I agree with this in some ways, but I feel that there would be times where a user might deprecate or down vote a tek just because of user error. It probably would be better if the experienced users got amongst themselves and decided.

I have definitely messed up, but that doesn't mean the tek was wrong.

I just think it would be good to consider removal or streamlining of the redundancies and refine what we already know. It's the scientific method.

In no way should we ever talk about synthesis of drugs or reagents. That doesn't seem like the nexus' way (in my little time of being here).



I will say that your right benzyme we should satisfy the needs of all members. Although, I don't see anything wrong with posting teks with different reagents. A reagent is a reagent as long as it wasn't synthesized. If that makes sense?

Would you be willing to send me a pm about reviewing papers? I am curious what you mean by reviewing papers. I don't want to ruin this topic with a tangent and can't PM you because I am a new member.

Well, let's not go overboard here. There's nothing wrong with reagents, ya'll use them all the time.

@benzyme sciencemadness has standards too, there's some good folk over there. My geographical situation limits me with my choices, we don't have a scientific supply store anywhere. It's a 3 hour drive to pick up naptha even, 5 hours if the weather's bad. Also did you mention azide coupling? There's only 2 reasons that I can think of where you would INTENTIONALLY handle azides. Either to install skylights, or.. well we both know what the other one is, and even that is outdated.

Drwalrus: Reagent = reactive agent. Think 'ingredients'.

I may review dmt-related, peer-reviewed articles submitted by members, for proofreading/feedback, etc.
Teks require less time to review, as they are informal.


I know scimadness has its standards. Polverone runs a tight board, one of my favorites besides the nexus. they are good folks.
I simply mean, synthesis is beyond the scope of this board, and the Nexus cannot he held accountable (neither can other boards, for that matter) for synth-related accidents, or legal repercussions, due to acquisition or reagent/product prep. It's just something we don't discuss on the board, per the administrator's request.

there are torrents on the internets for those sorts of things, of course, i.e. megalomania's controversial chem lab, King's Chemistry Survival guide

Haha yeah, there's some smart people over there too. My favorite memry if the place is about a guy that decided to synth a particular hydro halogen. Madness!

I can see your not wanting to support such things. OC can make skydiving without a parachute seem like petting a puppy @_@

You have my vote as well. But since The Traveler removed the initial promotion I will not override it. However, +1000 was just thrown your way.

I'm not a fan of group think either and while you are abrasive you obviously have the skills and a fresh perspective. Maybe try toning down the attitude a bit. I think this has been your main problem so far. Personally, I don't see such a violation of Attitude discussing chloroform and more advanced treks.

Different teks are made to adapt to different preferences and availability of chemicals. The standard teks have been A/Bs and STBs, but then dry teks using alcohols or vegetable oils have also been developed, and fumaric acid precipitation methods came after. I don't agree with the Nexus being negative towards new techniques that don't fit the standard. In fact, we have only developed so many novel teks exactly because we have always welcomed and practiced new ways of thinking. I think the Nexus' acomplishments speak for themselves here.

I don't think chloroform is necessarily bad as 1ce seems to think we do, but you have to recognize and be clear for others about the potential health issues (consider most people in the nexus who will be reading your posts dont have a flow hood and are only beginners at chemistry). It is also important to talk about the fact it's watched in many places, and lastly about it's potential reactivity with DMT if left standing for long. But if that is recognized/disclaimed, just like with other chemicals and their unique safety precautions, I don't see any problem in talking about using chloroform. Im not sure how many people even have access to it and will make use of the information, but me personally I always find interest in the different possibilities.

What other developments do you feel aren't being received here?

Also, is it possible in same cases you are mistaking criticism and feedback for "flaming" ? Ideas put in public naturally face criticism, but if the idea is solid, it will keep standing. Maybe what puts people off is the attitude, rather than the message itself. Try re-reading your posts before posting and consider whether it is being constructive or maybe unnecessarily confrontational at times...

Lastly, remember we're all humans. Mods and the admins make mistake just as much as you or anybody else. If you feel you disagree with some decision, feel free to contact us, we are all willing to reconsider our positions if anyone disagreeing has a reasonable point. We all put in our time really trying to make this place better with the best of intentions, and trav hosts and designs and mantains all of this for free. It's good to be considerate when you're in someone else's house and try to put yourself in the other's shoes and looking at onself before judging others.

Oh I certainly don't find chloroform at all dangerous. Although it has certain storage "issues" that must be seen to. Knowing the handling responsibilities may be wayyy too much for beginner chemists.

I know I can be abrasive, I'll work on that a bit for, if anything for this community alone.

I think in light of OPs question, too much of one thing can also be daunting for many newcomers. I still see people say they want to use a more dated tek as their starter tek for first extractions. So while they're redundant they are certainly not useless.

One question I see very often is people asking about ratios. I think a sticky in the extraction FAQ section may help to prevent avoidable new threads from popping up.

I aim this directly at moderators: That we should keep an eye on some of the questions being asked repeatedly. In most all cases a simple search would have given away the answers. Others, although extremely repetative are good questions. I know alot of you want to give back, and don't know how. Consolidating information into an easy to read/follow thread would save others a ton of work.

I do not see teks being updated nor developed.

The usefull threads are all over the place and not always easy to find.

Ever since I am no this forum I don't see any progress in teks except the endlessness tek.

Wonder if $ is the issue? It certainly takes time and knowledge to organize, update, link...

If $ is the issue why don't we do some targeted fund raising for such a project.

You are welcome to help if you feel progress isn't being made fast enough.

Editing the wiki is open to all registered users... endlessness doesn't need to be the only contributer.

the chemistry of extractions if fairly 'cut-and-dry', there aren't any significant "updates" to post on them. the updates are usually in the form of applications using technological developments, and existing tech. feel free to contribute.

99% of the existing teks make use of commonly available solvents.

skinning the cat is going well it seems , even as the animal shrieks in horror

don't forget to harvest its pineal

this is the righteous way of life

Haha well.. that technically *would* be considered an extraction now wouldn't it?

I'll pipe in here on the chloroform bit. There is nothing wrong with using chloroform in a tek with the necessary disclaimers and precautions, and so on and so forth, though it's not really that appropriate for this forum other than perhaps the advanced chemistry section.

The issue I have is that we should not be talking about synthesizing it in the public chat, this is clearly a violation of the rules regarding not talking about synthesizing potentially dangerous or watched chemicals. There are several other rule violations I have witnessed on this front as well, if you want to talk advanced chemical techniques please do it out of public view and in accordance with the rules, that's all we ask here.

While I'm at it, regarding the plethora of teks that are basically the same process, I think of it like recipes. The science of baking a cake is about as a cut and dry as the science of extracting dmt (or the science of baking a noodle as it were). However people all have their own tips, tricks, and techniques. Maybe some people want a vegan cake or an food safe extraction. I think being able to see how peple adapt the basic methodology to their ingredients and circumstances can be really helpful in devising your own method.

^ You made a mistake when you failed to notice that I agreed the nexus was not the place to discuss chloroform synthesis approximately 9 times. I can forgive the first one. But that still leaves approximately 8 other mistakes made in your part. I only offered the notion to depict the contrast over lye/naptha being watched/dangers when chloro is the one with a bad rep.

Anyway, I don't think I stepped out of the rules on that, I also asked for clarification from a couple mods, including Trav and nobody shot me back. In any case, if I was mistaken with that mindset, then I apologize for that.

The attitude will be toned down


Should we put a disclaimer on teks that use dangerous/hazardous chemicals? Maybe put a MSDS?

MSDS is often brand specific unless we're talking about pure chemicals. I don't like mentioning brand names because it endangers availability.

MSDS follows a standardized format, and while brand specific, it states known compounds and their physical constants. it keeps companies transparent.

What about the use of the Global Harmony System? It is a international standard that is becoming more common. It has a lot more detail, than just 4 numbers. It is more specific to safety precautions and in my opinion is more user friendly.

Wiki-Global Harmony System