| Pages:
1
..
4
5
6
7
8
9 |
Nicodem
Super Moderator
Posts: 4230
Registered: 28-12-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by DJF90  | | We however have our own intuition. What other uses - besides the synthesis of the aforementioned compound - can 2,5-dimethoxybenzaldehyde have to an
amateur chemist, in your own personal opinion? I'm interested should you come up with anything, but I fear that is not the case.
|
You really should check the literature and the lists of prohibited drugs before making impulsive claims. To my knowledge there are only two drugs that
can be rationally made from 2,5-dimethoxybenzaldehyde which are prohibited in most countries and maybe a couple more that are prohibited in some.
These are 2-(4-bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)ethylamine and 1-(4-bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)propan-2-amine (also known by the codenames 2C-B and DOB). Both
of them have no relevant value on the black market and none is considered a drug of abuse (they are both prototypical psychedelics, therefore hardly
of any interest to the general public). Therefore, insinuating this benzaldehyde is used mainly by drug cooks is absurd, particularly in the view of
its use for preparing many other psychedelics which are completely legal in most countries of the world. I would estimate there are at least a dozen
more legal drugs that can be made from this starting material than there are illegal (which makes a ratio of about 8% illegal toward 92% legal). And
this does not include a myriad of non-psychoactive organic compounds that can be made from this starting material. We have that aldehyde on the shelve
at my job because someone used it for organic synthesis for some academic publication, it is not particularly common, but what I'm saying is that it
is as common as many other organic compounds you can pick out of the catalogue and it has just any casual use. With this in view I would say it is
>99% legitimate to sell or buy it.
Drug cooks are obviously interested in drugs they can sell and this mean they will limit their interest to drugs that can be abused like
(meth)amphetamine and synthetic opiods. Me and other moderators have consistently removed, closed or otherwise inhibited posting of content that we
considered to be greed motivated, but I also consistently left and even encouraged content that was amateur chemistry motivated, even if in connection
to drugs, explosives or whatever you might personally consider politically touchy. Greed (love for profit) is not the same as amateur science (love
for science) and sometimes it is difficult to tell what the posters motivation is. Difficult enough that it made me do some mistakes. Like Turd
explained, even an amateur chemist can be legitimately interested in making amphetamine. It might be a simple target to make and as a recreational
drug it pretty much sucks in comparison to many others, but it has some benefits that motivates people interests. For example, it is illegal which
makes it a worthy target and it's simple enough for the beginners. Nowadays I have a hard time understanding why someone would be interested in it
trough such a perspective, but even I was young once and I know that what is illegal can be more attractive to teenagers even when there are plenty of
legal alternatives, some even much better. I remember when I was young and first got interested in medicinal chemistry, amphetamine was also a
fascinating target for me and as such it stimulated my curiosity. Even though I never engaged in its synthesis (it lost its attractiveness when I
realized it was pretty common on the black market), it was nevertheless one of the factors that directed me toward my carrier in organic synthesis.
Many of my brightest colleagues admitted that during the teenage years it was either pyro or drug obsessions that sparked their love for chemistry.
None of them would now consider making drugs for profit or explosives to blow up things. Some of them, including my self, now have much higher ethic
standards than those who made a carrier in science by never actually loving it and would consider amateur chemistry as an abomination of their field.
Damn, I even feel bad when signing a contract with a so called Big Pharma or do anything else against my ethics, but the reality is that one needs to
do some dirty job from time to time in order to live in this world. Nobody is a saint, but young chemists interested in making drugs certainly are not
demons either.
…there is a human touch of the cultist “believer” in every theorist that he must struggle against as being
unworthy of the scientist. Some of the greatest men of science have publicly repudiated a theory which earlier they hotly defended. In this lies their
scientific temper, not in the scientific defense of the theory. - Weston La Barre (Ghost Dance, 1972)
Read the The ScienceMadness Guidelines!
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
It's entertaining to watch you gyrate and gambole through the dance to justift giving this deeply suspicious sale offer the benefit of the doubt.
Elsewhere you closed or detritused a thread for bring a prep on a scale unrelated to amateur chem. IIRD it was 500 g or a Kg. But now 500 g of this
obvious presursor is cool. That is selective enforcement and that makes you a hypocrite.
I did not post in steve's sale thread, but your bending over backward like this as if you are in a game of Twister us really amusing.
[Edited on 9-7-2009 by Sauron]
Sic gorgeamus a los subjectatus nunc.
|
|
|
The Fountain of Discordia
Harmless
Posts: 31
Registered: 18-5-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
|
|
You do realize that if psychoative chemical discussions were grounds for an instant and total perma ban, that on other chemistry forums, people would
talk about it anyway, only more... right? It's pointless, in the end to try to limit discussion about psychoactives. Shut people up in one place, and
they move to another. Bottom line, stopping it here will not change anything, letting it continue here will again, not change anything. The idiot
public will continue to look down on us, and this hobby of ours will slowly become impossible. This argument is pointless not only because of this,
but because of a fact that most seem to not be paying credence to. The idiot public are many, and amateur chemists are few. They are and always will
be the majority. They shall and always will oppose anything that makes them feel inferior and/or endangered in the slightest way.
Chemistry is art by other means.
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
I do not care where they go and what they do as long as they are out of the forum I have in mind.
The object is a forum free of kewls, idiots and cooks.
I am trying to solve the problems of one forum not the world.
Let them light at E&W, wetdreams, designer-drugs, I could care less.
[Edited on 9-7-2009 by Sauron]
Sic gorgeamus a los subjectatus nunc.
|
|
|
benzylchloride1
Hazard to Others
Posts: 299
Registered: 16-3-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pushing the envelope of synthetic chemistry in one's basement
|
|
Heres a possible solution to the drug problem on this forum. Members who wish to post topics on phenethylamine synthesis should have to synthesize a
specific enantiomer; this would stop most talk about these drugs because most drug cooks make racemic mixtures of these compounds and have no
knowledge of asymmetric synthesis. This way they would actually be conducting fairly challanging chemistry. Also they must provide infrared spectra,
melting points, optical rotary dispersion, and chromatograms of their "goods". I do not see why people are attracted to being screwed up on drugs.
Eventually health problems arise that will affect them for the rest of their lives. If you want to synthesize some thing illegal, make some
phosphorous as this has many non-drug uses and would greatly benefit the amateur science community if a synthesis that produces more then 10g could be
found. There are many other more interesting compounds then some amine that makes the brain go crazy. The professor that accused me of being a
criminal for asking about some empty solvent bottles was a former drug cook. These drug cooks destroy amateur science and discourage students from
studying the field. Most students at my university that are chemistry majors go into medicine instead of chemistry because of this professors
attitude. I am constantly at odds with this professor because of my hobby. The other professors are told not to encourage my interest in chemistry
because of his bias toward my hobby because of his drug cook experience. Drug cooks are not amateur scientists; a distinction should be made, they are
generally only interested in the quickest way to make something in order to get screwed up. I synthesize many compounds that have very few practical
applications because i am intersted in the synthetic chemistry involved. The reactions involved in amphetamine and methamphetamine synthesis can be
demonstrated by other none drug compounds. The only reason to synthesize these compounds is to use them to act goofy, destroy your life, possibly make
some quick money if thats your intent, and eventually end up in prison, ruining the rest of your life.
[Edited on 9-7-2009 by benzylchloride1]
[Edited on 9-7-2009 by benzylchloride1]
Amateur NMR spectroscopist
|
|
|
12AX7
Post Harlot
Posts: 4803
Registered: 8-3-2005
Location: oscillating
Member Is Offline
Mood: informative
|
|
Wow, 5 new pages of posts a day. Who needs cable TV? "We know drama"? They don't know drama!
I still don't get the Goodbye Tour thing though. Can you actually quit, Sauron? "I can quit, I've done it lots of times!!"
I love your down-to-earth honesty and chemical talent, Sauron. But I don't get why you'd bother leaving, let alone quasi-leaving, let alone twice,
LET ALONE being a drama queen worthy of reality television in the process. Sure there are idiots here. Fuck 'em and get on with your life. If
you're not leaving, deal with it. If you're leaving here, leave for good.
Tim
|
|
|
Saerynide
National Hazard
Posts: 954
Registered: 17-11-2003
Location: The Void
Member Is Offline
Mood: Ionic
|
|
Kewls are one thing to hate... but the rest of us without PhDs all have to start somewhere. Not all of us majored in chemistry, and most of us
probably can't even remember all the basic organic reactions (I myself being one of them... because I never went to class...) Not everyone who's not
at your level is an idiot, and it does not mean they cannot learn. People might ask what seems like a dumb question, but if they dont feel it's a
dumb question, then it's not a dumb question. If your 5 yearold asked you "why are plants green", you wouldn't tell her to shut up and stop asking
stupid questions, would you? Bad professors ignore you and give you the "you're a dumb undergrad" glare. Good professors explain the solution or
show you good sources of help.
Though I very often come across things I don't understand and cannot contribute to, I still find them fascinating and benefit from reading them. To
insult everyone who may not be on the same level as you is simply being pretentious.
Many interests in chemistry stem from fascinations with psychoactive agents. We even have courses about illegal drugs (and these are highlevel bio
courses), and we're part of the Ivy League. My professor knew Terence Mckenna and is stoked for the day psychedelics will be allowed again in
academic research. Not all people interested in recreational substances are trying to make money by killing other people. Some just want to learn.
Maybe they want to know, just because it's illegal, or just because it's dangerous, or just to say they did it. Young people do that. How did I earn
a professional IT certification by highscool? Because I watched the movie Hackers back in middle school and thought it was really cool. Why did I
dive off a cliff? Just to tell myself I did it. Is it wrong to become a wine connoisseur because one first discovered alcohol by binge drinking at
frat parties during the dumb freshman days?
So you hate drugs. Fine, I respect others' opinions. I also hate bombs and terrorists. Yet I find it a valid science to experiment with energetic
materials. Infact, I love the demonstrations and I find it quite interesting to listen in on those threads, even when I don't get most of it.
Personal hatred does not discount topics from scientifc relevance. In a scientific discussion, psychoactive compounds are as much about chemistry as
wave functions and grignard reactions.
What are *not* part of scientific discussions are ad hominem arguments like calling people "cabron" and "SOB". I tried to ignore your cynical
remarks, but since the hardest field in chemistry thread, I realized you really are just being unreasonable. You did not bother to read my post, but
instead fired flame after flame making unfounded accusations simply because I disagreed with you. I actually debated whether to even post a reply, as
clearly, it made no sense to argue with people who cannot argue properly. I posted the reply, hoping maybe you just had a bad day, but I stood
corrected.
I am not urging you to leave, despite your having inferred I was uneducated biblethumper (I am a chemical engineer, FYI), because I can objectively
say your knowledge is a great asset of this board. However, I would appreciate it if you refrained from being so condesending towards other members.
This is not your forum, so please don't act like it is. Even if it was yours, I'm sure no one would appreciate such an unscientific and
unprofessional attitude.
If there is nothing useful to say, there is no need to say anything.
[Edited on 7/9/2009 by Saerynide]
"Microsoft reserves the right at all times to monitor communications on the Service and disclose any information Microsoft deems necessary to...
satisfy any applicable law, regulation or legal process"
|
|
|
froot
Hazard to Others
Posts: 347
Registered: 23-10-2003
Location: South Africa
Member Is Offline
Mood: refluxed
|
|
The thought of taking a concoction from my glassware and ingesting it makes me shiver but let's be honest, there's chemistry there. Provide a section
for drug type discussions and control it to a level within the law and that you are comfortable with.
Stating the obvious - We have a section called 'energetic materials' which is for the discussion of chemistry that is novel and unique when it comes
to explosive chemicals and the like.
Why not have such a section for 'ingested materials' (for lack of a better name) where the same sort of unique chemistry is discussed for these
substances?
Detritus all the crap just like you've been doing in the energetic materials section.
If you like you can have these sections password protected or group activated in such a way that only members from an approved group can post there.
Another way is to set up a group for users who post crap and their posts need to get approved first.
At least then people will find it less appropriate to moan and groan about the drug cooks and 'kewls' running amock.
We salute the improvement of the human genome by honoring those who remove themselves from it.
Of necessity, this honor is generally bestowed posthumously. - www.darwinawards.com |
|
|
turd
National Hazard
Posts: 800
Registered: 5-3-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Actually there is no drug problem. Just one member with an exceptionally low S/N-ration being really loud and generating the illusion of a drug
problem. There is, however, as in every forum, a problem with morons but that is dealt with quite appropriately, IMHO.
| Quote: | | Members who wish to post topics on phenethylamine synthesis should have to synthesize a specific enantiomer; this would stop most talk about these
drugs because most drug cooks make racemic mixtures of these compounds and have no knowledge of asymmetric synthesis. This way they would actually be
conducting fairly challanging chemistry. Also they must provide infrared spectra, melting points, optical rotary dispersion, and chromatograms of
their "goods". |
Brilliant idea. So basically your plan is to forbid amateur chemistry on an amateur chemistry forum. Of course only for the chemistry you disapprove
of. Brilliant, but not very honest.
| Quote: | | I do not see why people are attracted to being screwed up on drugs. Eventually health problems arise that will affect them for the rest of their
lives. |
You mean like the Shulgins?
| Quote: | | There are many other more interesting compounds then some amine that makes the brain go crazy. |
Great for you - go ahead and make them, but refrain from dictating others what to do or not to do with their free time.
| Quote: | | The professor that accused [...] |
Factual evidence So you had one bad experience with a supposed drug chemist, therefore they must all be bad. Replace "drug cook" with your favorite
racial/religious slur and your post is revealed as what it is: ill-founded prejudice without any substance.
| Quote: | | The only reason to synthesize these compounds is to use them to act goofy, destroy your life, possibly make some quick money if thats your intent, and
eventually end up in prison, ruining the rest of your life. |
And more of the same. Talking about things you know nothing about.
|
|
|
turd
National Hazard
Posts: 800
Registered: 5-3-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by froot | | If you like you can have these sections password protected or group activated in such a way that only members from an approved group can post there.
|
Please, no. A subforum is OK (but why? and where do you draw the line? - arsenic compounds have been used as psychoactives), but don't do the password
thing. The openness is what I like at this place. If you really want to lock something behind passwords, do it with buy/sell requests and Sauron's
drivel. 
|
|
|
setback
Hazard to Self
Posts: 50
Registered: 17-5-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Sauron | It's entertaining to watch you gyrate and gambole through the dance to justift giving this deeply suspicious sale offer the benefit of the doubt.
Elsewhere you closed or detritused a thread for bring a prep on a scale unrelated to amateur chem. IIRD it was 500 g or a Kg. But now 500 g of this
obvious presursor is cool. That is selective enforcement and that makes you a hypocrite.
I did not post in steve's sale thread, but your bending over backward like this as if you are in a game of Twister us really amusing.
[Edited on 9-7-2009 by Sauron] |
Why don't you just leave already for christ's sake. You're such a drama queen.
|
|
|
entropy51
Gone, but not forgotten
Posts: 1612
Registered: 30-5-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fissile
|
|
I've been thinking a lot about this thread and realized what really bothers me so much about the drug threads.
Science Madness really represents the face of amateur chemistry on the internet. There are others, especially in Europe, but we are probably the main
forum in English.
I would like to see amateur chemistry once again become respectable. Maybe with the banning of certain decongestant tablets the meth craze will
lessen. Maybe some suppliers might become less paranoid about selling to individuals. I know I am being overly optimistic, but one can hope.
If a significant portion of the posts in the major amateur chemistry forum are drug related and discuss procedures, that if carried out, make a felon
of the chemist then our image will only continue to decline. I hate to see this happen.
A writer for an American Chemical Society publication actually joined the forum to help prepare herself to write an article on the trials and
tribulations of amateur chemists. She wrote a fairly balanced article, I thought. But I wonder if she browsed the forum and noted the many drug
threads? Did that stop her from writing an even more positive article about us? I don't know the answer, but one can't rule it out.
I would like to think that eventually we might even be able to enlist the ACS to help us improve the image of amateur chemistry. ACS is a fairly
influential organization. Government regulatory agencies often seek their input on matters related to chemistry. Alas, I think that as long as the
forum is home to drug related discussions we haven't a prayer of enlisting any mainstream organizations in the cause of rehabilitating the image of
amateur chemistry.
I think this is the reason that the discussions on the forum should be well, not squeaky clean, but at least a lot cleaner than they currently are.
This is the reason that I disagree with current forum policies that if presented as interesting chemistry, discussions about illegal drugs are OK.
I'm not trying to be a boy scout by any means. In many cases I doubt that our discussions help that many cooks. As someone noted above, the
information is readily available elsewhere. But these discussions are extremely bad public relations and that is my concern. Take those discussions
elsewhere, please.
I know some will disagree. Some will self-identify as having motives that are not conducive to promoting the image of chemistry as a legitimate
hobby. But I thought I would share my thoughts with those of you who would like to see our situation improve.
|
|
|
Sedit
International Hazard
Posts: 1939
Registered: 23-11-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: Manic Expressive
|
|
Keep in mind though that for almost the entire human population it is easy to form an opinion but damn near impossible to change it. This applys to
the laws as well. Even if every cook on the face of the earth died tommorow it will be many decades before any laws get changed if it ever happens.
Knowledge is useless to useless people...
"I see a lot of patterns in our behavior as a nation that parallel a lot of other historical processes. The fall of Rome, the fall of Germany — the
fall of the ruling country, the people who think they can do whatever they want without anybody else's consent. I've seen this story
before."~Maynard James Keenan
|
|
|
entropy51
Gone, but not forgotten
Posts: 1612
Registered: 30-5-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fissile
|
|
You can either curse the darkness or light a candle.
P.S. to Nicodem, who wrote "Therefore, insinuating this benzaldehyde is used mainly by drug cooks is absurd, particularly in the view of its use for
preparing many other psychedelics which are completely legal in most countries of the world."
The Analog Act makes chemicals which are substantially similar to a Schedule I or II drug also a Schedule I drug in the United States. 2,5-dimethoxy
analogs are probably not legal in the U.S., certainly not if they are "psychedelic".
[Edited on 9-7-2009 by entropy51]
|
|
|
Magpie
lab constructor
Posts: 5939
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Chemistry: the subtle science.
|
|
| Quote: |
I think this is the reason that the discussions on the forum should be well, not squeaky clean, but at least a lot cleaner than they currently are.
|
Where would you draw the line? Should we not discuss the making of benzaldehyde, Ac2O, methylamine HCl, KCN, pyridine, phosphorus, and so on. These
all have many legitimate uses. So if we can find one legitimate use for a drug precursor does that make it OK to discuss, or is there some weighting
system? Chemistry pervades all walks of life. The general public just does not realize or accept that fact. But we should.
I was surprised that on the last day of my recent refresher organic chemistry class the instructor was illustrating reductive amination. Guess which
compound she used? Riiight, it was amphetamine. This was a completely innocent selection on her part, she's old school. But was it appropriate? It
seems many on this board would say no.
Sure, the moderators can tighten up on what they allow. But they will always be second guessed. You wouldn't want this forum to turn into another
"What can we show the kids that demonstrates science?" forum would you? Then all we would be discussing is vinegar/bicarbonate volcanoes, cabbage pH
indicators, and the like. There's enough of that on the internet already.
You are asking the moderators to infer the intent of posters in the same way you do, then take action if they have any suspicion it's drug, bomb, or
CW related. They usually do once they have given the poster fair audience.
Do you want them to start pulling books out of the forum library too - like Sartori?
The single most important condition for a successful synthesis is good mixing - Nicodem
|
|
|
entropy51
Gone, but not forgotten
Posts: 1612
Registered: 30-5-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fissile
|
|
Magpie, I thought I answered this question yesterday. I said:
"MeNH2, benzaldehyde, Ac2O aren't the issue for me. It's phenylpropanone and phenyl-2-bromopropane, etc., the direct precursors. And the routes to go
from precursor to finished "product". You will find those here, thinly disguised or not at all disguised."
I don't even see a problem discussing iodine or phosphorus, they're just elements on the periodic table. They have so many legal uses that I don't
think the average chemist would attach any stigma to such a discussion. When you veer off into methods to make phenylpropanone however, most chemists
become highly suspicious about your motives, and rightly so. It's a scheduled compound.
It's just a matter of the smell test, and some of our threads quite frankly don't smell too good to me or the average chemist. I've worked in
industry and I've seen the negative reaction when some of these precursors are mentioned.
I think you must be playing devil's advocate. You know there's a lot of chemistry in between phenylpropanone and vinegar and baking soda. For
example, ALL of the chemistry in the lab manual by Brewster that we both like so much is above suspicion. I may be mistaken, but I don't recall ever
having seen a post of yours that I would consider questionable. The same goes for Woelen, someone who clearly loves chemistry and has a fantastic web
site without a single questionable experiment that I know of. But as DJF90 rightly pointed out above, threads with "amphetamine" or "ketamine" in
their title are out of place except for the drug forums. It's not a matter of inferring the intent of the poster, it's a matter of whether they
explicitly invoke an illegal drug or an immediate precursor. Almost any reaction I can think of can be discussed wtihout aiming for a molecular
target that's a Schedule I drug. Don't you agree?
As benzylchloride1 pointed out so well above, medicinal chemistry is an extremely interesting field, one of the most fascinating in chemistry. There
are thousands of legal and non-psychoactive drugs whose synthesis we should be attempting and discussing as an alternative to dope cooking. If we're
really interested in the science of it all, that is.
I'm not trying to impose my values on others. That would be a waste of time. As I tried to explain above, amateur chemistry has a public relations
problem. As members of one of the most visible websites for amateur chemistry I think we can easily be above reproach without dumbing down the forum
or becoming boring. What I think is boring is yet another synthetic route to phenylpropanone. We all know all those already.
And I have no problems with the books in the forum library.
[Edited on 10-7-2009 by entropy51]
[Edited on 10-7-2009 by entropy51]
|
|
|
ender
Harmless
Posts: 4
Registered: 5-6-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by entropy51 |
Forum members as old as Sauron and myself can remember the days when the local pharmacist would sell us any chemical we needed. We could even order
from the major lab suppliers. We can also remember the 1970's and 80's when the rise of drug abuse paralleled the disappearance of reagents and
glassware. It came long before the war on terror. That is no coincidence.
[entropy51] |
I thought of your comment today when I read the following....It's from the Nobel speech of Kary Mullis:
| Quote: |
By the time Watson and Crick were being honored here in Stockholm in 1962, I had been designing rockets with my adolescent companions for three years.
For fuel, we discovered that a mixture of potassium nitrate and sugar could be very carefully melted over a charcoal stove and poured into a metal
tube in a particular way with remarkable results. The tube grew larger with our successive experiments until it was about four feet long. My mother
grew more cautious and often her head would appear out of an upstairs window and she would say things that were not encouraging. The sugar was
reluctantly furnished from her own kitchen, and the potassium nitrate we purchased from the local druggist.
Back then in South Carolina young boys seeking chemicals were not immediately suspect. We could even buy dynamite fuse from the hardware with no
questions asked. This was good, because we were spared from early extinction on one occasion when our rocket exploded on the launch pad, by the very
reliable, slowly burning dynamite fuses we could employ, coupled with our ability to run like the wind once the fuse had been lit. Our fuses were in
fact much improved over those which Alfred Nobel must have used when he was frightening his own mother. In one of our last experiments before we
became so interested in the maturing young women around us that we would not think deeply about rocket fuels for another ten years, we blasted a frog
a mile into the air and got him back alive. In another, we inadvertently frightened an airline pilot, who was preparing to land a DC-3 at Columbia
airport. Our mistake.
At Dreher High School, we were allowed free, unsupervised access to the chemistry lab. We spent many an afternoon there tinkering. No one got hurt and
no lawsuits resulted. They wouldn't let us in there now. Today, we would be thought of as a menace to society. If I'm not mistaken, Alfred Nobel for a
time was not allowed to practice his black art on Swedish soil. Sweden, of course, was then and still is a bit ahead of the United States in these
matters.
I never tired of tinkering in labs. During the summer breaks from Georgia Tech, Al Montgomery and I built an organic synthesis lab in an old chicken
house on the edge of town where we made research chemicals to sell. Most of them were noxious or either explosive. No one else wanted to make them,
somebody wanted them, and so their production became our domain. We suffered no boredom and no boss. We made enough money to buy new equipment. Max
Gergel, who ran Columbia Organic Chemicals Company, and who was an unusually nice man, encouraged us and bought most of our products, which he resold.
There were no government regulators to stifle our fledgling efforts, and it was a golden age, but we didn't notice it. We learned a lot of organic
chemistry. |
|
|
|
entropy51
Gone, but not forgotten
Posts: 1612
Registered: 30-5-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fissile
|
|
Yeah, Ender, those were the days! A lot of it sounds familiar, or at least similar.
If you haven't read "Uncle Tungsten - Memories of a Chemical Boyhood" by Oliver Sachs by all means find a copy in a used bookstore. He grew up in the
1940's in England and tells some great stories of an even earlier time.
Welcome to Science Madness! You've been so quiet we hardly knew you were here.
|
|
|
ender
Harmless
Posts: 4
Registered: 5-6-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Thanks for the welcome. I'll definitely get "Uncle Tungsten - Memories of a Chemical Boyhood" by Oliver Sachs.
Funny you mention books about the old days of chemistry. I found that quote of Mullis searching for information on Max Gergle. He wrote the book "Excuse Me Sir, Would You Like to Buy a Kilo of Isopropyl Bromide?" It's also supposed to be a very entertaining read.
|
|
|
Magpie
lab constructor
Posts: 5939
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Chemistry: the subtle science.
|
|
| Quote: |
I don't even see a problem discussing iodine or phosphorus, they're just elements on the periodic table. They have so many legal uses that I don't
think the average chemist would attach any stigma to such a discussion.
|
What you say may be true for the average chemist. But this would not be true for laymen reading a discussion of these elements. I
occaisionally discuss metallurgy outside this forum, but in doing so I would never mention the word phosphorus.
| Quote: |
I think you must be playing devil's advocate
|
To some degree you are right. I'm just an advocate of free speech and openness. I think that is why we have such an interesting and productive
forum.
I know what you are saying about something not passing the smell test: application specific but evasive, poorly worded request, or presented in a
non-professional manner, or even offensively presented, and of course, drug or drug precursor related. You can smell it when you see it.
It really does come down to "smell," and this sense gets fairly well developed by forum members, and fairly quickly too.
The single most important condition for a successful synthesis is good mixing - Nicodem
|
|
|
Sedit
International Hazard
Posts: 1939
Registered: 23-11-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: Manic Expressive
|
|
You know what I think smells?
That this threed has pretty much accomplished nothing but taking over this forum for the past few days and is setup as an attempt to segregate the
members of this forum and to arouse more suspicion and disruption thru out the rest of the REAL amature science forum. To me that really stinks that
the other topics about chemistry are getting ignored more now just to view a threed about someone crying wolf. I am guilty of this as well but its
probably time that we get on with our forum lives with or without Sauron. If he wants to join us thats fine as his knowlage is useful and if he wants
to leave thats fine to as his disruption is disrespectful.
Knowledge is useless to useless people...
"I see a lot of patterns in our behavior as a nation that parallel a lot of other historical processes. The fall of Rome, the fall of Germany — the
fall of the ruling country, the people who think they can do whatever they want without anybody else's consent. I've seen this story
before."~Maynard James Keenan
|
|
|
Saerynide
National Hazard
Posts: 954
Registered: 17-11-2003
Location: The Void
Member Is Offline
Mood: Ionic
|
|
Kary Mullis also came up with PCR based on inspiration from an acid trip. (from his book, Making of PCR)
[Edited on 7/10/2009 by Saerynide]
"Microsoft reserves the right at all times to monitor communications on the Service and disclose any information Microsoft deems necessary to...
satisfy any applicable law, regulation or legal process"
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
My proposed bans on posts about illicit drugs, explosives and chemical weapons have been put forwatd to the admin od a new forum and he has accepted
them. That forum will be active in a few weeks.
Magpie
As chemists we know what is an immediate precursor to an illicit drug and what is a general reagent. We also know what immediate precursors to illegal
drugs have significant other chemical utility and which do not.
Many threads on this forum have dealt with prep of P2P and substituted P2Ps. P2P has some industrial uses but not one single post or thread on this
forum has been advanced about any such use in the 6 years SM has been running. Amd we all KNOW what the members making it are making it for. Don't
play See No Evil games.
I would ban NOT ONE post about a compound with significant chemical utility.
I would not ban tetrazoles, picric acid, and other energetic materials with chemical utility.
I would put a stop to the stupid ATTP posts from kewls and idiots.
The admin would have the discretion to allow or ban posts where there is room for reasonable doubt. I suppose most less than novel posts on TNT would
get banned, but someone with something new to say can go ageas, The vast majority of posts about TNT, RDC, PETN ate from kewls and idiots, same old
same old, or else newbies in search osf spoonfeeding who ought to be reading books.
Serious energetics chemists are welcome. Example: Axt.
Sic gorgeamus a los subjectatus nunc.
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
Sedit
That this thread has been at or near the top for several days is due not to me but to the obvious fact that a nerve has been struck.
Quite a few members agree with me and a few have been willing to come forward and express themselves publicly.
Polverone care not except to regurgitate his hollow policies that amount to appearance without substance. Polverone is a natural politician - an
insult in case he does not know it.
Various opponents, some of them clearly drug cooks like turd, so aptly named, are noisily on the other side.
That's not a conspiracy at work, it's a grassroots insurrection and soon to be followed by an exodus. No Red Sea to cross, even, and no Pharoah and
his army in chase.
Sic gorgeamus a los subjectatus nunc.
|
|
|
Sedit
International Hazard
Posts: 1939
Registered: 23-11-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: Manic Expressive
|
|
No suggestions of conspiracy its just that I see alot of hypocrisy when the forum go's "offline" for people to bitch about people not talking about
amature chemistry topics. Of couse a nerve was struck and will be so anytime you bring politics and what I consider religion into a forum. If there is
an exodus so be it. Maybe it should have happened along time ago before our forum was over run by people whining about others not sharing there
beliefs of right and wrong. The one thing I can say nice about drug cooks is you will never hear them on this forum bitching and moaning and totaly
disrupting the forum because you all don't synthesis drugs.
Knowledge is useless to useless people...
"I see a lot of patterns in our behavior as a nation that parallel a lot of other historical processes. The fall of Rome, the fall of Germany — the
fall of the ruling country, the people who think they can do whatever they want without anybody else's consent. I've seen this story
before."~Maynard James Keenan
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
4
5
6
7
8
9 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
