LG's 1.7% A/B MHRB Extraction Tek & Tasteless Multi-Gram Mega/Monocrystal Recrystallization

[downwardsfromzero]

You only need 500 grams of 1% yielding bark to make a 5 gram crystal. Not kilos of the stuff.


Just sayin'.

Assuming you get enough to make it all transparent crystalline grade, sure. I go for bigger extracted amounts because I don't like to re crystallize any oils with the 'white fluffy' grade. This just makes it easier to not worry about oils on my crystal or losing its transparency.

That's why I knocked off the extra 0.7%

 

[LevitatingGod]

You only need 500 grams of 1% yielding bark to make a 5 gram crystal. Not kilos of the stuff.


Just sayin'.

Assuming you get enough to make it all transparent crystalline grade, sure. I go for bigger extracted amounts because I don't like to re crystallize any oils with the 'white fluffy' grade. This just makes it easier to not worry about oils on my crystal or losing its transparency.

That's why I knocked off the extra 0.7%

Well then, how about a 20gram crystal? How much do I need to extract from for that to be possible? My point remains, I'm not promoting commercial production in any fashion but rather trying to grow one large crystal.

 

[downwardsfromzero]

Let's not argue about arithmetic. It's unseemly.


Just post a picture of a 20 gram SINGLE (not clustered) crystal and, well, I'd probably have to change my underwear

 

[LevitatingGod]

Let's not argue about arithmetic. It's unseemly.


Just post a picture of a 20 gram SINGLE (not clustered) crystal and, well, I'd probably have to change my underwear

Oh man I hope you don't see it as my arguing in any way :/
I'm trying only to exemplify that my intent is to create the same kind of dmt crystal as seen by all of us on erowid. I have created the proper technique to do it now and once complete (60days approx.) I will have pictures of a crystal that not only looks very similar to the one on erowid, but has weight and size comparison in the photo as well.

 

[downwardsfromzero]

It's all good, your claims came across as extraordinary, and, being new and all, people were bound to start asking questions.

Nothing wrong with arguing per se, when in the sense of meaningful debate. But you owe me a set of crockery after I started flinging mine around the room in disgust :lol:



I remember the giant chrome alum crystal that they showed on Blue Peter in the 1980's. Some kid grew it in a dustbin. (It wasn't you was it? ) That thing must have weighed several kilos. I kid you not. Real food for thought/practical inspiration - just Don't Mention The several tons of plant matter you'll have to extract for one of those in methylated tryptamine form. :thumb_up:

 

[LevitatingGod]

It's all good, your claims came across as extraordinary, and, being new and all, people were bound to start asking questions.

Nothing wrong with arguing per se, when in the sense of meaningful debate. But you owe me a set of crockery after I started flinging mine around the room in disgust :lol:



I remember the giant chrome alum crystal that they showed on Blue Peter in the 1980's. Some kid grew it in a dustbin. (It wasn't you was it? ) That thing must have weighed several kilos. I kid you not. Real food for thought/practical inspiration - just Don't Mention The several tons of plant matter you'll have to extract for one of those in methylated tryptamine form. :thumb_up:

Woah, several kilo crystal? Welp, I'm slumped. My favorite I've done so far is a 2oz alum crystal and it is a bunch of triangles forming a circle. It's a fun art for sure, in my opinion at least.
I've used alum plenty of times and chrome alum is actually something I was just looking to get into! Growing all kinds of crystals is fun
Sodium tetraborate grows very easily and is good practice for seeing what kind of seed works best for a crystals growth to continue/for crystals that have already grown to just attach to.
It's sold in the laundry section of most grocers as something called "Borax". It's like $5 and you can make about 20 crystals that are reasonable large.

 

[dreamer042]

This 1996 photo has been strongly criticized as being a fake:

There are a couple telling things about this.

First is the fact in the intervening 2 decades despite the thousands and thousands of people extracting DMT and the significant advances in methodology, no one has been able to duplicate it.

The other is that Erowid pulled that picture off the front page of their DMT vault and replaced it with a photo that looks a lot moar similiar to all the other pictures in their image vault.

 

[LevitatingGod]

This 1996 photo has been strongly criticized as being a fake:

There are a couple telling things about this.

First is the fact in the intervening 2 decades despite the thousands and thousands of people extracting DMT and the significant advances in methodology, no one has been able to duplicate it.

The other is that Erowid pulled that picture off the front page of their DMT vault and replaced it with a photo that looks a lot moar similiar to all the other pictures in their image vault.

I'll show you the picture of mine when it's done in aprox 60 days.

 

[Jees]

...21 - claiming that present plant matter (in the naphtha pulls stage) will lead to no yield at all: with this you claim CYB and STB teks are worthless ...

... This step is important to remove the gunk bc sometimes it forms a layer where the naphtha cannot return to the top through. Also, it ups the yield by allowing all the solvent/majority of it to be recovered.

IME, having created/done this technique several times, the more oily yields are typically happening when I have an extraction that was taking awhile for the naphtha to separate back. Normally it's completed separted within 5minutes but sometimes it's taken 10-15 and those yields were typically oily more than normal.

^^^ This explanation is something completely different than your original:

21. Failure to comply with the removal of this bottom layer of gunk that builds up at the bottom of the cooled acidifications will result in an extraction that you will inevitably have to throw away without any DMT retrieval because it prevents the naphtha from properly separating in later steps.

You have said to have done CYB tek which include ALL the material staying in the flask, how did your naphtha separated there and did you indeed had zero yield with it as you say?

If you have a filtering advice that leads to faster separation, very fine and mucho thanks for sharing. But if you trashed a batch (or suggest the world there is no salvation) for a separation issue then that was a very stupid advice since all is retrievable.

 

[Jees]

This 1996 photo has been strongly criticized as being a fake:

...

I haven't found a clue for size or weight so far of this picture. Anyone? Could it be a macro picture of something small?

 

[endlessness]

Please edit your post and refrain from discussing such amounts in the future, it doesn't add to the discussion, and is honestly very sketchy.

..yup..

...from every kilo I've extracted...

Red Flags all over the place....

Maybe if one were to assume I meant I've gone through several, or even two, kilos within the last month, I'd understand it coming off as sketchy. My point being, just plainly assuming the time frame is what makes it appear sketchy. I've extracted for years now and that is why I can say things like "from every kilo extracted." Meaning, I have gotten consistent results.

I have also extracted DMT for many years (a decade now), and so have a lot of the people that have been answering you in this thread. And yet, the quantities you claim are very sketchy to everybody. You are talking about several kilo extractions, each yielding 17g. Considering 1g= 40x0.025g breakthrough doses (or 100 using your own mentioned 0.01g breakthrough dose), thats 680 breakthrough doses at least or 1700 breakthrough doses in 1 extraction. If you were talking "several" kg extractions, and even worse, if we consider you mention 300+ extractions you did, thats way more DMT than you could ever smoke in a lifetime, even than you could give to a lot of close friends.

Nobody is smoking DMT every day of their lives for years, and if they were, that would probably not be a recommended way of using and would most likely lead to some sort of "hyperspace slap" or mental difficulties. And you' d need a batallion of such people smoking for a decade to even come near getting rid of all this amount of DMT you are talking about.

So either way it raises significant red flags...

Also, you are posting in other threads going against our attitude page in regards to the quality of information. You are talking about gold transmutation and other pseudoscience things, and when asked for sources, you post a youtube video of a history channel report. That is NOT a quality source of information. History channel has a bunch of pseudoscientific low quality documentaries (remember the "ancient aliens" meme?). You can find pretty much every single absurd claim you can imagine "proven" by youtube videos, many of those claims being contradictory with each other, on all sorts of subjects.

Just because in one of those documentaries it appears "Doctor whatever" as the name of a person speaking, first of all doesn't mean that person is really who they say they are, secondly, even if they were doctors or whatever professionals, doesn't mean the information is necessarily true. They can be paid to lie, or they can simply be mistaken, as many professionals. To simply assert something is true because a "Dr" said so is an appeal to authority logical fallacy.

Despite overwhelming consistent repeatable and accessible evidence that shows otherwise, there are still people that believe the earth is flat, some of them who may have diplomas and titles. And you can find youtube videos and documentaries that will " prove" the earth is flat. So no, youtube videos are not quality of information. Quality of information would be, as stated in the attitude page, a peer-reviewed paper or other links to repeatable scientific experiments with control groups and all the other checks and balances in research and publication that make science something you can depend on.

I am working hard on trying to smooth out your joining of this forum, I want you to be able to be here and be a good contributing member, I really believe in the good of people and hope a couple of years from now you are here as a full member and we can all have a laugh together about these early days in your membership when there were some misunderstandings... But in order for that to happen, you have to really take in account what we have been saying to you, because if it were to continue as it is, the chances are you will not last long in this community.

So for the last time: please Do NOT post about the absurd quantities of extractions and size of extractions you have mentioned before, and please stop with the pseudoscientific information unless you clearly state in each post with a disclaimer that this is merely your own opinion and by no means post it worded as if its a fact, nor using youtube videos as your 'proof' . Also please keep discussions such as 'gold transmutation' and others for the through the looking glass subforum.. Thanks for understanding!

Be well.

 

[downwardsfromzero]

This 1996 photo has been strongly criticized as being a fake:

There are a couple telling things about this.

First is the fact in the intervening 2 decades despite the thousands and thousands of people extracting DMT and the significant advances in methodology, no one has been able to duplicate it.

The other is that Erowid pulled that picture off the front page of their DMT vault and replaced it with a photo that looks a lot moar similiar to all the other pictures in their image vault.

Yeah, I always thought it looked like quartz. It's handy bait for times like this though

A lesson in critical thinking, if you will...

 

[dreamer042]

I haven't found a clue for size or weight so far of this picture. Anyone? Could it be a macro picture of something small?

This is the little blurb from the image page.

Color photo of a large ultrapure DMT crystal, grown in 1996. The crystal is approximately 1 inch across.
Photo by Anonymous Photographer, Used by Erowid with permission.

There was an old thread here on the forum suggesting that it was synthetic. I can't find the thread that one is referencing however. I'm still skeptical, I expect it's probably quartz or some other mineral, even the large crystal clusters grown by the OP and others have significantly different structures than the one in that photo.

 

[LevitatingGod]

...21 - claiming that present plant matter (in the naphtha pulls stage) will lead to no yield at all: with this you claim CYB and STB teks are worthless ...

... This step is important to remove the gunk bc sometimes it forms a layer where the naphtha cannot return to the top through. Also, it ups the yield by allowing all the solvent/majority of it to be recovered.

IME, having created/done this technique several times, the more oily yields are typically happening when I have an extraction that was taking awhile for the naphtha to separate back. Normally it's completed separted within 5minutes but sometimes it's taken 10-15 and those yields were typically oily more than normal.

^^^ This explanation is something completely different than your original:

21. Failure to comply with the removal of this bottom layer of gunk that builds up at the bottom of the cooled acidifications will result in an extraction that you will inevitably have to throw away without any DMT retrieval because it prevents the naphtha from properly separating in later steps.

You have said to have done CYB tek which include ALL the material staying in the flask, how did your naphtha separated there and did you indeed had zero yield with it as you say?

If you have a filtering advice that leads to faster separation, very fine and mucho thanks for sharing. But if you trashed a batch (or suggest the world there is no salvation) for a separation issue then that was a very stupid advice since all is retrievable.

It's filtering advice for faster separation. Two times I have not removed the gunk and when stirring in the naphtha, it never separated back. Only one separated some back when putting it to a heat bath but that's about it.

 

[LevitatingGod]

Please edit your post and refrain from discussing such amounts in the future, it doesn't add to the discussion, and is honestly very sketchy.

..yup..

...from every kilo I've extracted...

Red Flags all over the place....

Maybe if one were to assume I meant I've gone through several, or even two, kilos within the last month, I'd understand it coming off as sketchy. My point being, just plainly assuming the time frame is what makes it appear sketchy. I've extracted for years now and that is why I can say things like "from every kilo extracted." Meaning, I have gotten consistent results.

I have also extracted DMT for many years (a decade now), and so have a lot of the people that have been answering you in this thread. And yet, the quantities you claim are very sketchy to everybody. You are talking about several kilo extractions, each yielding 17g. Considering 1g= 40x0.025g breakthrough doses (or 100 using your own mentioned 0.01g breakthrough dose), thats 680 breakthrough doses at least or 1700 breakthrough doses in 1 extraction. If you were talking "several" kg extractions, and even worse, if we consider you mention 300+ extractions you did, thats way more DMT than you could ever smoke in a lifetime, even than you could give to a lot of close friends.

Nobody is smoking DMT every day of their lives for years, and if they were, that would probably not be a recommended way of using and would most likely lead to some sort of "hyperspace slap" or mental difficulties. And you' d need a batallion of such people smoking for a decade to even come near getting rid of all this amount of DMT you are talking about.

So either way it raises significant red flags...

Also, you are posting in other threads going against our attitude page in regards to the quality of information. You are talking about gold transmutation and other pseudoscience things, and when asked for sources, you post a youtube video of a history channel report. That is NOT a quality source of information. History channel has a bunch of pseudoscientific low quality documentaries (remember the "ancient aliens" meme?). You can find pretty much every single absurd claim you can imagine "proven" by youtube videos, many of those claims being contradictory with each other, on all sorts of subjects.

Just because in one of those documentaries it appears "Doctor whatever" as the name of a person speaking, first of all doesn't mean that person is really who they say they are, secondly, even if they were doctors or whatever professionals, doesn't mean the information is necessarily true. They can be paid to lie, or they can simply be mistaken, as many professionals. To simply assert something is true because a "Dr" said so is an appeal to authority logical fallacy.

Despite overwhelming consistent repeatable and accessible evidence that shows otherwise, there are still people that believe the earth is flat, some of them who may have diplomas and titles. And you can find youtube videos and documentaries that will " prove" the earth is flat. So no, youtube videos are not quality of information. Quality of information would be, as stated in the attitude page, a peer-reviewed paper or other links to repeatable scientific experiments with control groups and all the other checks and balances in research and publication that make science something you can depend on.

I am working hard on trying to smooth out your joining of this forum, I want you to be able to be here and be a good contributing member, I really believe in the good of people and hope a couple of years from now you are here as a full member and we can all have a laugh together about these early days in your membership when there were some misunderstandings... But in order for that to happen, you have to really take in account what we have been saying to you, because if it were to continue as it is, the chances are you will not last long in this community.

So for the last time: please Do NOT post about the absurd quantities of extractions and size of extractions you have mentioned before, and please stop with the pseudoscientific information unless you clearly state in each post with a disclaimer that this is merely your own opinion and by no means post it worded as if its a fact, nor using youtube videos as your 'proof' . Also please keep discussions such as 'gold transmutation' and others for the through the looking glass subforum.. Thanks for understanding!

Be well.

Despite me saying I extracted 50g extracts for majority of my time extracting, I stated most material ever used was trial and error to create my own tek.
Also, I would take a CERN physicist telling me transmutation is real as more credible that you telling me it's psudeoscience.

In March 1924, at the Tokyo Imperial University, Professor Hantaro Nagaoka directed 150,000 volts of electricity at a mercury isotope under a dialectic layer of paraffin oil for four hours in an early experiment with nuclear energy. The purpose was to strike out a hydrogen proton from the nucleus of the mercury and produce a new element, gold. Mercury has 80 protons. Gold, meanwhile, has 79 protons — you see where I’m going with this.The experiment was a success. Professor Hantaro Nagaoka solved the mystery that eluded scientists for centuries, the mystery of the Philosopher’s Stone.

The Philosopher’s Stone is the idea that you could have a magical material that could turn lead, or some very inexpensive metal, into gold. For thousands of years, kings sought out this mythical device, one that could create gold out of common metals. Scientists and alchemists for centuries have been trying to invent one. Even Sir Isaac Newton obsessed over the mystery of the Philosopher’s Stone in the 17th century. However, the English feared the potential devaluation of gold and made the practice of alchemy punishable by death.
Call it what you may, classify it as bullshit if you want.
If continued I will not last long in this community? hmm.. Okay kick me out if that's what you want it to be :/
I will not say transmuting metals to gold is my opinion, though, as it's been done before in the 1920s and its being done today even in the U.S.
Lastly, you stating that these CERN physicists and Professional Chemists and chemistry professors (all who have PhDs) are lying or being paid to lie is ridiculous. Just because it's a video on YouTube doesn't mean it's bullshit. It's from the history channel yes, but they are interviewing CERN physicists and professional chemists/chemistry professors that are telling you exactly how they transmute Mercury into gold. They literally tell you how they transmute the Mercury into gold by "nuclear transmutation" and show you a video representation before showing the final yield actually being Au Gold from Mercury.
I would understand if somebody called walking on the ground and thus absorbing 'free electrons' (what is referred to as grounding) pseudoscience.

 

[downwardsfromzero]

There's a small problem with what your saying about Hg to Au transmutation. Simply 'knocking out a proton' from a sample of normal, everyday mercury would produce gold isotopes 198, 199, 200, 201 and 203 as 90% of the product. All of these are highly radioactive. So your 10% of stable Au-197 would be stuck in a bit of a nasty mess.

Is it possible that these physicist have a wry sense of humour when talking to History Channel journalists?



And... AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAArgh! Multiple re-quote nesting! So unnecessary!

a dialectic layer of [..] oil

He should consider a career in politics

 

[LevitatingGod]

There's a small problem with what your saying about Hg to Au transmutation. Simply 'knocking out a proton' from a sample of normal, everyday mercury would produce gold isotopes 198, 199, 200, 201 and 203 as 90% of the product. All of these are highly radioactive. So your 10% of stable Au-197 would be stuck in a bit of a nasty mess.

Is it possible that these physicist have a wry sense of humour when talking to History Channel journalists?



And... AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAArgh! Multiple re-quote nesting! So unnecessary!

a dialectic layer of [..] oil

He should consider a career in politics

 

[downwardsfromzero]

tungsten isn't a mercury isotope

(It's OK, you can calm down now!)

 

[downwardsfromzero]

LG, you do raise some interesting points but this probably isn't the thread for it. You could start a thread about your genuine interest in these aspects of nuclear transmutation (which I acknowledge are based in fact, e.g. Neutron capture therapy of cancer - Wikipedia ) and ask for it to be moved to the science and technology sub-forum.

This Nagaoka?


Edit: gold from mercury, Miethe et al.

The experiment produced $1 of gold at a cost of $60,000

:?:

All that is proper to say is that a careful, competent, and long continued effort to confirm the German results has resulted in an entire failure to do so.

Prof. Fritz Haber, et al., made careful attempts to repeat the work of Nagaoka and Miethe. Mercury in which no Au could be detected was subjected to six different treatments, but no Au was formed. In some cases, Au was found, but only in amounts smaller than what could have come from the materials, or from contamination. Nor could the yield be increased at will. The applied treatments were made with liquid and solid dielectrics with high-tension discharges, arcs in low, normal and high pressures, and high-vacuum electron bombardments.

 

[LevitatingGod]

LG, you do raise some interesting points but this probably isn't the thread for it. You could start a thread about your genuine interest in these aspects of nuclear transmutation (which I acknowledge are based in fact, e.g. Neutron capture therapy of cancer - Wikipedia ) and ask for it to be moved to the science and technology sub-forum.

This Nagaoka?


Edit: gold from mercury, Miethe et al.

The experiment produced $1 of gold at a cost of $60,000

:?:

All that is proper to say is that a careful, competent, and long continued effort to confirm the German results has resulted in an entire failure to do so.

Prof. Fritz Haber, et al., made careful attempts to repeat the work of Nagaoka and Miethe. Mercury in which no Au could be detected was subjected to six different treatments, but no Au was formed. In some cases, Au was found, but only in amounts smaller than what could have come from the materials, or from contamination. Nor could the yield be increased at will. The applied treatments were made with liquid and solid dielectrics with high-tension discharges, arcs in low, normal and high pressures, and high-vacuum electron bombardments.

I had meant to send this as well(I know this is not the thread to be doing this on but I don't know how to merge existing commentary into a new thread and posting any more info on this, especially making an entire thread on it, I feel will end up getting me kicked out of this community because it's not widely accepted factual information but rather still a topic of curiosity and mysticism to some)
Gold
Chrysopoeia, the artificial production of gold, is the symbolic goal of alchemists. Such transmutation is possible in particle accelerators or nuclear reactors, although the production cost is currently many times the market price of gold. Since there is only one stable gold isotope, 197Au, nuclear reactions must create this isotope in order to produce usable gold.

Gold synthesis in an accelerator Edit
Gold synthesis in a particle accelerator is possible in many ways. The Spallation Neutron Source has a liquid mercury target which will be transmuted into gold, platinum, and iridium, which are lower in atomic number than mercury.[citation needed]

Gold synthesis in a nuclear reactor Edit
Gold was synthesized from mercury by neutron bombardment in 1941, but the isotopes of gold produced were all radioactive.[12] In 1924, a Japanese physicist, Hantaro Nagaoka, accomplished the same feat.[13]

Gold can currently be manufactured in a nuclear reactor by the irradiation of either platinum or mercury.

Only the mercury isotope 196Hg, which occurs with a frequency of 0.15% in natural mercury, can be converted to gold by slow neutron capture, and following electron capture, decay into gold's only stable isotope, 197Au. When other mercury isotopes are irradiated with slow neutrons, they also undergo neutron capture, but either convert into each other or beta decay into the thallium isotopes 203Tl and 205Tl.

Using fast neutrons, the mercury isotope 198Hg, which composes 9.97% of natural mercury, can be converted by splitting off a neutron and becoming 197Hg, which then decays into stable gold. This reaction, however, possesses a smaller activation cross-section and is feasible only with unmoderated reactors.

It is also possible to eject several neutrons with very high energy into the other mercury isotopes in order to form 197Hg. However such high-energy neutrons can be produced only by particle accelerators.[clarification needed].

In 1980, Glenn Seaborg transmuted several thousand atoms of bismuth into gold at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. His experimental technique, using nuclear physics, was able to remove protons and neutrons from the bismuth atoms. Seaborg's technique was far too expensive to enable the routine manufacture of gold but his work is the closest yet to emulating the mythical Philosopher's Stone.[14][15]