420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
A subject is required when posting a new thread
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
Human Extinction, Great filters by James Mother Fucking Randi !lwriJ94kMg - Wed, 26 Aug 2015 03:10:33 EST ID:q1Ed4MrN No.77016 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1440573033727.jpg -(71777B / 70.09KB, 800x680) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 71777
I got into a debate with my room mate today about human extinction/ great filters. He believes that we have passed the tipping point with climate change.

He is of the camp that humans are already doomed unless we perfect interstellar travel, bio dome technology or colonization techniques for our near by planets. That at our current and near future tech (100 years from now) that we wont make it because our world wont support us that long.

I argue what he thinks is a naive view point. That being that humans are insanely smart, adaptable and tough. We had to be to make it this far. That unless the planet is more or less completely destroyed that humans will survive. There will always be some fall out shelter or some dark crevice humans will crawl out of and eventually rebuild.
I maintain that we wouldn't even need interstellar flight. Our solar system is laden with resources waiting for us to take. If we can make it that far then we're almost guaranteed to survive.
A Wizard - Wed, 26 Aug 2015 13:53:36 EST ID:eg2eHljf No.77022 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Pfft, humanity has survived several great world-shattering cataclysms, and people barely even accept the last one as real, let alone the others. I say, don't bother trying to convince them, fuck em really, let the sheeple die and their way of thinking die with them.

I just wish people would fucking learn a thing or two after each server reset, but nope... same old shit for the most part, but they do seem to get stupider overtime.

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALEEELOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLYA by Albert Blythefield - Fri, 21 Aug 2015 01:11:48 EST ID:CT0cbrIE No.76947 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1440133908548.jpg -(21599B / 21.09KB, 500x300) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 21599
Jesus got my ass off dat crack pipe! U can't explain dat, SCIENCE!!!
2 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
James Mother Fucking Randi !lwriJ94kMg - Sat, 22 Aug 2015 15:00:17 EST ID:q1Ed4MrN No.76972 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Bombastus !!HToBa9dh - Sun, 23 Aug 2015 16:41:30 EST ID:vbS8CtHn No.76991 Ignore Report Quick Reply
this is a slow board
Bombastus !!HToBa9dh - Sun, 23 Aug 2015 16:42:36 EST ID:vbS8CtHn No.76992 Ignore Report Quick Reply
James Mother Fucking Randi !lwriJ94kMg - Sun, 23 Aug 2015 16:58:18 EST ID:q1Ed4MrN No.76993 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Maybe you're like that because you HAVEN'T tried jenk?
Hedda Lighthall - Tue, 25 Aug 2015 00:59:32 EST ID:uGD5aNS6 No.77002 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1440478772648.jpg -(50542B / 49.36KB, 400x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Nigga, you trippin

Jesus is my dealer

Let's talk about renewable energy and sustainability by Simon Fanwell - Wed, 01 Oct 2014 18:45:11 EST ID:CC0/W06s No.75476 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1412203511692.jpg -(600836B / 586.75KB, 1280x1707) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 600836
Sustainability in a real sense, not a marketing buzzword sense.

Keep in mind I have no background in science other than my own casual research and books on the environment and such (never even posted on this board before), so bear with me.

How much hope is there for renewable energy? Will it be capable of satisfying future energy demands? Do future energy demands need to be reduced for us to survive as a species? What about the fact that even things like solar panels are made from ultimately finite materials? We know petroleum is going to become scarce, what do we do about that when so much, even industrial agriculture (as harmful as that is) depends on it?

The process of production itself is destroying our planet and killing humans and nonhumans. Deforestation, pollution, acid rain, dioxin in human breast milk...what can be done about this? Like I asked before: Do we need to consume less to survive?

How is global climate change going to impact things?

What does the future look like?
7 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Cornelius Bobberpeg - Thu, 30 Jul 2015 00:56:09 EST ID:YqqhzU5U No.76863 Ignore Report Quick Reply
the universe won't "run out" of energy. the existing energy just slowly approaches a uniform distribution.
this happens VERY slowly, as in, several orders of magnitude beyond your imagination. it's also pretty much unrelated to the matter at hand.

on topic: everything that doesn't depend on a fuel that we have to dig out of the ground (oil, coal, natural gas, uranium, thorium, ...) is de facto renewable and sustainable.
that includes
>solar power plants
>wind turbines
>hydroelectric plants

we could cultivate tons of soybeans or rapeseed and process them into bioethanol or whatever kind of biofuel we want. we could build gorillions of wind turbines. we could cover hectars of barren land in solar panels or mirrors for solar power towers.

the thing is, oil and gas are just so abundant and cheap to dig up that fossil fuels are a LOT cheaper than renewable fuels.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
John Pushstone - Thu, 30 Jul 2015 02:22:56 EST ID:138/pGcm No.76864 Ignore Report Quick Reply
This is a very interesting question, and I like to think of it from a few perspectives.
Nuclear energy - if you consider it a sustainable energy source - holds a lot of promise right now. Thorium based reactor designs have plenty of improvements which are usually held against the nuclear energy industry (proliferation worries, meltdown events, waste generation, et al) over purely Pl or U based reactor designs.
At the same time, modern day reactor designs for U based reactors have greatly improved safety as well, and there is a lot of successful work being done to deal with nuclear waste safely.
However, it is obviously not entirely a renewable resource. Unfortunately, solar panels have to be comprised of Si which is industrially refined. The Rubidium tris-bipyridine isn't just passively gleaned from the air, neither. That example ad nauseum for all forms of energy. Biofuels require processing, and leave emissions.

I think though, that making an effort to combat the effects of industrialization on the environment and ecology through incorporating more sustainable energy methods, as well as increased self-awareness in regards to consumption and waste amongst people - that eventually we could reverse devastating climate change.

I'm betting on it too. Not a stock broker, but opened up a trading account and grabbed up what I could on a science grad student's salary. All are green tech, and my portfolio has remained equal at worst to my initial investment, and usually sits at about 15% above initially invested. There's a lot of small companies out there making decent innovations that you aren't even noticing - these guys are merging and getting swallowed up into larger corps with more weight to throw around. It will get better.
Hugh Drimblewere - Sun, 16 Aug 2015 14:21:04 EST ID:lqfCRKYj No.76926 Ignore Report Quick Reply

There's always going to be plenty of shit to burn for fuel. Always.
Henry Cimmerbet - Thu, 20 Aug 2015 21:28:30 EST ID:ILxqROob No.76942 Ignore Report Quick Reply
That's not the point, you can not support tens of billions of people comfortably by "burning shit"
Archie Dunkinbury - Thu, 20 Aug 2015 22:07:54 EST ID:lqfCRKYj No.76943 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Yep, you definitely can. In fact, we could even just burn actual feces to supplement everything else. Fuck, even if the sun were blotted out, we could burn enough coal alone to power lights for our crops for probably a century, or at least the usa and russia could.

Oh, also good to note. The more co2 in the atmosphere, the more plants have access to. Hence faster growth, and more things to burn. So any issues with burning things, are really just issues of lack of infrastructure for producing shit to burn.

So that leaves us with three major things to do to keep burning going.

#1 Stop wasting all of the burnable shit in landfills and down the toilet & into the bays.
#2 Farm burnables in ways that aren't how we grow food crops, or as a secondary crop as part of rotation and such. Example, planting fast growing trees for firewood, interspersed with berry crops that need shade, or perhaps vining crops. Example of a more efficient one, fucking algae grown in giant tuuuuubes of water. Though plant matter is better eaten by food and turned into shit for burning.
#3 Replant the fucking forests. They will clean the air, and drop dead fucking wood we can burn, without having to cut the trees, not to mention tasty wildlife and fruit, should we replant fruit trees.

some chem thoughs by Ernest Fuckinghood - Mon, 17 Aug 2015 16:16:55 EST ID:otaEm3qe No.76928 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1439842615426.jpg -(34513B / 33.70KB, 488x650) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 34513
I just want to say thanks to all fags who post here, great discution and *not so much* shitpost

also, what's your background? obviously no names or personal data

>20 years old
>studying chemist as professional career
>most of my knowledge (70%) has been adquired on personal instruction + experience not related to uni + disscutions + little jobs on small labs
>wondering if uni is useful at all

also I think Bombastus is the man, mah nigga
Sidney Minnerdale - Mon, 17 Aug 2015 20:34:34 EST ID:DIZp74tV No.76929 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I'm a professional chemist with a M.Sc. focused in bioorganic chemistry. Now days I work in industry doing analytical method development for GC, LC, MS. University is indeed essential to being a chemist, especially now that there is a significant oversupply in the job market.

Realistically you would have a tough time landing even a very basic lab tech job without a B.Sc. Your prior knowledge will help you a lot in college and university but you definitely need to get the degree for anyone to take you seriously. It's also important to set yourself apart from the other cookie cutter chemists, do some research with a faculty member, keep a flawless GPA, publish a paper, do an internship. That sort of stuff will help you get a good position when the time comes to interview.
Basil Gackleket - Tue, 18 Aug 2015 13:38:32 EST ID:ee2izQdB No.76930 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Are you from easter Europe or Asia where they don't teach you english in school?
Clara Derrytadge - Wed, 19 Aug 2015 23:00:41 EST ID:A9FsJSdZ No.76935 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I'm a professional chemist with a BS in biochemistry. Accidentally stumbled into the construction coatings industry and now I'm their primary curing compounds research and production chemist/developer.

I found university essential to my success; the theory, the basic theory (and lets be honest, the basics is all you learn), helped me to interprate observations I make in the lab. Without the fundamental knowledge you learn in college, I would never have been able to do what I do now.

And, well, to be honest, I never thought I could know as much as I know now. On the job learning is fucking ludicrous if you manage to put yourself in a position where you do your own personal research on the materials. I learn something new every day. And I guess that's the way I like it.
Bombastus !!HToBa9dh - Fri, 21 Aug 2015 16:06:16 EST ID:4ppVjZXo No.76957 Ignore Report Quick Reply
lol. university is great if you make it great. remember that all the part time opportunites are being paid for by your education tuition. so make the most out of university by attending them.
i'm balancing a few jobs. 2 of them chemistry related one of them not. still doing a few post-grad classes while i get a bit more financially independent to continue with a full thesis afterwards. honestly, any job will teach you more about useful chemistry than the classes/shitty labs ever will.
but it's what you put into it that determines what you get out of it

I love you ernestest fuckinghood

Whooooo Aaaaam Iiiiiiii!??? by Doris Bivingstock - Sun, 26 Jul 2015 10:57:35 EST ID:Zi8GiUIa No.76847 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1437922655912.jpg -(48593B / 47.45KB, 435x571) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 48593
Let me put it to you like this:

There's a student who wants to do science for a living and work in a lab. He loooves to make things that are super pure and super refined. He likes measuring things, but he's not too good at math. He dreams of pulling something out of the ground and throwing it in a glass beaker and starting from there and making super pure this or super pure that. And doing that for a living and getting paid for this sort of all-around fieldwork/labwork kind of job.

What kind of job am I most closely describing, because that's what I want to do and I want to purify stuff, mostly for edible or medical purposes. I have a BS in plant biology with research lab experience.
1 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Betsy Monningtidge - Mon, 27 Jul 2015 16:21:06 EST ID:FdXENsN6 No.76852 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Yeah, no shit it's failed me, my schools sucked growing up.
I mean it makes sense that chemistry is the closest option, I guess, but I'm really wondering if I've described a profession that is either phased out of popularity, or hasn't really been expressly defined before. Because, note, the outdoor collection of materials is equally important as the in-lab purification of substances from said outdoor-gathered items. It feels like I'm describing a job that really requires 2 people, one for outdoor collection, and one for lab purification, but I would like to do both because I enjoy the variety so much. I doubt any company or establishment otherwise would find such a proposition efficacious though.
I also think that any such company would already be producing enough of the chemicals I would be producing at a high enough purity and quantity, that I would be muscled out immediately. Maybe I could cater to the "buy local, organic, etc." folks.
Nell Firrynock - Fri, 07 Aug 2015 10:40:29 EST ID:suDCfAlN No.76883 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Maybe I just have a criminal type of mentality but what you were describing perfectly described being a chemist that makes DMT. Well up until you said "for edible or medical purposes."
If you have scarface like aspirations, I believe that's what you're describing. If not, Basil is right.
NB because you probably don't want to be a DMT chemist and end up like Walter White.
Lillian Fublingbere - Fri, 07 Aug 2015 15:26:45 EST ID:FdXENsN6 No.76889 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Yeah, I thought of that when I realized the large companies already have synthesis and manufacture of edible/medicinal chemicals cornered, on the industrial scale no less. So the only way of competing is by producing something that they can't. I may find myself making concentrates and other derivative products in Colorado, or somewhere else that's legalized it, considering I'm a plant biologist.
Nell Firrynock - Fri, 07 Aug 2015 15:39:36 EST ID:suDCfAlN No.76890 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Good idea. You can make hash with top tier chemist equipment or make thc soda or all kinds of other cool things.
Samuel Fuckingfuck - Fri, 14 Aug 2015 06:51:09 EST ID:lqfCRKYj No.76915 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Wait... we can ask those types of questions here?

GHB baking soda synthesis by Albert Babblewill - Fri, 07 Aug 2015 12:16:21 EST ID:XZNJKx79 No.76885 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1438964181620.jpg -(7734B / 7.55KB, 268x172) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 7734
I want to attempt a synthesis of GHB from GBL and sodium bicarbonate. I've researched most information, but can someone tell me how to assess what % of GHB would be in the resulting solution?
2 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Martha Dummerson - Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:10:24 EST ID:XFNn4tRj No.76894 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Don't confuse galvanized and stainless. Zinc plated (galvanized) steel is not used for cookware.

Stainless steel is an alloy containing chromium, which oxidizes when exposed to the surface of the material.
Bombastus !!HToBa9dh - Tue, 11 Aug 2015 16:58:07 EST ID:vbS8CtHn No.76895 Ignore Report Quick Reply
why don't you just pick up some mason jars for a buck a jar?
Polly Heblingman - Thu, 13 Aug 2015 16:02:49 EST ID:OsYa8mFp No.76905 Ignore Report Quick Reply
There's nothing fancy about pH assessment, just use litmus paper if it's not extremely sensitive to pH.

Also any glass will do if you don't require very high temperatures.
George Sassledock - Fri, 14 Aug 2015 00:32:55 EST ID:fnShIRQ8 No.76911 Ignore Report Quick Reply
This. Also hydroponic stores have liquid drops that are pretty good at gauging PH.
press - Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:22:46 EST ID:SI8UHxC0 No.76927 Ignore Report Quick Reply
never tried anything but sodium hydroxide, but if you do not have access to that, you would be well advised to turn your bicarbonate into carbonate since its a stronger base (and it wont dilute your final solution as much, but thats marginal anyways)

theres videos covering that on youtube, you basically heat the bicarbonate to let it combust to carbonate, carbon dioxide and water. the latter two will be drien out as gasses.

dont use any steelpot, take some pride in your work, mason jars should be fine.
and i wouldnt advise you to use a wooden rod but its unlikely to affect your product at all.

pH check is used to monitor the reaction as the lactone is acidic. so as soon as you hit alkaline you can be sure the hydrolysis is complete, but also be sure that youre left with a clear solution. not an emulsion of ghb in water.
look for any pH indicator you could use.
if the reaction mixture still is acidic and ou see bubbles of oil inside it, let the reaction proceed, if that doesnt help over time add a bit more carbonate solution.
be sure to let patience govern your work otherwise you might have to dilute the mix later on or add more GBL which will use even more of your time.

in order to calculate the percentage of your solution youll have to calculate the mass of GHB (or sodium 4-hydroxybutryoat) youd get from your mass of GBL and divide by all the sum of the mass of all reagents (carbonate, water, GBL, spit). im pretty positve you should know what a mole is, if not learn a bit of chemistry, it cant hurt.

be advised the the resulting liquid will be viscous as oil and smelly. i like the smell of the sodium salt, havent produced the potassium salt yet, since sodium might be the healthiest salt. UNLESS YOU TEND TO GET CRAMPS R HAVE MAGNESIUM DEFFECIENCY THEN GO FOR MG(OH)2 which isnt as hygroskopic anyways
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

Phosphoryl chloride by Doris Sunnersirk - Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:47:35 EST ID:ykDmWZpt No.76855 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1438105655416.png -(12761B / 12.46KB, 453x169) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 12761
Hello, /chem/!

I was wondering, since it's not easy for me to come by, what's the easiest procedure to prepare phosphoryl chloride (or thionyl chloride, although I think it's harder to prepare it than the POCl3).
I think that the phosphorus pentoxide (P2O5) with NaCl route might be the way to go, since I can get P2O5 with relative ease and table salt is table salt. Does anyone have any experience/insight on this procedure? What are the particularities of this reaction? Maybe someone have prepared POCl3 through another route?
What about SOCl2, anyone know a simple procedure to prepare it? Maybe employing chlorine gas (CL2) and sulphur dioxide (SO2) generators to mix those two gases in a third flask (the reactor/reaction vessel)? Would this work at atmospheric pressure?

What I'm willing to do is to convert a carboxylic acid in it's correspondent dialkyl amide. If anyone has a better idea of a catalyst for that reaction than POCl3 or SOCl2 I would love to hear it! Maybe convert the acid to an acyl azide?

Well, guess my real questions are:
>I want to convert a carboxylic acid in it's correspondent amide, what catalyst would you recomend for this reaction?
>If your recomendation is POCl3 or SOCl2, what procedure would you suggest for the preparation of those?

Any ideas are appreciated.
Thanks very much!
2 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Charles Turveyford - Wed, 29 Jul 2015 16:27:05 EST ID:ykDmWZpt No.76859 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I was thinking about other catalysts for the amination of acids leading to amides:





What do y'all think of this!?
Lydia Wobbersick - Wed, 29 Jul 2015 22:04:17 EST ID:ykDmWZpt No.76860 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1438221857843.png -(76261B / 74.47KB, 640x355) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I'm starting to think that producing POCl3 from P2O4 and NaCl is harder than producing lsd itself:

So my question now is: Can propylphosphonic anhydride (pic related) be used in place of POCl3 to prepare LSD from d-lysergic acid and diethylamine? >Specifically on the following procedure, can one substitute the POCl3 with propylphosphonic anhydride:

Another thing, what about using carbonyl imidazole as a catalyst?

And lastly an article relating to already mentioned Tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) borate:

And another interesting possible catalyst, N,N'-Dicyclohexylcarbodiimide:
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Lydia Wobbersick - Wed, 29 Jul 2015 22:39:24 EST ID:ykDmWZpt No.76861 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1438223964843.png -(70659B / 69.00KB, 640x370) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Now I'm in doubt between this one I just found:
Using this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diphenylphosphoryl_azide (Diphenylphosphoryl azide, DPPA)
This one:
Using pic related (Carbonyldiimidazole, CDI): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonyldiimidazole
Or one of the many contained in this very informative article:
Using either:
2-(1H-benzo-triazol-1-yl)-1,1,3,3-tetramethyluronium Hexafluorophosphate (HBTU; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HBTU) or N-Hydroxysuccinimide (HOSu; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-Hydroxysuccinimide), or Benzotriazolyl N-oxytrisdimethylaminophosphonium hexafluorophosphate (BOP; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOP_reagent) or Diclohexylcarbodiimide (DCC; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N,N%27-Dicyclohexylcarbodiimide)

>Ok, now my real question is: which one of the following catalysts is the best for the amidation of d-lysergic acid with diethylamine; HBTU, HOSu, BOP, DCC, CDI or DPPA?

P.S.: You may forget about the last questions.
Lydia Wobbersick - Wed, 29 Jul 2015 22:56:18 EST ID:ykDmWZpt No.76862 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1438224978843.png -(101940B / 99.55KB, 524x480) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Well, looking at the article I posted (https://drugs-forum.com/chemistry/chemistry/lsd.coupling.agents.html) I'd be in doubt between using HBTU/HATU or BOP, because of their yields, but because of the price (of the catalysts), I'd choose the BOP-reagent (pic related).
>Do y'all /chem/ folks think it is a good idea to use BOP to produce LSD?
Bombastus !!HToBa9dh - Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:16:48 EST ID:vbS8CtHn No.76896 Ignore Report Quick Reply
For your original question, that's very odd. POCl and SOCl are very basic reagents. It'd be more of an engineering question to know how to synthesise them since I've never personally done it or seen it done.

Organo-phosphates to produce LSD. That's interesting but also over-complex as fuck. If you're going to do something like that, you should either simplify it by the classic Shulgin route or go the full mile and draw influence from the Sonogashira cross coupling. That would be an interesting method to synthesise LSD from the organophosphate you proposed.

Chemistry for retards by Doris Bablingstone - Thu, 06 Aug 2015 20:52:30 EST ID:NkniuLXa No.76880 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1438908750770.png -(517553B / 505.42KB, 500x679) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 517553
What are some good introduction's to chemistry, I don't even know the periodic table of elements so what I need is babby chemistry.

I do have General Chemistry by Linus Pauling but its pretty over my head.
Nell Firrynock - Fri, 07 Aug 2015 08:55:42 EST ID:suDCfAlN No.76881 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Here's a free MIT introductory chemistry course.
You have all the lecture notes available, the only thing unavailable is the actual reading, which you can substitute by just reading more on what they cover in the notes on wikipedia or something.
You can pick and choose which topics you want to learn about as well.
You can also look into other free courses.

420 Science by George Brevingketch - Wed, 24 Jun 2015 11:33:35 EST ID:YKD73kVj No.76721 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1435160015743.png -(2764B / 2.70KB, 189x148) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 2764
Hey Guise. Started researching the possibility of analyze the redness of the eyes to determine the levels of "high".
Ended up making this android app: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.dowrow.high_o_meter_free
9 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Bombastus !!HToBa9dh - Wed, 15 Jul 2015 17:13:25 EST ID:vbS8CtHn No.76811 Ignore Report Quick Reply
No one I know will even touch their eye to anything to gauge how high they are.
No offence, OP, but you're incredibly out of touch with your costumer base. Holy bejebuz, mate.

Alice Clayridge - Wed, 15 Jul 2015 18:51:41 EST ID:cM6rhCgJ No.76812 Ignore Report Quick Reply

I think you're out of touch with what the market wants.

It's just a minor incision, you press the needle or blade into the eye and collect a blood sample. SIMPLE! Even a lazy stoner couldn't fuck it up. And then they know how high they are.

I was thinking of making a stoner scale. Like snoop dog heads. Half a snoop dog means you're buzzin. Five snoop dogs means the rooms spinning.

You'll have to make them disposable though so they aren't sharing needles with their friends tho.
Bombastus !!HToBa9dh - Wed, 15 Jul 2015 19:53:03 EST ID:vbS8CtHn No.76814 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Propose it on /weed/, then. See what they say. Maybe O'm wrong.

I don't know about you, but nothing touches my eye except my forearms and some water. And I know I'm not the only one who feels like this.
Basil Pindermat - Fri, 31 Jul 2015 07:30:50 EST ID:cBr2UiWk No.76866 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Wouldnt this be impossible to use this as a scale? For myself, I cant recognize the redness always having much to do with how high I am. It depends on so many things, and also sometimes when you dont have red eyes, you look in the mirror and you do!

Things like are you already tired but trying to keep awake? That puts strain on the eye. Theres too much light where you are at to your high eyes. Sometimes I get red eyes just going outside with barely any wind. Id say the giveaway factor to it is the fogginess of the eyes.

Maybe find out what exactly gives you red eyes, in depth. Because most of the time you dont get red eyes.
3am !/sly9iFJgg - Tue, 04 Aug 2015 09:38:55 EST ID:9h2+e35x No.76873 Ignore Report Quick Reply
They've already discovered how to gauge metabolites of THC which enter the bloodstream immediately after use. IDR offhand, but there's a specific one which is not psychoactive and is a telltale sign of recent use (versus traditional tests which use residues that last for weeks or months, in rare cases).

You can't really rely on symptoms of use as a metric, because cannabis is SO varied in its effect/cannabinoid composition. One of the reasons I don't like many dab batches is because the extraction methodology often excludes non-volatile components which alter the chemical nature of the cannabinoids, so sub-professional-grade dabs are no "clean slate" for comparison either.

Phenylacetic acid by George Siffingworth - Fri, 05 Jun 2015 14:54:14 EST ID:ykDmWZpt No.76624 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1433530454585.jpg -(26248B / 25.63KB, 640x286) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 26248
Hello, /chem/!
I was wondering about this route to phenylacetic acid, and couldn't find it on the internet. Would the following synth work?

>Benzene is reacted with chloroacetic acid in the presence of aluminium chloride catalyst to yield phenylacetic acid. Would the aromatic ring attack the chlorinated position of the acid or the carboxylic one?

Thanks guys!!

Actually, I'm NOT willing to make P2P. I'm willing to make MDP2P, and as such, I woudn't be performing the above reaction with benzene, but with methylenedioxybenzene. So I was also wondering whether or not the AlCl3 would be a problem for the methylenedioxy ring. Would it be demethylenated by this catalyst? If so, I could perform the alkylation with chloroacetic acid before performing the methylenation of pyrocatechol with H2CI2 or H2CSO4. Problem is, in this case I imagine that the phenolic -OH groups would attack the chloroacetic acid instead of the aromatic ring doing the nucleophilic attack.

Any input on the above?
Thanks again!
15 posts and 4 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Bombastus !!HToBa9dh - Sat, 20 Jun 2015 14:24:48 EST ID:4ppVjZXo No.76703 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Actually, I'm reflecting on this again.

I'm at non-chem related job right now so I don't have access to chemdrawzzz. But my current understanding of aluminium halide catalysed de-o-methylation forms that weird negative aluminium anion complex with the MeO (much like in F-C alkylation). Then a bound halide should attack the methyl group spawning the leaving MeX (MeCl) and generating that as a gas (like all o-demethylations do). Then you can hydrolyse the system to generate the phenol.
It also doesn't seem to be a catalysis as AlCl3 is reacted away.

Reflecting on it further, I don't see why it wouldn't happen, albeit very slowly. I think it wouldn't be worth it since it should exist in equilibrium with the product <-> reagent when it even is demethylated because the chloro-alkane formed would immediately react with the hydroxide to reform the methine-dioxy-benzene.

I'm confident enough in that answer and will revisit when I have more time during the day.
Nathaniel Shakewill - Sat, 11 Jul 2015 01:03:40 EST ID:h6BiFOLD No.76794 Ignore Report Quick Reply
What Bombastus said here. The Dioxy-methine bridge is generally pretty stable due to conjugation. See if you can find a table of pKa for the leaving groups and compare if you aren't confident.
Nathaniel Shakewill - Sat, 11 Jul 2015 01:04:19 EST ID:h6BiFOLD No.76795 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Also I appreciate where you are going with this reaction haha. I approve.
Bombastus !!HToBa9dh - Sat, 11 Jul 2015 15:09:14 EST ID:hNcgQxKK No.76797 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Yupp. Looking at it again, my instincts agree with the methine/methylene bridge being stable. Even if it were to break, the OH- and Cl- should immediately react away to reform alumina and chloride ions (HCl should not be created due to it being too unstable to simply be formed in this reaction).
If you could make HCl this way, let me know. It'd be interesting to follow up on. But my guess is no.
Doris Sunnersirk - Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:10:32 EST ID:ykDmWZpt No.76854 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>"Anydrous AlCl3 is a relatively strong Lewis acid. It bonds with the lone pairs of electrons on the oxygens in the ethers. When this complex is hydrolyzed, the ether is cleaved. When you do this to safrole, you can definately expect a mess, since the methylenedioxy ring gets cleaved, and things can get even more out of hand from there. In the case of eugenol, this cleavage is exactly what we're looking for."

Nakura #lolwatmox by Nakura !xMsGPnYjBI - Mon, 20 Jul 2015 16:22:19 EST ID:l2jFwqQE No.76828 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1437423739622.jpg -(48257B / 47.13KB, 452x252) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 48257
Interactive Climate Change Thing.
Sophie Worthingwill - Tue, 21 Jul 2015 00:52:01 EST ID:YhREOUdy No.76829 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>climate deniers

So sick of the bull crap. A person would have to be completely delusional to think the climate is going to stand perfectly still. As if we live in a perfectly static artificial world, created just for us with unwaveringly perfect conditions? The term "climate denier" is so full of bias it could explode.

>well this NEW data from ~NASA~ (oooh) proves once and for all that the climate is changing

Yes, fine, the data shows the climate is changing as we swing from one ice age to the next. Alright already. Yeesh.

>and even though we can't ever prove it beyond a hilariously vague correlation, we just KNOW that it's caused by man so we need to buy carbon offsets and tax the living shit out of everyone who uses hydrocarbons and we need to elect these so-called social democrats who will bravely enact more laws and do something about-

Yeah no. Heard this little song and dance before, sweetheart. For the ten billionth time: It's not gonna work.
trypto - Tue, 21 Jul 2015 09:09:57 EST ID:pDka/jle No.76830 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I'm all-in on global warming. I think it's happening and we're responsible. I think governments should take action to cut back greenhouse gas emissions, invest in nuclear and renewables, and research geoengineering to control the climate.

But you're right about the coverage. 'climate deniers' is ridiculous, too many one-off studies are presented as proof (when they're not even newsworthy), and the financial instruments proposed are total scams.
Alice Goodfoot - Tue, 21 Jul 2015 15:43:51 EST ID:JdiGsSqV No.76831 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>People shitting on the west for our emissions.

Not realizing that even if the US and western Europe just went to another dimension, the rest of the world that is considered developing is just shitting on the planet and not giving a rat's ass.

Seriously even if the US went to something completely clean and Europe and Canada followed suit, the whole of everybody else would still be causing climate change.
Caroline Gashhine - Sun, 26 Jul 2015 22:41:43 EST ID:uGD5aNS6 No.76851 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Yes, fine, the data shows the climate is changing as we swing from one ice age to the next.
You are ignoring rates man. These things typical occur at much slower rates than they are now, which implies something must be causing upsetting the balance and tilting the equilibrium in some way.

Even you have to admit that a reasonable logical deduction is that we are the cause. If CO2 is considered a major factor, and CO2 normally cycles yet is experiencing a dramatically increased rate of buildup, wouldn't it not be that far fetched that some sort of force is behind the acceleration? And since we do produce metric shit-tons of CO2, is it really that far-fetched that we are not the cause?

P-glycoprotein Efflux Transporters by WIAKR+Pa - Fri, 24 Jul 2015 02:05:30 EST ID:lfUESqVd No.76839 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1437717930442.png -(216361B / 211.29KB, 2700x966) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 216361
Does anyone know why loperamide is so easily expelled after it has crossed the BBB when compared to, say, morphine or fentanyl? I vaguely remember reading somewhere that it was because of the chlorine atom, but that could be totally wrong.

I know that the diacetylation of morphine into heroin facilitates its crossing the BBB by making the molecule more nonpolar, but that doesn't explain why it isn't expelled by the P-glycoprotein.

I have a few links, and I've read the majority of them. The third one says removing electronegative atoms should decrease the efflux, so it seems that removing the chlorine would help.


Pic related. I don't want to be 'that guy' who wants to acetylate everything because that's what works for heroin, but if it works then it works. What other changes to the molecule might make this drug more recreational?
WIAKR+Pa - Fri, 24 Jul 2015 03:57:47 EST ID:lfUESqVd No.76840 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1437724667091.png -(71438B / 69.76KB, 912x989) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Whoops, I fucked up the third molecule. My bad, it's pretty late at night. Here it is fixed. Nb
WIAKR+Pa - Fri, 24 Jul 2015 04:00:05 EST ID:lfUESqVd No.76841 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1437724805386.png -(74769B / 73.02KB, 898x975) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
One last picture since apparently the OH can be acetylated as with morphine. Nb
Caroline Gashhine - Sun, 26 Jul 2015 22:32:18 EST ID:uGD5aNS6 No.76850 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I'm not entirely sure, but do consider that heroin itself is just a prodrug for morphine. By that I mean heroin itself does not cause the affects but deacetylation of said molecule can then generate the affects.
I think 6-monoacetylmorphine has some effects, with 3-MAM not really producing much, and straight morphine having the most affect.

My point being that perhaps heroin can rapidly cross the BBB, both into and out of the brain, but a higher concentration of deacetylating enzymes inside the BBB that sort of "trap" the resulting morphine in the brain. My research advisor jokingly refers to the BBB as the Brain-Blood Barrier because we tend to forget it stops things from leaving the brain, too.

Purely conjecture/speculation, but perhaps Lope is not able to be chemically modified such that it can be trapped within the brain. Adding functional groups wouldn't necessarily remedy this, since the base molecule is already quite permeable?

<<Last Pages Next>>
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.