the activity of a product?

And I always determine the weight now, before my purification processes. I will also try to determine the amount of pure amphetamine after evaporating the ether.

I have also already tested the product between the different stages of purification, and have to say that without the full purification using A/B Extraction followed by Acetone Wash, the product just tastes disgusting. Also at the thought of what I get out there for an oily and sticky red gloop, I get sick when I think that I have taken the dirt to me.
Of course, if you dampen the good stuff with solvent and mix in proper caffeine and lactose, you don't get anything out of it, but that's not the point. I need absolutely clean product!


----------



## MadHatter

Pennywise said:


> Thank you for your words, how do I measure the activity of a product?



PennywiseWell, one of the most popular ways is to do a line of it, isn't it? Then report back, using about half the words you'd like to use .


----------



## ACAB

DocX said:


> Well, one of the most popular ways is to do a line of it, isn't it?



DocXIf it is really so easy to measure the activity of the product by counting my objective opinion, then I can only say that it is very potent. Small amounts are enough to make the body run at full speed. You don't need to sleep, you don't need to eat, and you're just so happy with yourself and the world.
I have unfortunately not yet found a way how I can subjectively prove the purity to be able to make a percentage to draw comparisons.


----------



## ACAB

MidasMad said:


> I tried several types of aluminum foil, but the only one that gave a positive result was the extra heavy Reynolds brand,



MidasMadThe only thing what I will say to such a discussion is:
Aluminium is Aluminium and stay Aluminium, no matter which name you write on it.
I'm happy to engage in discussions about surface area or bulk density, but not which manufacturer puts their name on it.


----------



## MadHatter

Pennywise said:


> If it is really so easy to measure the activity of the product by counting my objective opinion, then I can only say that it is very potent. Small amounts are enough to make the body run at full speed. You don't need to sleep, you don't need to eat, and you're just so happy with yourself and the world.
> I have unfortunately not yet found a way how I can subjectively prove the purity to be able to make a percentage to draw comparisons.



PennywiseNah, most probably the only real way is spectroscopy. There's online sources for this, where you just send in your sample and get the spectroscopy profile back, even for illegal drugs. For a fee, naturally. But in the spectroscopy profile you can easily see if you have any peaks that doesn't match a reference profile. 
I'll see if I can find the online resource.


----------



## MadHatter

Sorry, it was on this site, naturally . 


http://bbzzzsvqcrqtki6umym6itiixfhni37ybtt7mkbjyxn2pgllzxf2qgyd.onion/threads/analytical-laboratories.533/



You can always easily do a melting point determination, but that won't reveal if there are trace amounts of impurities, just if you're way off. 

If you manage to get a spectroscopy profile but don't have a reference sample, there's always online profiles of many substances on PubChem or Spectrabase. Here's amphetamine sulphate: 








Amphetamine sulfate


Amphetamine sulfate | C18H28N2O4S | CID 6055 - structure, chemical names, physical and chemical properties, classification, patents, literature, biological activities, safety/hazards/toxicity information, supplier lists, and more.




pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov





The curves are like a fingerprint of the material. The sample is vapourized and light is shone through the vapours. A camera on the other side measures which frequences of the light that are absorbed by the vapours, and the combination of these are unique to every substance. The answer is given as a curve with peaks. You then compare those peaks to the peaks of a sample you know is pure. If the peaks are entirely different, you've got something else. If there are extra peaks in your sample, those are impurities.


----------



## ACAB

DocX said:


> Nah, most probably the only real way is spectroscopy. There's online sources for this, where you just send in your sample and get the spectroscopy profile back, even for illegal drugs. For a fee, naturally. But in the spectroscopy profile you can easily see if you have any peaks that doesn't match a reference profile.



DocXI am aware of this possibility, I would prefer a method that I could do myself after each synthesis.
For example, I can do a TLC analysis where I can tell by the size of the stain how much amphetamine is present and/or if there are any other psychoactive substances present, as an example caffeine is also very clearly indicated but lactose is not. 
The disadvantage of this method is that I have no reference sample where I could say that my sample contains either more, less or the same amount of amphetamine. The supplier of such TLC test sets unfortunately does not (yet) provide a way to infer an exact amount as he does for MDMA, cocaine or THC, for example.
I can only say that my samples look almost all the same, but what purity the samples have unfortunately not. I do the TLC analysis for each of my syntheses, the samples are archived, as well as the TLC cards to possibly perform a more accurate determination later.


----------



## MidasMad

Pennywise said:


> The only thing what I will say to such a discussion is:
> Aluminium is Aluminium and stay Aluminium, no matter which name you write on it.
> I'm happy to engage in discussions about surface area or bulk density, but not which manufacturer puts their name on it.



PennywiseI agree with you, aluminum is aluminum and always will be, but aluminum foil is not. maybe where you live they are all of good quality, but where I live not, I did the test and there really is a difference between thickness and other products incorporated in aluminum foil that can influence the final result.


----------



## ACAB

MidasMad said:


> other products incorporated in aluminum foil that can influence the final result



MidasMadI know my foil is 99.9% aluminum, according to the manufacturer. The foil is thicker than any kitchen foil, which causes a slower reaction, it was cut into small shreds with a paper shredder. 
Now where would be a mistake here to use this foil?


----------



## MidasMad

Pennywise said:


> I know my foil is 99.9% aluminum, according to the manufacturer. The foil is thicker than any kitchen foil, which causes a slower reaction, it was cut into small shreds with a paper shredder.
> Now where would be a mistake here to use this foil?



Pennywisein your case, you are already absolutely sure about the quality of the aluminum foil, so aluminum is not a variable to consider. maybe for other people who have had a similar problem and have not yet considered such a possibility this could be a variable to be analyzed


----------



## ACAB

MidasMad said:


> and have not yet considered such a possibility this could be a variable to be analyzed



MidasMadThis could be important for someone, correct, that is also the reason why I have chosen the industrial aluminum foil, there is a specification of what the foil consists of. Unfortunately, I have not yet heard a concrete statement about the aluminum granules. It may be worth a try.


----------



## G.Patton

Pennywise said:


> This could be important for someone, correct, that is also the reason why I have chosen the industrial aluminum foil, there is a specification of what the foil consists of. Unfortunately, I have not yet heard a concrete statement about the aluminum granules. It may be worth a try.



PennywiseThey have smaller surface square than foil and, hence, less heterogenic square of reduce reaction. I think foil is the best choice.


----------



## ACAB

G.Patton said:


> They have smaller surface square than foil and, hence, less heterogenic square of reduce reaction. I think foil is the best choice.



G.PattonBut I will give it a try, I have ordered aluminum granules.


----------



## William Dampier

Pennywise said:


> But I will give it a try, I have ordered aluminum granules.



PennywiseThe size of granules?


----------



## ACAB

William Dampier said:


> The size of granules?



William DampierIt was too big, 2-4mm, amalgam is working fine but the reaction didn`t start, the granules were unchange and it bubbels, that`s all.
But I found also 0,3-0,5mm, would this work better, or not?


----------



## William Dampier

If it bubbles, then it reacts. Leave a few granules in the H2O-Hg solution for a long time, see when the aluminum will completely dissolve.


----------



## T0R

I did some research and these cans are 100% aluminium .
if you sand the paint off with sandpaper and then clean it with methanol. then you have pure aluminum without annoying layers.
onion link


----------



## ACAB

William Dampier said:


> If it bubbles, then it reacts. Leave a few granules in the H2O-Hg solution for a long time, see when the aluminum will completely dissolve.



William DampierSo should I stop the time until the aluminum granules are completely dissolved? I will make a test.


Saul said:


> I did some research and these cans are 100% aluminium .


If you had researched properly you would know that there is no such thing as 100% aluminum, they are all alloys. At most, there is pure aluminum of 99.5 - 99.9 as is the case with aluminum foil, for example, due to the maximum thermal conductivity.

For cans in the food industry, alloys with magnesium and manganese are used.

However, this does not exclude the use of these. I just find that is a significant amount of extra work to use such cans.


----------



## T0R

Pennywise said:


> So should I stop the time until the aluminum granules are completely dissolved? I will make a test.
> 
> If you had researched properly you would know that there is no such thing as 100% aluminum, they are all alloys. At most, there is pure aluminum of 99.5 - 99.9 as is the case with aluminum foil, for example, due to the maximum thermal conductivity.
> 
> For cans in the food industry, alloys with magnesium and manganese are used.
> 
> However, this does not exclude the use of these. I just find that is a significant amount of extra work to use such cans.



Pennywisefa is not food sector my friend the ph is to high


----------



## T0R

edit time was ove

those Fa cans are more than 99% alu because the content contains salts . that info you see only if you choose dutch language at wikipedia


----------

