Now i was watching the youtube vid "DMT - The Spirit Molecule Documentary" when it popped up
a molecule diagram of both DMT and Serotonin, now, i'm no chemist, i'm not even a good cook,
but could this not be done in some way.

i would have posted this in the advance bit but i'm still to be made a full member

peace out

Endlessness.... I'm afraid you didn't quite read his post, or the rule you quoted.



Serotonin is not a watched chemical I believe (seeing as it's biological precursor 5-HTP is sold over the counter). This actually seems like an interesting idea, but I believe if it was possible a chemist would have done so already.

nope.

~a chemist

<3 Chemists.

One day I will leave my software development career for either linguistics, law or chemistry. All so fun, full of rules and allow great creativity with the usage of said rules.

What prevents it from happening?

I think he read it just fine. DMT is a watched chemical itself, and it's synthesis is not so simple..so yes, this topic is not in acordance with the rules here. He seems to have read the rule that he quoted perfectly.

What prevents it from happening?

Because I absolutely love theorizing about things I have absolutely no clue on (just to see how close I can get for the hell of it, so take this as disclaimer I'm just guessing).

I'm assuming it has something to do with being unable to simply just "add bonds" like building blocks, you need to find other chemicals that provoke a the molecular structure to change in the manner you wish it to.

If no other molecule is capable of performing such a reaction, then it's essentially impossible (or impractical due to the number of different conversions required to complete the full round of modification and you'll probably end up with one of the currently accepted precursors for synthesis in the process).

I imagine it as something similar to those 1-8 block puzzles in a square with a missing hole, and you have to figure out how to move them around until you get the desired order. Some arrangements (molecules) are just far easier to get to the desired output than others, even if they are appearingly very similar in structure.

Just a guess though... from a newb.

I really hope the chemist responds so I can know how close I got

the hydroxy cannot be removed.
even in the body, dmt is not made from serotonin; two different metabolic pathways.

Then you should modify the rule accordingly from:



to




I hate to argue with people who are obviously senior board members and really mean no disrespect, but I read all rules on every forum I ever join, and if the rules are not clear or misleading this is a problem that needs to be corrected.

respectfully no rules need to change since you have still got to read them properly



this clearly mentions "no discussion is allowed about synthesis of illegal substances", what it states after that is the reason why it is not allowed "since it requires highly dangerous and watched chemicals" , further it states what is allowed"Discussion of simple safe non-comercial synthesis not requiring watched chemicals are tolerated (example: the reduction of dmt n-oxide to dmt with zinc, or the supposed lsa-to-lsh conversion"

how can it be more clear that that , everything is clealy mentioned , if you still disagree try reading the original rule and remember the (,) and (.) also have a meaning , could we get some language experts here to help our friend out , and remember dmt is a illegal substance whether you use safe or unsafe chemicals no discussion is allowed on synthesis of such

Explain what that means then.

DMT N-Oxide to DMT with zinc = Synthesis of an illegal substance, am I wrong? That's an example of something that's tolerated according to the rules, but a question about Serotonin to DMT with XXX isn't?

Language is ambiguous, is can always be clarified, hence legal documents being labyrinths of words with definitions of every possible word that can be misconstrued.

The exception is the confusing part, explain what the exception means please, because I frankly don't understand how that exception is NOT against the rules if what your saying is true?

How will you have your dmt n-oxide in the first place? You will have because you have extracted that DMT, from an old bark or oxidized sample. You arent synthesizing the dmt n-oxide, and you arent creating more DMT out of "nothing", there's no 'making-money' factor here either. And specially, you are just converting an oxide to the parent compound using very simple non-watched chemicals. The only people interested in this will be people with old extractions. Risk is very low in a lot of senses.


How is that in any way the same as synthesizing dmt from serotonin? Firstly, you cannot synthesize DMT out of serotonin for the reason benz has stated (in the body it would rather go tryptophan->tryptamine->dimethyltryptamine ), but even if you could, you would NOT be doing it with simple chemicals or techniques, and therefore this is against our rules. Also DMT synth would attract more due to the commercial factor. So there's plenty more risks involved. Is that clearer?

Yes actually it is, MUCH clearer. You are using knowledge that is not immediately available to the layman to see the situation for what it is.

I knew right away such a synthesis would be improbable or impossible (due to the obviousness of it and knowing chemists would have discovered it already had it been possible), and I was quite curious to see the chemists response.

However what is not obvious is:

I'm not a chemist, my knowledge lies in software development (which was a hobby I turned into a career 6 years ago), network engineering (my degree), and the limits of my linguistics learning.

I've had to tell employers before they can't do something because it would be illegal/shady as hell, because they simply didn't know the specifics of the implementation.

So in summary...yes, it's much clearer now. I'm sorry for being a pain in the ass, but this is how I learn