I agree and I think that the utility could extend to far beyond just Phalaris.

Shouldn't this information be in a better subforum than "Welcome Area / FAQ"?

Moved to "DMT Discussion"

I'm going to phrase this as non rule breakingly as possible so others may see it through my eyes for a moment, and if it is too much information then moderators please edit my post:

A yield of ~88-90g very pure DMT through synthetic means with <1%nmt for a little more than 100$. 5MeO is not far behind. A route with phalaris w/ great separation that is even MORE cost effective. That's something rare.

But you are right, it is applicable through almost any extraction means. Chloroform is the choice solvent for this extraction. It also offers an isolation technique that may be exploitable with little effort.

Hmm, interesting, but also somewhat off-topic in this thread.

Safety is still an issue with many synthetic routes, not only in the sense of operational safety, like hazardous reagents and procedures, but also in the sense of purity of the end result. With synthetic routes, there are often many competing reactions and side products that must be meticulously filtered out of the crude reaction product. Then the final product must be analyzed for purity. This adds to the cost in terms of materials, time and expertise.

When extracting from natural sources with a know alkaloid profile, the above considerations are not so much of an issue. Unfortunately not all plant sources provide a clean extract, that is where the information from the original post is very useful.

PS: for private individuals, cost is not a very big issue. What is basically a hobbyist endeavor already requires such an investment in time learning and time doing that the cost of a small amount of reagents that are required for personal purposes is negligible . Availability and attainability of materials is a much bigger issue to the non-commercial private amateur.

PS2: I've been wondering for some time now, what a day of boiling L-tryptophan in lamp oil would do, and particularly, what would happen if after that, I would drop a good quantity of glycine betaine into the mix and continued boiling for some time. I've read interesting reports. It sounds reasonably safe to perform and pretty OTC too. Almost suitable to be discussed on the nexus...

A high yielding synthesis that dodges the pictet spengler methylation is completely possible. NMT is your only side reaction. But this is a topic for another day, at another time.

@your PS2:

It is possible to do a safe OTC synthesis that's most likely A-OK for the nexus. The consequences though would result in large scale DMT manufacture, it would increase public awareness of DMT, and un-watched reagents being watched. Allowing that information to become openly available jeopardizes all of that. To me that simply is not worth the risk.

But why bother mentally masturbating over fat piles of synthesized DMT when an alternate, simpler, and even easier route to isolated 5MeO/N,N-DMT is right here on this thread. Perhaps we should focus on this first hmm? I think this is what dreamer and Snozz were trying to get across.

although against a stationary phase, ethyl acetate would actually be preferred over dcm.
better yet, a ternary mixture of n-butanol, dilute ammonia, and ethyl acetate...would separate tryptamines rather nicely.

anything involving an acid during reductive methylation will cyclize the tryptamine, it is the catalyst.

Definitely better go a different route then. That pictet spengler ;/

That is very flattering, but not what I was hoping to hear. You see, when I first saw the Nexus, I was pretty amazed at how well structured the board is, and how dedicated it is towards research. I don't think there has been a board like this ever before, and it is an experimenters dream! Everything is neatly classified into threads and subfora, the color reagent thread alone is so informative and well-referenced that I was absolutely excited.

It is through the collaboration of everyone that a lot has been achieved, and we can only hope a lot more will be in the future. But dear Dreamer042, you state:


You see, some things can only be simplified to a certain extent. There is a limited amount of things you can do with mason jars and wine bottles. The goal is to keep things as accesible as possible, OTC as we say. But I don't see why a distillation setup or a column is not OTC. Nowadays with the internet these things are more accesible than ever, and even in the old days, it just took a trip to the local glass blower to buy one. Hell, in the old days I have even ordered a Soxhlet apparatus through my pharmacy. We have to get rid of this inane sort of paranoid thinking. Sometimes I want to shout: put down that joint and think logically, like normal people would. Learn about the other uses the required apparatus and chemicals have. I see people happily ordering fumaric acid, and then I think, a lot of these people don't want to order a distillation setup, which is in fact more "OTC" (home brewery, home perfumery).

Also, don't you guys enjoy the esthetics of working with real glassware? I can look at a distillation in progress for hours on end, so beautiful it is, and it beats television for sure. You know many of us search to obtain DMT and use it for the insights it gives. But these insights come from within yourself, you see things from different angles. We are experimenters, we yearn for a quest for knowledge. Then putting mason jars as a border severely limits this quest. Learn to distill. Learn to run a column. You will be amazed how rewarding it all is, the knowledge you obtain, the beauty of it all. And then you come rambling about mason jars to me, while you could also enjoy the rewards of the art of chemistry. (BTW In Dutch we also refer to chemistry as 'scheikunde', the art of separation).



Look, nobody will just mix bleach and acetone and heat on a stovetop because some clown on an internetforum said so. Part of our art is the search for a detailed procedure, it is important that we know what is happening for every step. Now instead of repeating a procedure here, we should better link to a forum where the home synthesis of chloroform has been perfected, where all caveats have been discussed along the way. There is only one really good forum for such a thing in my opinion and it is Sciencemadness.

Again, dear Dreamer042, you flatter me for my knowledge, and all the chemists on this board, but you forget, we were all where you are at some point. But I would be the most flattered if someday, Dreamer042 has become the chemist he never thought he would be, and he is distilling chloroform in a safe and responsible way in his basement, knowing exactly what he is doing, or he is showing his nephew the wonders of column chromatography, using the column he ordered on ebay or from the local glassblower years ago. Learn and experiment, and pass on the knowledge.

I wholeheartedly agree here. Spoonfeeding and over-simplifying to the point where you have a step-by-step manual avoiding the need to understanding what is going on can never be the goal, as that would be irresponsible and unprofessional as you say. It should be a quest for knowledge, being able to extract and purify DMT from plant matter should include learning the basics of every skill needed along that route. We should simplify only as such that someone who has a basic understanding of chemistry can work it out, but not a total noob. This isn't elitist, it is responsible. You mention the butane hash, I also know of a guy who has been very lucky as he tried evaporating on an open fire. People who don't have a clue about what is going on should not be able to do these things, they will end up hurting themselves and others.

It doesn't take that much to learn basic chemistry and laboratory skills. We should not promote lazyness, it is insulting to the art. If people don't want to invest the time and energy needed to acquire basic knowledge, I fail to see why they should be spoonfed and pampered. Again, it is insulting.

Very well put. This is what my post a few days ago was aiming towards.
Not that only chemists should be able to obtain & use dmt, rather that we should push here for the ones extracting to move away from a kitchen chemist attitude & to work to become more organized & proffessional about their extractions & the procedures used.
Mason jars may be fine as a start, but after moving past the initial experimentation phase & deciding whether or not dmt is something they like, members should strive to improve not only their knowledge base, but the tools they use, the purity of their products, & they way they go about keeping themselves out of hot water when continuing to use & extract dmt by putting together legitimate projects & uses for all the things they have.

To put it another way that may be more suitable for some here, i'll liken kitchen chemistry to growinf mushrooms.
Jars & bottles being PFtek.
PF tek cakes are great for learning & starting out, but you wouldn't stick with PF cakes forever when your fully able to move on to isolating strains & cloning more potent fruits would you?
You'd more than likely invest the time & energy for better equipment & higher quality mushrooms.
So, why not apply that same concept to dmt?

I agree to the extent that it is better not to take unnecessary risks. For example a herbalist might want to order a tabletting machine but it would be very unwise for any criminal to do so. This is of course a painfully obvious example. Better would be eg. ordering chemicals like bromine or nitroethane, the aqcuisition of large-sized specialty glassware like a 10 liter 3-neck roundbottom flask. It is here we have to assess the possible risk, and do so in a clear-headed manner. I have nothing against people who smoke weed all the time, I have done so myself at one time, but I know that in those days I was overly paranoid and made decisions that were warped and exagerrated. Also, for example using a turkey blaster instead of a separation funnel can be hazardous when working with flammable solvents. Enfin you catch my drift and I agree mostly with what you said.

I just like to point out that as small-scale experimenters who are in it for the knowledge and the experience, not for commercial purposes, we have a lot of advantage as we don't need glassware of large volumes (I'd say everything over 5 liter is watched and suspect, and I doubt we will ever need more than a liter flask or sep funnel), and only small amounts of chemicals. It's always a good idea to look at what a commercial speed or MDMA lab needs to keep running. Of course I realize in the USA in certain states, meth heads who also run small scale jobs have kind of ruined it for us, I believe in Texas you can't even get a three-neck RBF of any size. Everyone needs to do his or her homework to local laws and costum, but still I think that for most of our purposes we can do with just a healthy caution without becoming too paranoid. Paranoia ruins the fun anyway

I would be very interested to hear about this. I know that synthesis talk is pushing the limits of the rules here, but I will say to you just an outline of my project. Due to Pictet-Spengler I have abandoned the search of a synthesis starting from tryptamine (so I would be very interested in hearing you proving me wrong, privately of course). But I have come across what looks like a very nice and practically OTC route from indole-3-acetic acid, a common plant hormone that is cheap and freely available. I will just say it involves preparing the amide through the ester, and reducing the amide electrochemically. I have references for the last step, and can tell you it follows a "classic" electroreduction by using high overvoltage cathodes (<--> electrochemical hydrogenation). Indoline formation is not a problem, no watched or listed chemicals are needed. But I will shut up until there has been an experiment.

Exactly, I couldn't agree more. This is what I meant when I stated what I felt the first time I saw this board. The professional way of organisation, of the plants, the colour reagents, diverse techniques, of this very board should reflect the way we proceed with our experiments. I can't add anything to what you stated, and it should be the attitude to follow.

Your mushroom analogy hold a lot of truth btw, I can remember when I first tried the PF-tek, now only two days ago I finished making my own laminar flow hood.

I feel like very little of what I said was taken into consideration in reply to dreamer. So, I'm going to selectively quote myself and offer a few more thoughts


I'm all for people acquiring and learning how to use distillation rigs and columns. Personally, I think that will only serve the benefit of the community. However, I would ask you to keep in mind that:





The following is from an American perspective, and it's worth noting that something like 50%+ of this board's traffic is American, iirc.




To reemphasize...this isn't about limiting people's chemistry knowledge, but maximizing the overall safety for the people who visit this site. See my points re: the lowest common denominator. I don't deny that chemistry can be beautiful (nor do I think dreamer would...his TLC plates are quite pretty), however, we have other responsibilities that, imo, trump a focus on getting people excited for more advanced chemistry. I'm in no way opposed to encouraging people to pursue more advanced chemical understandings and I think it would benefit us immensely. There are other places where these conversations can be had in-depth, this is simply not the place for all of them.


Unfortunately, you're wrong. It pains me to say this, but it's simply the way things are. We've had members call ambulances after drinking ayahuasca that was acidified with significant amounts of phosphoric acid, we've had members blow their eyebrows off after other members advised them to reduce solvents on a kitchen stove, we've had members who have tasted lye solution (because they were out of pH strips), and much more. We've seen that people will do just about anything, even when you take the time to clearly explain what they are doing and make numerous threads about it.

This is why dreamer and I are responding in the manner that we are. Harm reduction trumps just about everything else here. Many of us don't have really-existing communities where we can take people under our wing and help mentor them through this stuff. Unfortunately, this means that to some degree we restrict what is publicly up for discussion on this site. I can understand why this could cause more experienced/professional chemists dismay and make them feel like we are limiting people from experiencing the true beauty of chemistry.

Personally...I'm ok with that perception if it means even one less terror-stricken ambulance ride from someone who didn't take the time to read carefully and fully engage with what they read here. Obviously we're never going to make this 100% safe, but I think we do bear the burden of responsibility when it comes to setting the level for acceptable discussion.

I hope this makes sense given the context of an international discussion board with 32,000 registered members and significantly more non-registered visitors

Please don't misunderstand or think that I emphasize not researching or spoon-feeding. I've spent many many years on this board researching, guiding, teaching. I'm intimately familiar with traditional extraction methods. I understand how a column works and the basic process of distillation. I've run dozens of thin layer chromatography plates and have taught hundreds of people how to extract alkaloids safely using a wide variety of methods, both traditional and non-traditional.

Despite having a reasonable level of chemical education and experience, I don't want to be a chemist. I choose not to keep any labware in my home, opting instead to do my work in mason jars. I have a completely unfounded and arbitrary petrophobia and a completely spurious hippie idealism that has led me to dedicate many years to exploring alternative methodologies that utilize only food grade materials. I use chemistry as a simple means to an end, as do the majority of the people that visit this forum. I've only learned as much chemistry as I have in order to discover ways to make it simpler, safer, and more readily available to the person with absolutely no chemical education and in that, I, cooperatively with many other members of this forum with similar ideals have been quite successful.

I also think you underestimate how impulsive and reckless many people can be. We've had plenty of people on this forum nearly burn their houses down doing silly things like heating solvents on open flames. Yes people should practice common sense, yes people should educate themselves and have a basic foundation in safety, particularly when they are attempting to engage in chemical extractions. The simple fact of the matter is sometimes they just don't, and that's why we need to take excessive precautions and maintain an extremely strong focus on harm reduction, please remember that this forum gets thousands of diverse visitors from around the world with a variety of educational backgrounds and skill levels.

If your calling is chemistry, that's awesome! You do your chemist thing! It's a bit much to expect everyone else on this forum to purchase labware and understand how to safely perform chemical synthesis however when the majority of them only want to learn the very simplest route to extract DMT so they can try this exotic compound they've heard so much about.

Now I don't want to dismiss the information you've presented here. This is a very valuable contribution to the forum, and while it's somewhat out of the immediate reach of the majority of our membership without requiring a fair bit of investment, it is very useful for those with the knowledge, resources, and desire to put it to use.

In keeping in line with my quest for finding easier and more accessible alternative routes however, allow me to make the Phalaris bit very very simple. Reasonably pure DMT can be extracted from commercially available Phalaris arundinacea var. Big Medicine and var. Yugo Red and Phalaris Aquatica var. AQ1 and reasonably pure 5-MEO-DMT can be extracted from Phalaris Arundinacea var. Turkey Red via a simple A/B extraction. Now isn't that easy?

I agree but I can't help thinking that eg. an ayahuasca session hold much more risk than to perform a simple distillation. Again I understand your feelings towards the inherent dangers of people who thoughtlessly engage in chemistry-related ventures and get harmed along the way. Somebody already mentioned hash-butane extraction mishaps. But I feel that merely the ingestion of DMT, and especially in combination with MAO inhibitors holds a lot more potential danger than performing a simple distillation. There will always be people who swear they can eye-ball the amount instead of using a scale. No matter what you do in regards of harm reduction, there will be people who harm themselves with ayahuasca analogues. There will always be one and he or she will probably catch the newspaper headlines.

The thing is, where do we draw the line? Always remember that in comparision we are discussing things like ayahuasca analogues, that can be pretty dangerous when done wrong, and you can do everything harm reduction expects, still there will be accidents, it takes only one really.

The analogy towards chemistry is readily made.

Hypothetically...

So I read on this internet forum where the supposed experts are that I must use chloroform to extract DMT or else I am not doing it right. I went to the local pharmacy to ask for chloroform but all I got was suspicious looks. Some of the experts say that it is very easy to make your own chloroform from bleach and acetone. Great! So I buy myself a bottle of nail polish remover and a bottle of bleach from the supermarket. Filled half the bottle with bleach and the rest with acetone. It doesn't work!?

So after some complaining I got some clues from the experts, use less acetone and more bleach. Well all right, got me some chloroform finally! But it's only so little chloroform, I can't do any serious extracting with just a few drops of chloroform. Must scale this up.

So I find a 25 liter glass wine making jug in a second hand store. The lady at the supermarket counter looked quite puzzled when she asked what I was going to do with all the bleach bottles in the supermarket. Told her about my compulsive neurosis and hygiene obsession, she didn't look very convinced though. At least the yield is a bit more rewarding this time, but I'm still not satisfied.

At the hardware store, they're selling 5 liter jugs of 18% bleach. Yeah, that's the stuff I need instead of the weak supermarket bleach! Back home, I fill up the 25 liter jug with the 18% stuff and empty a liter of acetone into it....

Despite the above rhetorics, I agree that this forum needs to be a place where more complex matters, more complex operations and even more complex chemical operations can be proposed and discussed.

At the same time, it is not a chemistry forum in general. The average user is chemically naive. And will be. I really hope that some become interested in the underlying principles of extractions and the more subtle complexity of chemistry in general. But most will not. They do not have the time or money or interest for it. Nobody has the right to demand they do.

I do see that it is not only advanced chemical operations that can bring danger. Handling flammable solvents and caustic lye can also cause personal disasters. There is however an important difference between incidents that happen with "common" chemicals and those that involve "lab" chemicals.

On a few occasions I have taught people how to extract hash oil with butane. Always have I given them stern warnings about the flammability of the butane and emphasized that the procedure must be performed outside and well away from sources of ignition. I tell them that butane is a common propellant and that accidents happen all the time, eg people putting on hairspray in a small closet while smoking a cigarette. But those accidents are explainable to the police and the fire brigade. Accidents involving the extraction hash oil are looked upon very differently. IMHO this consideration is not "stoner paranoia".

DMT-Nexus is primarily about DMT and DMT-related subjects like ayahuasca. There are some inherent risks involved in the extraction and consumption of these substances. We want to minimize the risk / reward ratio. We tell people to keep the use private, to reduce risks. We tell people to keep extractions simple, to reduce risks. Adding risks from more complex chemical operations makes no sense for the common user in terms of risk management. It might make sense in specific research areas, but these are not the common denominator, general purpose areas that need most attention. I feel we need to maintain clear distinction between what is general purpose all user tek and what is specialized research discussion. Only then can we discuss the more complex or risky subjects responsibly.