|
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
|
LSDreamer
Materialist
Registered: 03/11/08
Posts: 10,059
Last seen: 1 month, 14 days
|
|
Quote:
AnotherDimension said: Garage? Clearly a lie. The mass acid store was buried in the desert, 60 miles west of Pecos, and marked with a sacred symbol known only to the Navajo.
The definitive answer. Thread over.
--------------------
|
RilloRiley
Stranger
Registered: 06/18/08
Posts: 50
Loc: Northern Virginia
Last seen: 13 years, 9 months
|
Re: Is this even possible [Re: Frost]
#8602755 - 07/07/08 12:04 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
i think it sounds a bit farfetched, my buddy tried buying acid from some guy who "won 3 sheets in a poker game" and it turned out the guy is a pathological liar and never says anything that isnt complete bullshit. this seems highgly unlikely but possible if done right; just make sure you dont get ripped off
|
Entropymancer
Registered: 07/16/05
Posts: 10,207
|
Re: Is this even possible [Re: RilloRiley]
#8602774 - 07/07/08 12:13 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
RilloRiley said: it sounds a bit farfetched
That's putting it mildly...
|
RilloRiley
Stranger
Registered: 06/18/08
Posts: 50
Loc: Northern Virginia
Last seen: 13 years, 9 months
|
|
all i know is that a foaf told my friend that he wone 3 sheets of cid in a card game, that turned out to be bullshit. if someone has gallons of cid in some basment or whatever that is even more rediculous. people just dont tell people that. people steal shit, if youre smart enough to make/procure that much lsd youre not gonna go around telling people you have it in your house. or at least i hope not.
|
Entropymancer
Registered: 07/16/05
Posts: 10,207
|
Re: Is this even possible [Re: RilloRiley]
#8602817 - 07/07/08 12:31 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Yes. That was the implication of my post.
There's no way in hell this gallons of acid in the garage story is for real.
|
weallsmoke
Rap god frombeyond the moon
Registered: 06/03/07
Posts: 1,023
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
|
you should have known by now anyway if i had all that id share/sell asap
|
Jack yo Self foo
The Artful Dodger
Registered: 06/28/08
Posts: 3,096
Loc: Where the red fern grows....
|
Re: Is this even possible [Re: j0nnyb0y05]
#8610310 - 07/08/08 09:55 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
i'm pretty sure it's legit...that is friggin incredible if there are jugs of that sheet just settin there...
i still have a few doses left from the ole days (like '95)...handed out a few couple months back and they were same as the day they were laid...
enjoy yourself...
-------------------- You learn something new everyday, so be sure you learn something from it.
|
songcycle67
Gypsy Wizard
Registered: 05/14/08
Posts: 210
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
Re: Is this even possible [Re: Plasmid]
#8610890 - 07/09/08 12:27 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Plasmid said:
Quote:
songcycle67 said: So if your friend does have a jug full of "60's acid" it's most-likely from an unknown source and of an unknown purity/dose making it just as good as anything else you'd find on the street today, if not worse due to the inavailability of proper lab supplies to underground LSD chemists operating in the 60's and early 70's.
Yeah, because chromatography columns, hot plate stirrers, flasks and common pieces of laboratory equipment have only become available in the last five years. . .
Give me a break man. Don't babble on about all of this mystical "oh it's so hard to make LSD and get the equipment to make it, you need like three PhDs in organic chemistry, $3000000 in lab equipment, and a magic stirring wand and even then it's just not going to be good acid because nobody knows the secret Sandoz recipe which was patented and is freely available online."
There are three starting materials that would take a good deal of resourcefulness to acquire: diethylamine, hydrazine and lysergic acid. That's *if* you want to do it according to the Sandoz patent. The actual process itself requires nothing more complicated than mixing, heating, stirring and using a simple chromatography column with a UV light. This is hardly high tech.
Quote:
People who have access to quantities of quality acid like this (and there are a few) are extremely well-connected people
Balls. I'm certain that a very resourceful third year chemistry student with good working knowledge of organic chemistry could produce some astonishingly high quality LSD if he had access to the whole $1000 dollars worth of equipment and the three key (ie. difficult to obtain) starting materials. For the uninitiated, chemistry might seem like magic, but synthesizing organic chemicals by known methods is like baking a cake for a chemist (especially a three step synthesis like LSD). Hell, I worked with hydrazine and diethylamine as an undergraduate. It wouldn't have been that hard to put 30 mL of each in separate sample vials and take some home.
Quote:
90% of the LSD being produced back then was black gunk.
Evidence to back this up? You do know that indole compounds are known to dimerize at the 2 position right? (indigo, for example, which is a dark purple, is a dimerized indole). I don't think it's unlikely to think that even 2% of an indole-dimer impurity could make even 98% pure LSD look like black gunk. It's pretty amazing what a little impurity can make a sample look like. Looks can be deceiving.
Quote:
Lab technology has improved tenfold since the 60's and techniques have evolved that yield a much cleaner product.
I have little doubt that the Sandoz patent results in very high quality LSD.
Quote:
God damn.
Exactly what your post made me think.
I never said it wasn't easy. As a matter of fact I've said several times that it's as easy as following any other recipe.
As for my point about lab equipment, if you knew anything about chromatography and how it's developed in the last 40 years you'd realize how ridiculous your rant about beakers and funnels and shit is. Albert Hofmann had to practically invent an apparatus for chromatography due to the fact that they were working with some of the first compounds that required such intensive procedures. No the beakers weren't innovative, no the flasks weren't new, but column chromatography was still in its infantile stages even in the 1960's when Owsley's best batches were being pumped out. He and his friends had to work very hard to reach their 99.9% purity level, but they did it. I'd say other people were spending less time doing the proper procedures and more time spending the mass amount of money they were getting off of their shitty acid.
My argument on this point has more to do with evaluating the never-ending fight between "the incredible life-altering pure white light 60's acid" and modern LSD-25. It's the same shit, if not better due to new synthesis procedures using faster methods such as those utilizing peptide coupling reagents and advanced equipment to monitor purity and simplify the already simple process that wouldn't have existed even in the 1970's.
With this argument I was trying to basically say just what you were trying to convince me of: That LSD is just as good today as it ever was and that it is a fairly simple synthesis made on virtually homemade equipment, the only obstacle being the attainment of the precursors. Owsley was a methamphetamines producer and used most of his equipment from that endeavor to produce his first runs of LSD.
Sandoz acheived less than perfect results from their synthesis--reaching only around 70%+ purity, at least by 1952. How do I know this?
An unopened, brown-glass vial of 1951 Sandoz LSD-25 (Delysid) was contributed to a gathering in celebration of Albert Hofmann's 100th birthday. The vial had been in the possession of a single person for the last 30+ years, stored casually, mostly in darkness. When opened, the powder was a very light brown-sugar to salmon color. One chemist described the fluffy, clumpy, sparkly crystalline powder as looking like "crushed needles". It was weighed and dissolved into four-ounce liquid doses containing between 100 and 110 micrograms each (± 10%).
Source: http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_article2.shtml
This properly stored, sealed vial of Sandoz was of a "brownish color." White, fluffy crystals are reached at about the 80% purity mark. It couldn't be cleaned thoroughly enough due to the lack of a proper chromatography setup, at least in or before 1951.
As to the black gunk, here's that reference:
I have already invested a year - on and off - and all the money I could save on this project, and I was at the point of admitting defeat. At this time, I was naturally reading everything I could lay my hands upon about ergot alkaloids. I stumbled upon a few articles that at first seemed quite unrelated to LSD, but they were logical and worth a try; because by comparison the process was exceedingly simple, compared to Hoffmann's monumental preparation.
I obtained new starting material and worked it up to the point I was sure was correct, where I had d-lysergic acid monohydrate, quite useless by itself but the prerequisite for making LSD-25 by any system. The rest of my ordered materials arrived and I was ready to proceed. After so many repeated failures, I couldn't accept the possibility that this few-day procedure would work.
I went ahead nevertheless, though pessimistically, so that my seemingly apparent failure would not bother me too much. I worked with extreme care, protecting anything from heat and light. At the last step, when I was recrystallizing the few grams I had obtained, I was filtering the crystals off by vacuum and using ether. When all the ether evaporated , the substance started to absorb moisture from the atmosphere and was turning black before my eyes. All my work was gone: I stood there shocked unable to move for a moment. My hands instinctively grabbed an alcohol bottle and I pored it over the black decomposed material hoping to salvage something. I separated it with water and disheartedly took the black mess home. All night I tossed and turned and dreamt horrible, unrelated dreams.
At the first crack of dawn, I jumped out of bed, grabbed the flask from the refrigerator, poured a teaspoonful and drank it down. I went back to bed and turned on Wagner's Parsifal. Minutes passed by and nothing seemed to happen. I had psychologically prepared myself for failure, so I just closed my eyes and lay back an listened to the wonderful sounds of Wagner. In my concentration, I failed to notice that the music was getting slowly louder and instead of just my ears hearing, all my senses seemed to encompass the sound., and instead of hearing the music - I was the music!
Beautiful, soft colors emerged and exploded as climates of tone were achieved. An immediate understanding of the composer's intentions was revealed to me; I was being taken on a heavenly excursion into the world of pure sound and emotion. All at once, I sprang up with joy. I was in the state of LSD - my own LSD which I had made. I was deliriously happy and proud of my success.
LSD is a translucent crystal; this was a black mess. Thus, the first underground LSD was also the first impure batch, and its distribution may, somewhere, have incurred the first unfavorable consumer reaction.
Link: http://www.bruceeisner.com/writings/2004/09/lsd_purity_from.html
I don't understand where the disagreement is here, aside from your assertion that LSD cannot transmute into a black gunk. You basically just re-asserted all my original arguments.
Quote:
Quote: People who have access to quantities of quality acid like this (and there are a few) are extremely well-connected people
Balls. I'm certain that a very resourceful third year chemistry student with good working knowledge of organic chemistry could produce some astonishingly high quality LSD if he had access to the whole $1000 dollars worth of equipment and the three key (ie. difficult to obtain) starting materials. For the uninitiated, chemistry might seem like magic, but synthesizing organic chemicals by known methods is like baking a cake for a chemist (especially a three step synthesis like LSD). Hell, I worked with hydrazine and diethylamine as an undergraduate. It wouldn't have been that hard to put 30 mL of each in separate sample vials and take some home.
Also here you just completely derail from what I was saying. I was talking about acid not precursors.
It seems to me as if you were using my thread as a podium to attack ideas that are not mine (i.e. start shit) and establish a pedestal on which you can spout off all of your undergrad chemistry "knowledge."
It is possible to make pure LSD-25 with elementary lab equipment (as both Hofmann and Owsley demonstrated), however with modern advents in place the operation is less hazardous, yields more product, and generally purifies the crystal to a greater degree with less effort. Whereas, due to lack of internet, lack of time/money/proper equipment/whatever your average LSD cook in the 60's was turning out stuff that was much much less refined than that of Owsley or Scully or any of those cats. Therefore, finding a vial of acid from the 60's that isn't Sandoz or Owsley or Czech makes it more likely to contain less pure acid on average than acid found today. That's my only rap.
-------------------- Check out my psychedelic acid rock: http://www.myspace.com/kingbeelovesyou Disclaimer: All posts on this site concerning illegal substances are fictional accounts. I in no way endorse the use of or use any of these substances myself.
Edited by songcycle67 (07/09/08 01:28 AM)
|
indica
Registered: 08/17/05
Posts: 18,905
|
Re: Is this even possible [Re: songcycle67]
#8611324 - 07/09/08 02:39 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
tl:dr
|
Plasmid
Absent
Registered: 06/01/08
Posts: 1,719
Last seen: 15 years, 3 months
|
Re: Is this even possible [Re: songcycle67]
#8612083 - 07/09/08 08:24 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
songcycle67 said: As for my point about lab equipment, if you knew anything about chromatography and how it's developed in the last 40 years you'd realize how ridiculous your rant about beakers and funnels and shit is.
Number 1: I use chromatography columns almost every single weekday. I use affinity columns for purifying recombinant proteins. So STFU and don't tell me that I don't know anything about chromatography.
Number 2: Yes, you're right, chromatography has improved in the last 40 years, but that doesn't change the fact that the original patent for LSD will still produce LSD and the column used in that patent is a simple alumina (IIRC) column. Just because chromatography has improved doesn't necessarily mean that LSD has become more difficult to make. Unless you purposefully want to make it more difficult for yourself and use an LSD specific antibody or something as part of affinity chromatography column, then you can still get away with using a simple alumina (or maybe it's silica) column.
Quote:
Albert Hofmann had to practically invent an apparatus for chromatography due to the fact that they were working with some of the first compounds that required such intensive procedures.
Bull shit. Please back this up with a reference. The patent by Hofmann for LSD mentions a simple (alumina or silica) column. Hofmann did not invent such a thing and if he did, there would be (another) patent with his name on it.
Quote:
but column chromatography was still in its infantile stages even in the 1960's
By the time the patent for LSD was published, it was at least developed enough to allow for the purification of LSD. Applying a relative term like "infantile" doesn't change this.
Quote:
I'd say other people were spending less time doing the proper procedures and more time spending the mass amount of money they were getting off of their shitty acid.
Yet, amazingly, Hofmann et al. were able to produce high quality LSD with a simple column in the early 1940s.
Quote:
Sandoz acheived less than perfect results from their synthesis--reaching only around 70%+ purity, at least by 1952. How do I know this?
An unopened, brown-glass vial of 1951 Sandoz LSD-25 (Delysid) was contributed to a gathering in celebration of Albert Hofmann's 100th birthday. The vial had been in the possession of a single person for the last 30+ years, stored casually, mostly in darkness. When opened, the powder was a very light brown-sugar to salmon color. One chemist described the fluffy, clumpy, sparkly crystalline powder as looking like "crushed needles". It was weighed and dissolved into four-ounce liquid doses containing between 100 and 110 micrograms each (± 10%).
Wow, a non-peer reviewed "article" from Erowid. I have a publication on Erowid, but I suspect you'd be loathe to cite me as a reference. This article says nothing. Big deal, it "looked" bad. Why does the patent for LSD not agree with the BS you're trying to convince me of? Why do journal articles from the 60s, where the investigators had real equipment, not mention this apparently 70% pure LSD? You don't even understand the basics . . .
Quote:
White, fluffy crystals are reached at about the 80% purity mark.
Oh, fuck, you're going to start on bullshit like this? Puh-lease. Even 2% of an impurity can make a beautiful sample look like garbage. If you had actual working knowledge of chemistry then you'd know better than to believe that "Fluff=80+ % pure" nonsense.
Quote:
It couldn't be cleaned thoroughly enough due to the lack of a proper chromatography setup, at least in or before 1951.
Evidence? (I mean real evidence, not some story from Erowid with an assay done according to the "a chemist glanced at it and said so" method)
Quote:
I obtained new starting material and worked it up to the point I was sure was correct, where I had d-lysergic acid monohydrate, quite useless by itself but the prerequisite for making LSD-25 by any system.
This is quite simply false. Please don't quote "articles" that are flat out wrong without at least having a basic understanding. Even the Hofmann patent describes going through a hydrazide, not the amide. In fact, I can cite a number of LSD syntheses that don't go through lysergic acid amide. It certainly is not the prerequisite "by any system."
ade. I was deliriously happy and proud of my success.
Quote:
Link: http://www.bruceeisner.com/writings/2004/09/lsd_purity_from.html
This is hardly a fucking peer reviewed journal article. This is a story by some guy on a poet's website.
Quote:
I don't understand where the disagreement is here, aside from your assertion that LSD cannot transmute into a black gunk.
I didn't say that. Please at least try to have a basic understanding of chemistry and evidence before arguing with a real chemist. I said that the source of any black material would likely be to dimerization of an indole substance at the 2-position. LSD *is* an indole based substance and could just as easily dimerize into black material.
You basically just re-asserted all my original arguments.
Quote:
and establish a pedestal on which you can spout off all of your undergrad chemistry "knowledge."
Ad hominem. I am a professional, BTW. Please don't make baseless personal attacks towards me either. At least I'm using my undergrad and practical experience as a base for knowledge, instead of a few stories from erowid.
Quote:
however with modern advents in place the operation is less hazardous, yields more product, and generally purifies the crystal to a greater degree with less effort.
You haven't presented any meaningful evidence to support any of this.
-------------------- Absent.
|
cynick420
stranger danger!
Registered: 10/19/05
Posts: 294
Loc: earth i think?
Last seen: 9 years, 8 months
|
Re: Is this even possible [Re: Plasmid]
#8612157 - 07/09/08 08:52 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
there is a lot of anger in this thread...spread the love guys... i think most people can agree...a gallon sounds a little farfetched
and if we are ALL assholes and there is a gallon of good acid in someones basement...good luck getting rich and dont die drinkin from the jug
--------------------
|
Plasmid
Absent
Registered: 06/01/08
Posts: 1,719
Last seen: 15 years, 3 months
|
Re: Is this even possible [Re: songcycle67]
#8612340 - 07/09/08 10:10 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Why is LSD so well characterized in terms of analytical samples even by 1960? If it basically wasn’t even possible to produce pure LSD then how could it ever have been characterized? Characteristics reported: Rf values on silica TLC plates; Fluorescence excitation and emission maxima; note that this report also says the average dose on confiscated sugar cubes was found to be 70 micrograms. (Dal Cortivo et al., 1960).
According to the patent for LSD (Sandoz LTD, 1946), at 20 C it possesses a specific ration of +30 degrees (c=0.4 in pyridine) and elementary analysis gives C 73.50, H 7.81, N 12.92 % where the calculated figures are C 74.25, H 7.79, N 13.00 %. Why are these figures so close to analytically pure values if Sandoz could only make 70% pure d-LSD? The values for elemental analysis are the same according to the literature (Stoll and Hofmann, 1943)
The synthesis for d-LSD d-tartrate is also described (Stoll and Hofmann, 1955) with the elemental analysis giving: C 66.30 %, H 7.21% and N 10.57% where the calculated values are C 66.33 %, H 7.09 %, and N 10.55%. Explain the presence of impurities when the analysis is so close to what pure d-LSD d-tartrate should be.
Why does the mass spectrum of a Sandoz sample from 1969 (Nigam and Holmes, 1969) look so similar to a modern sample (Canezin et al., 2001)?
References
Canezin, J., Caailleux, A., Turcant, A., Le Bouil, A., Harry, P., and Allain, P. Determination of LSD and its metabolites in human biological fluids by high-performance liquid chromatography with electrospray tandem mass spectrometry. Journal of Chromatography B. 765, pp. 15 – 27. (2001)
Dal Cortivo, LA., Dihrberg, A., and Newman, B. Identification and Estimation of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide by Thin Layer Chromatography and Fluorometry. Analytical Chemistry. 38, pp. 1959 – 1960. (1966)
Nigam, IC. And Holmes, JL. Mass Spectrometry of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences. 58, pp. 506 – 507. (1969)
Sandoz LTD. GB patent 579484. 1946.
Stoll, A. and Hofmann, A. Partialsynthese von Alkaloiden vom Typus des Ergobasins. Helvetica Chimica Acta. 26, pp. 944 – 965. (1943)
Stoll, A. and Hofmann, A. Amide der stereoisomeren Lysergsauren und Dihydro-lysergsauren. Helvetica Chimica Acta. 38, pp. 421 – 433. (1955)
=======================================
Would you like me to get more (*REAL*) evidence? Still convinced that Sandoz was only able to make LSD of 70% purity?
-------------------- Absent.
|
Entropymancer
Registered: 07/16/05
Posts: 10,207
|
Re: Is this even possible [Re: Plasmid]
#8612349 - 07/09/08 10:13 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
^Thank you.
Songcycle was definitely making crap up, but I was too lazy to call him on it.
Of course Sandoz was making pure LSD. You don't go into the patent office and say, "Well, I've figured out how to make this gunk that seems to have a good amount of LSD in it... can I get a patent to make shitty LSD tar?" No. Patents are issued for processes that produce satisfactorily pure chemicals, not impure tar.
Edited by Entropymancer (07/09/08 10:17 AM)
|
songcycle67
Gypsy Wizard
Registered: 05/14/08
Posts: 210
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
|
I'm sorry but if you think that LSD production has gotten harder (something which you continue to assert and i continue to refute) you're a moron. Chemistry professor or chemistry student or fucktard would know that everything gets better with time.
I never said that Sandoz's product wasn't "clean" i said it wasn't 99.9% pure ala the Owsley method. However I was basing this on the color of the substance in the vial of Sandoz (which I maintain is a good indication of purity). I personally have never seen a sample of LSD that isn't pure white crystal.
Who made the chromatography column that Hofmann used? Stoll. They were working from patents made by other companies, but still the fact that they had to rig one up for this specific series of compounds shows how new the technology was.
You're right about my elementary knowledge of chemistry, and I never claimed to have more than that. But my basic assertion still holds true:
non-pharmaceutical LSD, aside from Owsley/Scully/etc., on average, was much shittier than anything being produced today due to the simple truth that things get easier and better as technology gets better, especially where chemistry is concerned. No I don't have literature to back this up because one cannot determine the source of such and such a sample collected anonymously.
However, I would logically assume that LSD production itself (in clandestine conditions) was very new in the '60s and it wouldn't have been hard to botch things in the final purification. Time and illegality of the substance, along with greed from manufacturers, all lend themselves to trying to make as much as possible in as little time as possible.
In modern set-ups one would assume that the amount of technology and the myriad of synthesis techniques (now readily attainable at the click of a button) available to one would lend themselves to producing a cleaner product faster. Remember, I'm talking about modern clandestine acid in this case, not pharmaceutical.
Stop taking what I'm saying out of context and misreading my posts.
As I said last time, I agree and have agreed from the beginning with the basis from which you attacked me: that modern acid is just as good if not better than Sandoz.
We're on the same page, I think.
Edit: Also let me re-assert (read it carefully):
Quote:
It is possible to make pure LSD-25 with elementary lab equipment (as both Hofmann and Owsley demonstrated), however with modern advents in place the operation is less hazardous, yields more product, and generally purifies the crystal to a greater degree with less effort. Whereas, due to lack of internet, lack of time/money/proper equipment/whatever your average LSD cook in the 60's was turning out stuff that was much much less refined than that of Owsley or Scully or any of those cats. Therefore, finding a vial of acid from the 60's that isn't Sandoz or Owsley or Czech makes it more likely to contain less pure acid on average than acid found today. That's my only rap.
-------------------- Check out my psychedelic acid rock: http://www.myspace.com/kingbeelovesyou Disclaimer: All posts on this site concerning illegal substances are fictional accounts. I in no way endorse the use of or use any of these substances myself.
Edited by songcycle67 (07/09/08 01:17 PM)
|
Plasmid
Absent
Registered: 06/01/08
Posts: 1,719
Last seen: 15 years, 3 months
|
Re: Is this even possible [Re: songcycle67]
#8616574 - 07/10/08 08:43 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
songcycle67 said: I'm sorry but if you think that LSD production has gotten harder (something which you continue to assert and i continue to refute) you're a moron.
I really wish that you would learn how to read. I never once said that LSD production has gotten more difficult. You were referring to how much more advanced chromatographic methods had become and I said that using more advanced chromatographic methods was pointless "Unless you purposefully want to make it more difficult for yourself . . ."
So please, either pay more attention to what you're reading or stop deliberately trying to put words in my mouth. I never once said that LSD manufacture had gotten more difficult. I've been saying that you're making it seem a lot more difficult than it is.
Quote:
I never said that Sandoz's product wasn't "clean" i said it wasn't 99.9% pure ala the Owsley method.
Owsley and Sandoz are two different things, but you *DID* say that Sandoz only got about 70% pure LSD by 1952. You say so yourself in an above post. 99.9% purity and 70% purity are different purities (that is 99.9 does not equal 70).
Quote:
However I was basing this on the color of the substance in the vial of Sandoz (which I maintain is a good indication of purity).
No, actually it's not. Even 2% or less of an impurity can turn what would otherwise be beautiful crystals into colored junk. If you actually had practical experience in chemistry, you might know this.
Quote:
Who made the chromatography column that Hofmann used? Stoll.
Stoll did not invent alumina based column chromatography either. Care to point me to the patent if you want to insist?
Quote:
They were working from patents made by other companies
If it was patented by another company, then that means someone else invented it. You do know what a patent is?
Quote:
but still the fact that they had to rig one up for this specific series of compounds shows how new the technology was.
Bullshit. Alumina chromatography had been around for a while. Just because I pour my own affinity columns when I purify proteins doesn't mean that I invented affinity chromatography or that the invention is at all new.
Quote:
You're right about my elementary knowledge of chemistry, and I never claimed to have more than that.
Well then stop spreading totally false information. You first said that Sandoz only was able to make 70% pure LSD, now you've just claimed that you never said that. You just said that Stoll invented alumina based column chromatography simply because he had to set up an alumina column (pouring a column is not at all difficult and never was). You just said that the color of a sample is a good indication of its purity, which isn't even remotely true. Whether or not you claim to know a lot isn't the issue. I'm contradicting your specific claims which are completely groundless and false.
Quote:
non-pharmaceutical LSD
Sandoz is a pharmaceutical company (they became Novartis, I think). You said, in a previous post, that they only made 70% pure LSD. You consider that good or not?
Quote:
aside from Owsley/Scully/etc., on average, was much shittier than anything being produced today due to the simple truth that things get easier and better as technology gets better, especially where chemistry is concerned.
Evidence of this? The few papers that took me a whole 20 minutes to dig up showed 'street' LSD of relatively high purity (so I guess you'll just assume that Owsley made it). Anyway, this is an entirely new claim that you've just thrown in. You're now trying to tell me that this is what you intended to mean all along and maybe it is, but that doesn't change the simple fact that your other specific assertions (Stoll invented alumina column chromatography or at least significantly helped develop it; etc.) are completely wrong. Trying to rephrase or say that you meant to say something else doesn't change the stuff you already said that was complete bullshit.
Quote:
No I don't have literature to back this up because one cannot determine the source of such and such a sample collected anonymously.
So, you're basically admitting that nobody really knows anyway and the source of your information is likely based on hearsay.
Quote:
I would logically assume
Logic and assumptions should be backed up by facts. I can come up with any number of logical hypotheses to explain anything, but it doesn't mean jack when not backed up by evidence. Welcome to science.
Quote:
Stop taking what I'm saying out of context and misreading my posts.
I am contradicting *specific* assertions you've made that are completely bogus. You can respond by saying that you meant something else as many times as you want. I'm not too interested in your overall point (especially because you keep revising it and insisting that you meant to say something else). I am interested in specifically contradicting the BS claims you've made. The context isn't important with regard to specific factual claims.
[quote[ Whereas, due to lack of internet, lack of time/money/proper equipment/whatever your average LSD cook in the 60's was turning out stuff that was much much less refined than that of Owsley or Scully
I don't believe the rumours about Owsley et al. because their's no evidence to back it up. I don't really care about this baloney.
-------------------- Absent.
|
g00ru
lit pants tit licker
Registered: 08/09/07
Posts: 21,088
Loc: georgia, us
Last seen: 5 years, 4 months
|
Re: Is this even possible [Re: Plasmid]
#8616594 - 07/10/08 08:51 AM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
You should tell your friend to hide that acid in his butt like the rest of us do.
Sheesh kids these days.
-------------------- check out my music! drowse in prison and your waking will be but loss
|
the free thinker
salesman
Registered: 12/17/02
Posts: 1,877
Loc: twin cities
Last seen: 12 years, 2 months
|
Re: Is this even possible [Re: g00ru]
#8617411 - 07/10/08 12:59 PM (15 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Plasmid, PM
--------------------
|
|