Agent_Smith (Hive Bee)
04-05-01 19:29
No 182513
      Superfluous methods?  Bookmark   


     I'm still rather new to the "hobby" but during my time here I've amassed an enormous wealth of knowledge about honey and organic chem in general where I previously had little or no exposure.  Since I'm now at the point where I can understand most of what used to be indecipherable chem-babble, I can't understand why some people use the complicated methods they do.

Pseudonitrosite (which I failed repeatedly at), Wacker, etc... none seem to match the simplicity of the Delphine.  I was under the impression that a Delphine could be performed on even large scales, and is quick and easy.  Why then do bees devote time and money to complicated methods involving exotic chems or time consuming grunt work like isomerization?  Any insight?  I'm lost...
(Hive Bee)
04-06-01 10:52
No 182588
      Re: Superfluous methods?  Bookmark   

I think that most Bees wish to find alternatives so to ensure that the DEA can't do anything.

Also, some chemicals are harder to get in other  places.  I have never seen DMSO in any hardware store near me.  Someplaces have a great abundance of sodium nitrite.  Other places have an abundance of pool supplies.

I love diversity.  I also love research.  I like being able to walk down the grocery store isle and being able to come up with a myriad items that can be used for clandestine synthesis of meth, XTC, LSD, etc...
(Hive Bee)
04-06-01 16:16
No 182641
      Re: Superfluous methods?  Bookmark   

too bad the bootleggers from the early twentieth century didn't have you same passion for knowledge chemguy.  yeast and corn is about all I ever heard of people doing.  at least the precursers were easy to get.

If pacman influenced us, we'd glide around dark rooms eating pills and listen to repetitive music.
(Hive Addict)
04-06-01 20:11
No 182654
      Re: Superfluous methods?  Bookmark   

I think the biggest thing is that the methods used here, by and large, are proven methods.
(Hive Bee)
04-08-01 18:27
No 182987
      Re: Superfluous methods?  Bookmark   

In my experience "proven" does not mean "practical" by any means.

For example, the Delphine and the Wacker are both proven, but I don't see why people would putter with Pd catalysts and elaborate distillation apparati and devote resources to a reaction with exponentially greater chances for error? 

Not that I'm saying everyone out there finding new methods should stop, 'cuz I do love a good project, but is that really the case?

(btw, I must really sound like a Delphine proponent, however, my opinions are based just on my reading, and it is the one that seems most efficient)