DMT Process Question

[PcychedelicMan1ak]

According to This articlewe convert tryptophan (C11H12N2O2) to tryptamine (C10H12N2) with Tetralin (C10H12).

I'm not a chemist but I'm trying to learn how all of this works. I suppose that mixing tryptophan with tetralin converts it to tryptamine with CO2 as a byproduct.

Sooooo following that pattern we could THEORETICALLY make DMT (C12H16N2) by mixing Melatonin (C13H16N2O2) with Cyclohexylbenzene (C12H16).

If I'm thinking right we would get N,N-Dimethyltryptamine and a byproduct of CO2.

Again, I'm no chemist and this is just what I thought COULD work and want some clarification if I'm thinking the right way.

 

[tripwire]

We do not discuss synthesis in these forums. You are obviously a new member, so I suggest reading the attitude page before asking further questions.

 

[PcychedelicMan1ak]

I've already read that. I thought that if you can talk about extracting dmt why can't I talk about synthesizing the same compound. Oh well that's a bummer. Idk why you can talk about extraction but not synthesis, doesn't make much sense but oh well.

 

[Kumarajiva]

I've already read that. I thought that if you can talk about extracting dmt why can't I talk about synthesizing the same compound. Oh well that's a bummer. Idk why you can talk about extraction but not synthesis, doesn't make much sense but oh well.

Sense: the scale of production

 

[King Tryptamine]

From what I've seen on the forum, synthesis such as converting DMT-N-Oxide into N,N-DMT and Harmaline into THH is accepted. However most drug synthesis requires the use of watched precursors, as is the case with pseudoephedrine in methamphetamine production and many others involved in producing illegal drugs. This is where a safety net is put in place on the forum to prevent people from ordering or working with watched drug precursors, oxidizing agents, specific solvents, etc... In short it's a good way to get yourself in serious legal trouble and why it's forbidden to talk about it, well from my understanding anyway.

 

[Mindlusion]

if you had a chemistry question, you know you could ask it without blatantly breaking the rules and making yourself look bad.

The chemistry you are proposing makes absolutely zero sense, there is not a shred of chemical logic to it. It is literally just the arbitrary mixing of unrelated chemicals to give a completely unrelated product. you might have just as well wrote 2+2=5

I am genuinely curious, what kind of logic did you use to come up with this? Balancing the carbon oxygen count in molecular formulas?

 

[tripwire]

Your question is so absurd that you have offended the sense of reason of one who does understand such matters. As such this lowers your rule breaking ability (but not intent). Perhaps to make up for this, you could kindly answer the question the last member posted? If not for our greater knowledge, then for our amusement at least.

This is the entheogenic university. Humble rule abiding, nexus protecting, souls are more than welcome. The keys to the palace are not handed out to any old fool who has just put down his x-box controller. Your post is also in the introduction essay section. The first hurdle. Not a good start, so I hope your answer to the question above helps us see your first contact in a better light!

 

[PcychedelicMan1ak]

Yeah see that's why I posted this. I needed people like you to tell me that I have absolutely no clue about chemistry. It was just an idea I've had and had no expectations about the answer. I want to get into chemistry seriously overall because it's interesting.

Now I at least know that I don't know jack shit about chemistry. Thanks for the replies

 

[PcychedelicMan1ak]

I am genuinely curious, what kind of logic did you use to come up with this? Balancing the carbon oxygen count in molecular formulas?

The logic was as following:

if C11H12N2O2 + C10H12 = C10H12N2 + CO2
then C13H16N2O2 + C12H16 = C12H16N2 + CO2

I mean it is logical for me because I don't have any chemistry knowledge. So if the only thing I understand is the numbers and how the process looks from my view it would actually be logical to think this way.

 

[PcychedelicMan1ak]

Your post is also in the introduction essay section. The first hurdle. Not a good start, so I hope your answer to the question above helps us see your first contact in a better light!

Yeahhh I'm sorry, I thought that the welcome message redirected me to the welcome section and posted without looking, my bad. When I realized I posted in the essay section I knew I am coming out as a total noob that can't even use a forum properly. I hope I'll make up for this in future posts I'll definitely look 3x before I post.

 

[tripwire]

Good, and thats ok. Only the humble can put their hands up and open their eyes. Why not write your considered introduction since you strayed into this section, perhaps destiny is calling?

 

[PcychedelicMan1ak]

Good, and thats ok. Only the humble can put their hands up and open their eyes. Why not write your considered introduction since you strayed into this section, perhaps destiny is calling?

I've already written a short introduction before this post actually but I think I'll edit it to say a bit more about me and my psychedelic journey.

EDIT: I'll do it after I'll get home

 

[tripwire]

I've already written a short introduction before this post actually but I think I'll edit it to say a bit more about me and my psychedelic journey.

Ah yes so you have, for some reason our eyes were drawn to the blatant rule breaking title of this thread instead! I agree you should edit your legal introduction post to add more information and also remove the synthesis wording. You could simply replace synthesis with process for example.

We would love to hear about your previous experience in this field.

I will then be able to answer your introduction thread without criticism and welcome you to the nexus instead which i would much prefer to do.

Maybe this thread could remain as a warning to new members of the ridicule they might face for asking silly questions?

 

[PcychedelicMan1ak]

Maybe this thread could remain as a warning to new members of the ridicule they might face for asking silly questions?

Yeah I think it will, maybe for the better

 

[Kumarajiva]

I mean it is logical for me because I don't have any chemistry knowledge. So if the only thing I understand is the numbers and how the process looks from my view it would actually be logical to think this way.

Dont think of chemistry in terms of algebra. It does not work like that (At least not to the extremes that you took it)
Molecular formulas (The one you used to derive your logic) are there to specify the ratio of elements.
The ratio itself is not enough, the structure (Geometry) of the compound plays significant role.

Chemical formula - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Empirical formula - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Structural formula - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[downwardsfromzero]

I sat down the other day and, just for fun, worked out how many ways of arranging 5 carbon atoms there are (along with the requisite number of hydrogens to fill the unused valencies) even with some arrangements being practically impossible because of ring strain (e.g., cyclopenta-1,2-diene) and/or non-tetrahedral bonding at carbon (hexacyclopentane), but discounting things that were geometrically impossible to draw (e.g., E,E-cyclopenta-1,3-diene) and ignoring optical isomers. It turns out for the formula C5Hx (where x = 0 to 12) there are 136 different possibilities.

Imagine how many possibilities occur when including just one more carbon atom. Or by including other elements such as oxygen or nitrogen. The possibilities are practically infinite.

I say all this to highlight the futility of attempting to predict a reaction using simply the numerical chemical formulae. Understanding the actual chemical structure of your reagents and target molecule (and then some...) is absolutely paramount if you want to get anywhere with synthetic transformations as outlined in the OP above.

Praise where it's due, you got this ↓ bit right

I'm not a chemist

Stick around and we'll help you increase your understanding, you seem like a good sport.

Welcome to the Nexus!

 

[PcychedelicMan1ak]

I mean it is logical for me because I don't have any chemistry knowledge. So if the only thing I understand is the numbers and how the process looks from my view it would actually be logical to think this way.

Dont think of chemistry in terms of algebra. It does not work like that (At least not to the extremes that you took it)
Molecular formulas (The one you used to derive your logic) are there to specify the ratio of elements.
The ratio itself is not enough, the structure (Geometry) of the compound plays significant role.

Chemical formula - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Empirical formula - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Structural formula - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Thanks for the links! I'll definitely give it a read :d

I sat down the other day and, just for fun, worked out how many ways of arranging 5 carbon atoms there are (along with the requisite number of hydrogens to fill the unused valencies) even with some arrangements being practically impossible because of ring strain (e.g., cyclopenta-1,2-diene) and/or non-tetrahedral bonding at carbon (hexacyclopentane), but discounting things that were geometrically possible to draw (e.g., E,E-cyclopenta-1,3-diene) and ignoring optical isomers. It turns out for the formula C5Hx (where x = 0 to 12) there are 136 different possibilities.

Imagine how many possibilities occur when including just one more carbon atom. Or by including other elements such as oxygen or nitrogen. The possibilities are practically infinite.

I say all this to highlight the futility of attempting to predict a reaction using simply the numerical chemical formulae. Understanding the actual chemical structure of your reagents and target molecule (and then some...) is absolutely paramount if you want to get anywhere with synthetic transformations as outlined in the OP above.

Praise where it's due, you got this ↓ bit right Big grin
PcychedelicMan1ak wrote:
I'm not a chemist

Stick around and we'll help you increase your understanding, you seem like a good sport.

Welcome to the Nexus!

Thanks for the kind words and support! I knew it isn't that simple to just calculate but I wanted to give the question a shot. The one who asks never gets lost.