Torhoo onion mirror : torhoocc3yugradvhrppml2fin4xob7kgg7uf42s4xk7p6r5vzy62ead.onion

Definitive Guide on R(-) vs S(+) vs Racemic + a New Easy-to-do Test (w/Pics) : ketamine | Torhoo darknet markets

One of the biggest sources of controversy and confusion among ketamine users is the enantiomers (aka optical isomers). Not only does ketamine come in multiple different forms (powder/sugar, rocks, needles, etc) on a molecular level it has two enantiomers and a racemic form. I wrote this post to serve as a definitive guide that will resolve any confusion about the effects and appearance of the enantiomers and racemate, as well as providing an easy test that anyone can do at home to determine if a sample is racemic or enantiopure (pure R or S).

1.) EXPLANATION OF WHAT ENANTIOMERS ARE AND SOME BACKGROUND

I won't get too into the specifics but for those who aren't familiar, in simple terms enantiomers come in left-handed/levorotary and right-handed/dextrorotary forms, most commonly referred to as with the nomenclature R(-) and S(+) respectively. They're the versions of a molecule where a certain atom (known as a chiral center) has the bonded atoms/functional groups arranged in such a way to where there are two variations that are mirror reflections of one another. Human hands are the most common analogy used when explaining the concept.

When a compound has an equal mixture of R and S enantiomer, it's said to be racemic.

Enantiomers also have the unique property of rotating plane polarized light when it's passed through them, with R(-) rotating the light counterclockwise (levorotary), and S(+) clockwise (dextrorotary) when plane polarized light is passed through a compound and observed to be rotated, the sample is said to have optical activity. An optically active sample indicates an enantiopure sample (pure R or S), or a mix in an unequal ratio. Forget about the latter form for our purposes though.

In the case of the racemate, there is no rotation because the R and S components have an equal amount of rotation in opposite directions, so the result is no net rotation and an optically inactive sample.

2.) COMPARISON OF R, S, and RACEMIC

2a) Physical Appearance:

R(-) / Arketamine: Cubic crystals (picture large grains of salt or sugar). Ketamine that looks like this is ALWAYS (R)(-). [1] See image 1 for example and see Section 2.9 "Resolution of R(-) Ketamine" of reference 1 for a peer-reviewed justification of this claim. Quote below is from the reference, where very well-formed cubic crystals of the R isomer tartrate were grown over multiple days of slow growth.

After sitting for several days, the large transparent cubic salt-like crystalline clusers were then collected[...]

S(+) / Esketamine: Rod shaped crystals (aka needles). Ketamine that looks like this is ALWAYS (S)(+). [1] See image 2 for example and see Section 2.9 "Resolution of S(+) Ketamine" of reference paper 1 for a peer-reviewed justification of this claim.

Having either of the two crystal forms above is the only time you can conclude with 100% certainty which isomer you have just from appearance alone, and without using any other methods.

Rocks: Usually racemic, but large clusters of R can resemble rocks (see image 1a), and S can form large crystals under the right conditions. Being enantiopure they will still retain some semblance of the geometry their smaller counterparts have. For example large well-formed S(+) Ketamine crystals form long shards (see image 2b), as does S(+) dextromethamphetamine, as opposed to amorphous rocks. However, if crystals form quickly under poor conditions for crystal formation, like rapid evaporation of a very concentrated solution, then the result can resemble rocks. It's also worth noting that broken up crystals can resemble rocks.

The takeaway from this is that while it's a safe starting assumption that rocks are racemic, it's not a guaranteed way of identification in the same way that the cubic and rod crystal geometries are identifiers of the R(-) and S(+).

Powder: Could be any of the above but is most commonly going to be racemic or S (only because R is the least common).

*Updated and revised as of 2024* Racemic Conglomerate: It is also possible for racemic ketamine to appear as a mechanical mixture of both crystals shapes. There is a clear difference if compared to the consistent rod/needle (or blade at larger sizes) shaped crystals that pure S exhibits. Again, when in doubt if you can't recognize a consistent geometric pattern then do not make any conclusive assertions without further evidence.

NOTE: All of the above descriptions are for salts of ketamine, ketamine is almost always found as a hydrochloride salt, but this descriptions also apply to tartrates, etc.

2b) Effects:

R(-): R isn't a very potent disassociative or anaesthetic, and while it does induce an anaesthetic state at sufficient doses, it's unable to produce sufficent EEG activity suppression even when administered at even large doses.[3] Despite being weaker, studies have indicated that it's the most potent antidepressant[4], this has caused some confusion because people confuse the papers reporting on the antidepressant potency with actual disassociative potency. R gives more of a drowsy, lethargic feeling and is associated with greater impairment to cognitive function, causing more of a muddled headspace and more loss of muscle control and coordination. It also has a longer recovery to baseline compared to S.

S(+): is the most potent form. It's more of a psychedelic experience (psychomimetic side effects), has faster recovery time, less cognitive impairment and drowsiness with a clearer, less confusing headspace, and more dopaminergic activity. It's associated with having more recreational value and a higher potential for abuse. S is 4x as potent as R and is 2-2.5x as strong as racemic[3][4].

Racemic: As you might imagine, racemic is less potent than S but more than R, it has disassociative effects and is able to produce EEG suppression, though not to the same degree as S[3]. Racemic is considered to be less recreational than S and lacks the psychomimetic/psychedelic effects of S. However what's counterintuitive is that the effects of racemate last significantly longer than either R or S (up to around 40% longer) due to a phenomena called competitive metabolic inhibition. This phenomena is also why taking 100mg of a racemate drug does not produce the same strength and effects as 50mg of S, despite both doses containing the same mass of S(+).

3.) SIMPLE TEST TO DETERMINE IF A SAMPLE IS ENANTIOPURE OR RACEMIC:

This is an easy test I came up with that will allow you to determine whether a sample is racemic or enantiopure. It doesn't differentiate between R or S and is pretty rudamentary, but it works pretty well for what it is. All you have to do is put a bit of the sample in a shotglass, cover it with a little acetone, and then place the shotglass on top of a smart phone** with a flashlight app on so that it's lighting up the screen with white light (smart phones emit linearly-polarized light). Then hold a polarized sunglass lense above the shotglass and while looking down through it at the sample rotate the lense until you have found the right angle, you'll know it because the phone light coming in around the shotglass will go from looking white to look dark blue (see images 4, 5, 6). This is the optical extinction point.

Samples with optical activity will appear very bright and illuminated (see image 4, 6) as if glowing, while non-optically active and racemic samples appear more dull. See images 5, 5, and 6 for examples

**NOTE: Your smartphone can't have one of the tempered glass or plastic covers on it, if it has one you'll want to remove it in order for this to really work. Liquid screen protector is OK and this will still work, it's actually on the phone in the example photos.

This test is similar to an existing device called I2R polarimeter (written with the 2 as a superscript like I^2R). The path length of the polarimeter is vertical and you don't need to use a d-line lamp for the light source like you would when making accurate measurements with a half shade polarimeter.

The principle of polarimetry is often demonstrated using a solution of sucrose and a polarizing film, which fills the same role as the sunglasses lense.

It is able to differentiate between enantiomers if you have reference samples. On the other hand, if you somehow are in a situation where you know you have either pure R or pure S but aren't sure which, try growing some crystals via a slow method like evaporation and check the geometry.

As an added note about the test: I opted for using a thin layer of crystals instead of a solution because a solution would have to be very concentrated due to the small path for the light and would require dissolving multiple grams.

4.) IMAGES (Note: all onion links were updated as of mid 2024. A few minor changes to the pics were also made.)

Image 0: Racemic as obvious mixture of both R and S crystals:
⚠️Image 0 onion host (2024)⚠️

Image 0a: Racemic mixture with sand-like granules - sold as S(+) Needles (one of the most common mixups!):
⚠️Image 0a onion host (2024)⚠️

Image 1: R(-) Ketamine:
⚠️Image 1 onion host (2024)⚠️

Image 1a: R(-) Ketamine - cubes and some larger clusters:
⚠️Image 1a onion host (2024)⚠️

Image 2: S(+) Ketamine:
⚠️Image 2 onion host (2024)⚠️

Image 2a: S(+) Ketamine in bag:
⚠️Image 2a onion host (2024)⚠️

Image 2b: Larger S(+) Crystals (uncommon). Notice they start to have more of a blade/needle shape at this size:
⚠️Image 2b onion host (2024)⚠️

Image 3: Ketamine Rocks:
⚠️Image 3 onion host (2024)⚠️

Image 4: Test Result for S(+):
⚠️Image 4 onion host (2024)⚠️

Image 5: Test Result for Racemic:
⚠️Image 5 onion host (2024)⚠️

Image 6: Comparison of multiple test results done on various compounds:
⚠️Image 6 onion host (2024)⚠️

5.) REFERENCES

[1] Wallach J., Gamrat J., Jauhola-Straight R., Becker J., Eckrich T. "Three Birds, One Excipient: Development of an Improved pH, Isotonic, and Buffered Ketamine Formulation for Subcutaneous Injection" Pharmaceutics 2022, 14, 556.

[2] Zhang J., Li S., Hasimoto K. "R (−)-ketamine shows greater potency and longer lasting antidepressant effects than S (+)-ketamine" Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior 116 (2014) 137-141

[3] P. F. White, J. Schuttler, A. Shafer, D. R. Stanski, Y. Horai, A. J. Trevor "Comparative Pharmacology of the Ketamine Isomers" British Journal of Anaesthesia (1985),57,197-203

[4] Muller J. Pentyala Sah., Dilger J., Pentyala Sri. "Ketamine enantiomers in the rapid and sustained antidepressant effects" Therapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology (2016) 1–8

[5] Domino, E. "Taming the ketamine tiger" Anesthesiology 113 (2010): 678–686

[6] Iadarola N., Niciu M., Richards E., Vande Voort J., Ballard E., Lundin N. et al. "Ketamine and other N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonists in the treatment of Depression: a perspective review" Therapeutic Advances in Chronic Disease 6 (2015): 97–114

/u/[deleted]

3 points

10 months ago

R and S are mirror images. It makes no sense that they would form different crystals

/u/socat2me 📢

1 points

9 months ago

They're not mirror images, what you're referring to is a concept used to help visualize and explain enantiomers, but you're missing the most important part of that phrase which is that which is that they're non-superimposable mirror images.

The spatial arrangement of the atoms around the chiral center are different. The packing and electrical interactions are also different. They don't even have the same biological activity because they fit into the enzyme differently.

Now, since these are hydrochloride salts you're throwing a proton and a chloride ion. Hopefully you can see why it wouldn't make sense to just assume they would have the same crystal structure.

Plus, you know, there's also all the academic publications I cited.

/u/Sporkington

1 points

8 months ago*

They ARE mirror images... They are chiral! What are you talking about???

Since the molecules are mirror images, their crystal structures are also mirror images. ⚠️Here is an illustration.⚠️ Source:

Crystals of dextrorotatory and levorotatory enantiomers are mirror images of each other (as crystals as well as molecules)

You've pointed out that the spatial arrangements of the atoms are different. However, those spatial arrangements are functionally identical due to symmetry (mirror images). Source:

In a chiral molecule, the atoms have exactly the same relative positions with respect to interatomic distances and interactions as they have in its enantiomer. The two enantiomers are thus isometric to each other and in achiral media, behave in identical fashion, as if they were homomers (any two structures which are superposable are called homomers). Thus enantiomers have the same melting points, boiling points, densities, solubilities, refractive indices, dipole moments, etc., and the same thermodynamic and spectroscopic properties

Enantiomers only behave differently when they interact with chiral objects or chiral environments. Since the receptors in your brain are chiral, enantiomers can have different biological activity.

Since the HCL salts of ketamine are enantiomers, the crystals are mirror images.

Plus, you know, there's also all the academic publications I cited.

Really?!? Your post makes these claims about the crystal structure:

Cubic crystals (picture large grains of salt or sugar). Ketamine that looks like this is ALWAYS (R)(-). [1] See [...] reference 1 for a peer-reviewed justification of this claim.

Rod shaped crystals (aka needles). Ketamine that looks like this is ALWAYS (S)(+). [1] See [...] reference paper 1 for a peer-reviewed justification of this claim

But the source you cited doesn't make or justify either claim! What is going on??? How high were you when you wrote this?

Elsewhere in these comments, you say:

the crystal geometry is known to be different for the enantiomers. This is not uncommon at all in chemistry.

If this is true, why haven't you provided any examples?

/u/biscuitofeternalcrunch

1 points

2 years ago

Interesting. No idea what to think about this whole controversy.

Do you know if R- and S+ would have different tolerances, to some extent?

/u/socat2me 📢

1 points

2 years ago

There would be a cross tolerance, in that developing a tolerance to one would also equate to having a tolerance to the other if that answers your question.

/u/biscuitofeternalcrunch

1 points

2 years ago*

Yeah, it does, and not a surprise. I'm fairly new to the world of K, believed the hype about S-isomer vs racemic when first seeking it out online, then saw people saying it was mostly bullshit, that it's (practically) all racemic.

What confuses me is that I've used stuff by Rambo - their normal ket, and their racemic, which they described as rare. It was very powerful stuff - seems a lot easier to fall into a K-hole on, more physical, less 'psychedelic' for lack of a better word (I was expecting the reverse to be true if anything, based on what a friend had said - so it's hard for me to put this all down to placebo effect), and I need a significantly smaller dose to get big effects. Some would say this was just very good ketamine - it's all racemic really but this stuff was just very good racemic. But it was actually cheaper than their standard ketamine - so that doesn't seem to add up either. Also, and this could just be placebo, but I prefer the S-isomer, despite having to take more of it, because it seems I can get more of the mental effects while still being able to function physically.

I don't know what to think about this really. I just asked about tolerances in case it was possible I'd built up a tolerance to S-isomer, but not racemic, which might go some way to explaining what's going on there.

/u/socat2me 📢

2 points

2 years ago

Most K is definitely racemic, while I've had S as a powder before as a rule of thumb I'd start off with the assumption that anything is racemic unless you have K that's actually all rod-shaped crystals (there was a lot of stuff going around that was sold as S needles but was a mixture of crystals, if there's little rocks and sand looking crystals in there too then it's not actual pure S).

Unless you do the ghetto polarimetry test described above, or have experience dosing while knowing with certainty which one you're taking then it can be very confusing to try to determine which one you have subjectively. Most dealers don't actually know which one they have, which I don't fault them for because without having some kind of a background in chemistry and experience dealing with them, enantiomers are a confusing topic. Especially because there hasn't been a quantitative test that you can use that doesn't involve advanced lab equipment.

Luckily the pure enantiomers do form unique crystal geometry, a sample of pure cubic crystals will always be R(-), and a sample of pure needle/rod crystals will always be S(+). Anything else you can't be 100% sure, but you can pretty much assume it's racemic and be right most of the time.

Objectively, S is always the strongest one though, It has 4x the binding affinity at the NMDA receptor sites compared R, so you can see how racemic--a 50/50 mix--would only be around half the strength (actually less since the R is competing for the same receptor sites).

/u/biscuitofeternalcrunch

1 points

2 years ago

Interesting. I'm inclined to believe you, but am still left confused because it doesn't tally with my experience at all. The racemic ketamine I have was sold as a very fine powder, the S-isomer as shards - so that adds up at least. The racemic is certainly more likely to have you K-holing though. I wonder what's going on there.

Anyway, do you believe S+ ketamine is reasonably common on the black market then? I've seen many say it's almost non-existent on the black market. For example, point 7 on the post below, claims it's complex, time-consuming and expensive to separate the isomers, so no incentive for dealers to do it? /post/ec30ab8e220833d054cc

Also final point - you said it's difficult to tell the difference between the isomers without lab equipment (or now, your optical activity test), but you also said that any pure needle/rod crystals are always S+? Isn't the latter quite an easy way to tell, or is the point here that even if you had S+ probably some of it will have broken up in which case the safest bet would be to assume it's racemic?

/u/TimothyWeary

1 points

2 years ago

What I'd like to know is, since 99% of vendors claim to have S+, where is all the R- going?

/u/socat2me 📢

2 points

2 years ago*

The R enantiomer is much less common for a number of reasons. In order to obtain S ia very common process for separating enantiomers is used, where first racemic ketamine is synthesized and then while it's still in free base form L-(+)-tartaric acid is used to form ketamine tartrate salts, which have different solubility profiles so they can be separated out by recrystallization with the right solvents, with the S(+)-ketamine tartrate crystals precipitating out while the R(-) tartrate remains in solution.

At this point the S is separated and converted to the hydrochloride salt, while the remaining solution containing the R would usually be either discarded or--obviously much more commonly--sent for further processing and separation to recover the R.

However, the reason the R isn't commonly seen is simply that there is much less of a demand for it. It's much less recreational, has only half the potency of the racemate, and a quarter of the potency of S. It's also not effective as an anesthetic, so it's really only used for niche things like research purposes. The result is it just doesn't make it's way around the way the S and racemic do.

And of course, for clandestine syntheses the answer is pretty simple which is that most people running a clandestine lab aren't willing to go through all the extra steps of resolving the enantiomers, especially when the end result means sacrificing 50% of their yield to separate out the S since again, there isn't much of a demand for the R alone.

That being said, it does happen. I've seen the R before. Strangely enough the first time I did ketamine it was R (large cubes). It's just quite rare.

In regards to the claims of vendors, most of them are mistaken about which kind they have, since they're often just relaying the information that was given to them. I imagine most aren't sourcing it directly from a lab or manufacturer that can tell them with certainty which one it is. Of course, the other explanation is just marketing, the same way all vendors claim to have super high purity cocaine.

/u/Therude

1 points

2 years ago

Ketamin vials for k hole you advice Ror S?

/u/tigrouxpr

1 points

7 months ago

my advice for best k-hole : be far from alcool. At least one week, the best more than 6 month

/u/borat

1 points

1 year ago*

The extra stimulation from dopamine from s ketamine makes it harder to go into a k hole than the more sedating effects of racemic. And there is definitely different kinds going around. Its not all racemic. I've been doing k since 2004 off and on. Back then it was all pharmaceutical and all racemic and was much easier to go into a k hole. More tranquilizing and I prefer racemic because it doesn't keep me up all night, feels more medicinal and is way way more of an antidepressant. Wheras s can actually cause me to have come downs with depression due to its ability to increase dopamine so much
Kinda like how pcp is way way more potent as an nmda receptor antagonist but harder to go into k wholes due to the stimulation caused by its d2 dopamine receptor reuptake . Just a walking blackout/uncomfortable and imo unsafe wholes ususually, but it still possible to go into p holes.lol. I just don't think they are pleasant or safe. I don't think stimulating dissos are best for seeking k wholes. Imo dissos with OXO and PCMs are the best candidates ie ketamine, dck, 2fdck ect. I mean dck was real easy as it still had an oxo and a PCM ( 2-oxo-pcm) just the chlorine atom removed hence deschloro, making it both more potent, and longer acting, plus they weren't separating isomers so it was racemic, like 2fdck. I believe, I am not an expert in chemistry ( I wonder what s isomer dck or s isomer 2f would be like!Lol.)Also racemic k has some sigma activity due to the r. Like pcp does which gives it a different character. *I am not an expert in chemistry, I mainly study neuropharmacology due to pure interest and curiosity, as I have found the brain fascinating. and I know this was related to k but I believe the info still relates as he didn't understand why racemic was easier for him to go into k holes on than s isomer, even though it is more potent as an nmda antagonist

/u/silentbobby

1 points

2 years ago

Wow, that seems like a very accessible test, nice work!

I suppose you should be able to determine R/S based on which direction you need to rotate the lenses right? I think that if you start blocking out the screen and need to rotate clockwise to block out the substance then it's S and if you need to rotate counterclockwise then it's R. As long as your angle is a fair bit under 90 degrees I imagine that would work? I'll give it a try myself soon

/u/socat2me 📢

2 points

2 years ago

I can't say with 100% certainty, since I haven't tried it with a sample of pure R yet, but one thing to note is that I've found that the rotational angle of the lense that creates maximum blockage of the light from the screen--which also is where the optically active sample is the brightest due to the contrast--depends on the smart phone (and perhaps the sunglasses lense too although I just have one pair).

One phone I tested it with, the angle was about 45degrees counterclockwise for blocking, and the other it was 45degrees clockwise.

However, if you had a reference sample that you know for sure to be S and did the test with an R sample side by side, it's possible there would be some kind of observable difference.

Failing that though, if you confirm the sample is optically active and you aren't sure which it is, you can dissolve some (between 25-100mg) in a solvent (even distilled water works but it will take a long time to evaporate) and leave it undisturbed in a shotglass until all the solvent evaporates (slow evaporation means better crystal formation). You'll end up with crystals this way.

If the sample was optically active, you'll either get R crystals (cubic geometry like big salt/sugar crystals or rock candy) or S (needles/shards).

/u/moosenucks01

1 points

2 years ago

i dont know if this is 100% always accurate. for one, i have definitely had S that was a fine powder. its usually that long shard but i have had very similar looking racemic.

also, the modern way of making S is not by making racemic and separating it into s and r. they can make S with no R from the start. I havent seen those R cubes since like 2014 before k was regulated in india

/u/socat2me 📢

1 points

2 years ago*

Any claims in the post I based on information from peer-reviewed academic journals that I included inline citations for (and just from my own background in chemistry). S can be a powder too it's just that the rod/needle crystal geometry is only found with S(+).

And you are correct these days a lot of manufacturing scale synthesis of chiral compounds is just done with asymmetric synthesis, they start with a chiral substrate or they have some catalytic reaction with high enantioselectivity.

However since both racemic and S(+) are used in medicine most plants are going to be synthesizing racemic ketamine. They may not be using the original 1962 method of making racemic K, they're using a catalytic method and everything is optimized, but they're still making racemic. From a process design standpoint starting by synthesizing racemic and resolving the enantiomers is just the most cost effective way of producing both racemic and S(+) using the same unit ops because you can do it in parallel as opposed to running two separate reactions for racemic and S(+). You just make racemic and then using the resulting product as the starting material for the S(+).

It's important to mention that in a manufacturing environment R(-) can be converted back to the racemate through a racemization reaction using heat, so using recycle streams you can start with racemic and actually convert it entirely to all S(+) without ending up with any R at all, if that's the end goal.

I didn't mention that in my comment below where I was talking about resolving the enantiomers. I was talking in terms of clandestine synthesis and referred to people discarding R, I'll have to edit it to be more clear

/u/cablebanagement

1 points

1 year ago

Thank you so much for sharing all this. You and your knowlege here is a blessing and much needed respite on a place like dread.

I do have a question though that I've been trying to wrap my head around. I feel like a lot of people are mixing other synthetics that pass the look/feel/taste test to bulk their sales.

How difficult of a process would it be to isolate pure ketamine, sort of like an acetone wash for coke?

/u/azfphree

1 points

2 years ago

images 4 and 5 onion links are the same

/u/socat2me 📢

1 points

2 years ago

Thanks for pointing that out, fixed.

/u/ZmearCampain

1 points

2 years ago

This is extremely interesting and explains a lot about the divergence in effects I've experienced over the years. Do you know which of the 3 forms is used in the medical setting treatment of depression and at what dose? You note that there's some evidence R- has the best anti-depressant effect but you noted in one of the comments that S+ and racemic both have medical applications.

I'm personally more fond of the trippy / psychedelic effects that are a bit like a kaleidoscope when you close your eyes, which I believe is the S+ and (purely from my experience) I assumed the R- was a more anesthetic variant as it makes me heavy, disorientated with poor motor control.

Do all 3 have notable anti-depressant properties?
Can all 3 put someone in a K hole?

Thank you for the post.

/u/Saint_Of_LostCauses

1 points

1 year ago

/u/socat2me Wow. Impressive post. Very informative and interesting!

/u/MathMatix

1 points

1 year ago

where did u get this info. i have had tons of pharm ket. never had anyting but racemic (ketaset, ketaject, ketavet, ketalin, anasket) all sealed. some purchased at vets (over border). alot of pics dont look like anything ever seen b4 that i have cooked or air dried etc. not saying this is not legit info. also heard s ket can only come from J&J stock. but they r known to be dirty so not saying its not possible. is this lab made ket maybe ? or i guess not from pharm bottles ? or maybe i just have not seen. would be good to post a pic of reg pharm grade thats been cooked and air dried though weather cooked or air dried basically look the same. hope well and thx for post

/u/easydoesitnow

1 points

1 year ago

Love this post, learned a ton. Thank you for taking the time to post this, and best of all, include references.

Quick question regarding the potency of each form. You stated that R has half the potency of racemic and a quarter potency of S. Add to the fact it's less dissasociave, this makes R more rare. Is it fair to assume that R would be better to take on a semi-consistent basis, given all else being equal? I do have depression, and am wondering if I should try to hunt down some R to see if it would help in that arena, while also giving a party experience if a higher dose is taken.

Does anyone have experience with taking R for depresssion, and also using it a few times a month in higher quantities? Or would it just be best to try R for depression, and then switching to S when I want a fun night?

/u/Therude

1 points

1 year ago

Vetaketam from Pharmastate is Isomer R or S ?

/u/MathMatix

1 points

1 year ago

Most of all ketamine is the combination of both s and r not separated. Ketamine hydrochloride has both like all K does outside of spravoto (just s-ket). this post I think is trick people who do not know about ketamine and make tons of cash off research chemical dissociates . . . . . Ket is a clear liquid that if heated or air dried etc will become a white powder. can def have chunks and pieces etc but is def a white substance. LOOK IT UP. any1 heard of chemistry b4 ??? :^)

/u/MathMatix

1 points

1 year ago

in short its both and if can get and is sealed its legit regular ketamine special K

/u/Therude

1 points

1 year ago

Great mate but you know anyone has ketamin vials isomer s like Eletamin pharma quality?

/u/MathMatix

1 points

1 year ago

No sir only have seen the replicated vials on DNM at least for USA domestic that is legit though not pharma and they come sealed. have tried looking worldwide also and donmt seem 2 see any. sorry and GL. also if u find legit sealed vials of ket please lmk would be interested.

/u/BostonRobotnick

1 points

1 year ago

Has anyone seen the R isomer being sold as the S isomer? I suppose it would be possible to break the needles into small cubes, just not sure if this would be worth the effort.

/u/TrippyTuesdays P Vendor

1 points

1 year ago

Good read! Thanks

/u/MrHofmann

1 points

1 year ago

Thank you :)

/u/dianaladriss

1 points

1 year ago

Hey /u/socat2me thank you for this, it is extremely helpful! Is it possible that you update the links to the pictures? They are not available anymore. Thank you :)

/u/socat2me 📢

1 points

1 year ago*

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I should have all the pictures somewhere so I'll hunt them down and try to get it updated. [PICS NOW UPDATED]

/u/MRLovingood20

1 points

1 year ago

super useful!

/u/Findfreedomwithin

1 points

1 year ago

Thanks for the detailed post, and taking the time to share.

/u/Sporkington

1 points

8 months ago

Your assertions about crystal shape are dubious.

/u/Sporkington

1 points

8 months ago

You didn't read your source carefully enough for the crystal shape. They got needles from R-ket HCL.

"Resolution of R-Ketamine

...The resulting white crystalline solids were washed with Et2O (2 × 5 mL), dried and recrystallized by dissolving in 5 mL boiling ethanol and adding 15 mL Et2O to obtain white needles on standing."

/u/socat2me 📢

1 points

8 months ago*

I wrote this guide over a year ago, and have since performed polarimetry to verify the main points herein, but I clearly stated multiple times in this document: not make any assumptions about the identity of the enantiomer unless the crystals have well-formed geometry. There are a lot of factors involved in crystal formation. You can make crazy looking S isomer crystals just by letting them evaporate over time.

The R(-) enantiomer of ketamine can form cubic geometry, while the S(+) doesn't tend to. I don't mean this as a guarantee that every time you see them they'll look like this, just that if you see these S crystals and they are this well formed, you can safely make the assumption that the orthombic rod crystals are S. The large cubic ones are very rare. Most people have never even seen them, because R is in low demand due to it's limited medical and recreational value.

I never said R couldn't exist as needles--or if I did then it's an errata--that would make no sense considering racemic ketamine is often made up of a mixture of small needles of R and S. It can also be found as a mechanical mixture of both kinds of crystals. I stated as much. However, they are very different looking compared to real S.

Plus you can obtain needles in a lot of circumstances if you don't allow enough time for the molecules to slowly stack and form the proper crystal structures, you can and will end up with needles quite often. In the case you mention they crash the crystals out of solution using diethyl ether. The cubes are tartrates too. It's possible most cubic R is ketamine tartrate that was formed via tartaric acid-based resolution of enantiomers. That could be a point of investigation.

This guide was mostly written because I saw a lot of vendors either inadvertently or purposely from marketing racemic ketamine as pure S(+), when just by visual inspection you can tell most of these listings are not.

Pure R is not something that is common at all. If you're insinuating that the R enantiomer of ketamine hydrochloride can take the appearance of large orthombic crystals, like those shown in some of the pictures then I'd love to see a citation, evidence, or a polarimetry reading. This is meant as a guide to clear up confusion on recreational use of ketamine.

I don't know if you're a ketamine user or not, but cubic forms of ketamine being mis-represented as other forms is not exactly a common occurence.

The most prevalent issue was that people were selling stomped on, and cut K as S(+) and that most people had no idea what the difference between racemic and S is.

If you're one of these guys that thinks I'm some self-taught bullshitter trying to sound smart for whatever good that would do me. That's not the case. I just try to use my education to write guides that fill in knowledge gaps that I see will benefit various communities and contribute to harm prevention (hooray look at me I'm going straight to heaven!).

If you're of the former group, then I'm weary of your type.

If not, forgive me being short. I wrote this guide so long ago and have moved on to other things. I'm tired of revisiting it when it's served it's purpose--clearing up a lot of the bullshit people were peddling.

If you're actually a qualified professional that wants to peer-review this document with a constructive critique, rather than pointing out a single factor and--at least seemingly--trying to discredit the whole document, and you wand to perform a peer-review on it then by all means. Go ahead. That is the nature of science.

/u/Sporkington

1 points

8 months ago

The R(-) enantiomer of ketamine can form cubic geometry, while the S(+) doesn't tend to

What is this claim based on? The paper you referenced in the original post doesn't make this claim.

/u/socat2me 📢

1 points

8 months ago*

I referenced 6 papers, with inline citations. That paper would naturally not be related to that claim. It's a tangential paper related to our discussion on a separate point that I never cited as support for said paper.

At any rate, You want to know what the claim is this based on? Thermodynamics. Crystals aren't just assumed to exhibit dramatically different packing structures regularly, especially salts of enantiomers.

When you spend years in school studying a topic, and demonstrate some degree of competency at it, you generally aren't expected to justify the basis for every claim you make when it's a fairly standard one, but since you asked:

S Ketamine hydrochloride is not known to exhibit polymorphism. The absolute configuration has been established 16 years ago with x-ray crystallography. See DOI:10.1107/S1600536808021053.

" In the title compound, the cyclohexanone ring adopts a chair conformation with the oxo group in the equatorial orientation. They methylamino and 2-chlorophenyl groups at the 2-position have an equatorial and an axial orientation, respectively. The packing of ions is stabilized by an infinite one-dimensional Cl - - -H--N--H - - -Cl- - hydrogen bonding network, involving Nh2+ groups as donors and chloride anions as acceptors

Now here is where I admit my mistake and make a correction regarding my above post: I was under the impression that it was in the orthombic crystal structural family, based on it's shape. ChatGPT even made this mistake when I went to go check it a couple months ago, but ChatGPT is pretty shit at chemistry.

It's actually a Monoclinic P2,1 system stretched in a one-dimensional plane so it just looks orthombic. They do describe it as

Rod, colourless

in the paper, which is almost the same terminology I used.

Also, I've conducted experiments myself involving polarimetry on racemic samples and samples of pure S rods. They were all in agreement with my statements. I haven't tested a bunch of cubes, and I don't really have the time or desire since other people have done that already.

Also. I'm not sure what's up with that R-Ketamine white whale you seem to be chasing but I wish you luck on your journey, whatever it is.

/u/Sporkington

1 points

8 months ago

When you spend years in school studying a topic, and demonstrate some degree of competency at it, you generally aren't expected to justify the basis for every claim you make when it's a fairly standard one

This... is quite possibly the most cringeworthy sentence I have ever read. Delete your account.

/u/socat2me 📢

1 points

8 months ago*

lol man you really have a boner for me! Yeah sorry I haven't made the same wealth of contributions here and in academia that you have. I'm sure your research impact score is much higher than mine from all the papers you've published.

I already cited a crystallography paper with the absolute configuration of the hydrochloride salt of the S enantiomer. By your logic the hydrochloride salt of the R enantiomer has to have the same configuration as the S one right? Then how do cubic hydrochloride salts of ketamine exist without having polymorphism, and when the structure described in the paper isn't a cubic system?

You're also wrong about the salts of enantiomers having identical properties. In your own post history you referenced the resolution of enantiomers with L-tartaric acid. This is a separation based on polarity. The only reason this is possible is because the differences in the distribution of electrical charges within the resulting tartrates result in different solubilities.

If you're so interested in having these topics explained to you, go to college and get an actual education. Or take the actual courses, they're free online. Aside from the Dunning-Krueger effect, I don't know why you would presume to be qualified to argue about a subject as advanced as crystallography when it's clear that you've never read a single page of a textbook on the subject. Do you know what a non-centrosymmetric structure is? How about a Sohncke space group? No? Then how can you even discuss the topic? That class isn't taught until senior/graduate level for a reason, it's because of the difficulty of the material and the amount of prerequisite knowledge required.

Molecules are three dimensional structures that are constantly rotating and spinning around, and all the bonds with non-planar hybridization are also rotating. Chiral centers, being sp3 hybridized, are spinning three dimensional tetrahedrons. Their enantiomers have different spatial configurations of the functional groups. That's what I was trying to illustrate with the biological activity reference. How real molecules interact with 3d structures like enzymes is an analogous concept to how they behave when interacting with things like ions in a crystal lattice.

When you add in the electrical interactions of ions, even if they're achiral, it absolutely affects the molecular packing and results in greatly increased entropy. This is such a basic concept.

The reason I stopped engaging in this conversation, aside from you being an insufferable twat, is because you started saying made up shit like this:

it actually does make sense to just assume that they have the "same" crystal structure (a mirror image), because the symmetry is preserved.

Preservation of symmetry is not a thing, especially in heterogenous crystals. Crystals exist in 3d space so there are symmetry operations like rotations and translations, but there's no such thing as "preservation of symmetry" when comparing the salts of enantiomers. For someone who wants references for everything, you're awfully comfortable just making shit up without providing any citations of your own.

There's also a difference between chiral molecules and chiral crystals. You keep going on about the properties of homogenous crystals of the pure bases. This has no relation to the structures of the salts. They aren't the same thing. The chirality of the molecular components within a crystal is completely separate from the chirality of the crystal itself. The latter is described by spacial groups. There are even chiral crystal structures made entirely of achiral molecules.

How about this, you go type these prompts into chatGPT and see what you get, it'll probably be a good starting point for you:
"Are the crystal structures of the hydrochloride salts of enantiomers always identical?"
"Can preservation of symmetry be assumed between the crystal structures of the hydrochloride salts of enantiomers?"
"Explain in terms of thermodynamics why the salts of enantiomers can't be assumed to have identical crystal structures"

Come back with some papers to back up your claims if you're assertion is that everything I've said is wrong. Use your own standards and back your claims up with something besides all this infantile shit talking.

Not that I have any intention of devoting more of my time to this conversation. Although maybe if you paid me, I'd be willing to tutor you.

/u/Sporkington

1 points

8 months ago*

Two crystals containing enantiomers of opposite chirality are enantiomorphous

Crystals of dextrorotatory and levorotatory enantiomers always show hemihedrism and are mirror images of each other (as crystals as well as molecules)

[A]ll known optically active substances are capable of being crystallized into enantiomorphous forms

As I’ve attempted to explain, the crystal structures of enantiomers are mirror images. I found a cool drawing that demonstrates this principle: ibb.co/ydb99nk

You're also wrong about the salts of enantiomers having identical properties

I didn't say that, I said that *enantiomers* have identical properties. You keep using this confusing category - "salts of enantiomers". Salts of ketamine may or may not be enantiomers. The HCL salts of ketamine are enantiomers.

In your own post history you referenced the resolution of enantiomers with L-tartaric acid

The L-tartrate salts of ketamine are NOT enantiomers. They are diastereomers. They are not mirror images which is why they have different physical properties. The method is called 'resolution by diastereomeric salt formation.'

This is a separation based on polarity. The only reason this is possible is because the differences in the distribution of electrical charges within the resulting tartrates result in different solubilities.

This level of explanation gives no insight whatsoever... Did you get this from chatGPT? The differences between enantiomers and diastereomers can be explained with mirror image symmetry. The resulting tartrates are NOT mirror images.

/u/Sporkington

1 points

8 months ago*

I already cited a crystallography paper with the absolute configuration of the hydrochloride salt of the S enantiomer. By your logic the hydrochloride salt of the R enantiomer has to have the same configuration as the S one right?

Correct.

Then how do cubic hydrochloride salts of ketamine exist without having polymorphism, and when the structure described in the paper isn't a cubic system?

This argument is based on a false premise. A crystal containing only R-ketamine HCL can't have cubic geometry. Cubic geometry is achiral and pure enantiomers only form chiral crystal structures.

The one forbidden case in the upper part of Table 1 is that of an achiral crystal structure formed from enantiomerically pure chiral molecules. It follows that all known crystal structures formed from enantiomerically pure chiral molecules are chiral [...] a commonly formulated proof, based entirely on considerations of symmetry, runs as follows. In an achiral crystal structure, symmetry operations of the second kind are in action. When these operate intramolecularly, the molecules are achiral, whereas, when they operate intermolecularly, a racemate is present. An achiral crystal structure is, thus, formed either from achiral molecules or from a racemate but never from enantiomerically pure chiral molecules. Consequently, the latter must form a chiral crystal structure.

What could this mean for comments about "well-formed cubic crystals"? (the paper you cited actually called them "crystalline clusters" BTW) You've already lectured me about how crystallization conditions affect crystal morphology, so why are you acting like polymorphism is the only possible explanation?

I don't know why you would presume to be qualified to argue about a subject as advanced as crystallography when it's clear that you've never read a single page of a textbook on the subject. Do you know what a non-centrosymmetric structure is? How about a Sohncke space group? No? Then how can you even discuss the topic?

How embarrassing to write this and then get schooled on the topic. You are such a blowhard. Your comments are always lengthy, a little bit of substance filled out with condescension, blustering, and unnecessary technical explanations. Your last response was a benzo-addled gish gallop... You claim I'm bullshitting when I said that "symmetry is preserved" if you add the HCL acid salt. Ketamine and Ketamine HCL are both chiral, so they both have mirror image symmetry. Thus, mirror image symmetry is "preserved" with the addition of HCL. What is so hard to understand about this? You (mistakenly) don't believe the implications of my simple observation, so you just claim that it's all made up!

aside from you being an insufferable twat

True, but that's okay because I'm right

/u/Sporkington

0 points

8 months ago

Okay. Can you use your thermodynamics to explain how the R isomer is different?

/u/socat2me 📢

1 points

8 months ago*

My thermodynamics! I'm flattered, but thermodynamics isn't something I made up. It's integral to physics. Chemistry is applied physics. Everything in chemistry can be explain by thermodynamics. You can explain most phenomena with thermodynamics. That's why you have to pass the class where they teach the basics of understanding it as a general education requirement to be accepted into any STEM program. As for the difference between R and S, I provided an explanation in response to PuffPuff5's related statement above:

R and S are mirror images. It makes no sense that they would form different crystals

They're not mirror images, what you're referring to is a concept used to help visualize and explain enantiomers, but you're missing the most important part of that phrase which is that which is that they're non-superimposable mirror images.

The spatial arrangement of the atoms around the chiral center are different. The packing and electrical interactions are also different. They don't even have the same biological activity because they fit into the enzyme differently.

Now, since these are hydrochloride salts you're throwing a proton and a chloride ion. Hopefully you can see why it wouldn't make sense to assume assume they would have the same crystal structure.

But since you asked for an explanation in terms of thermodynamics, the spatial positioning and orientation of the molecule affects the enthalpy and entropy of the system because the internal energy contained in the bonds is completely different due to the change in orientation, intermolecular forces, intramolecular forces, etc. All of it comes into play. One of the simplest representations of the relationship is this equation:
dG = dH - T*dS
The gibbs free energy of the system, which is basically just the tendency for something to happen spontaneously, and outside the scope of this, is equal to the difference in the product of temperature and entropy change from the change in enthalphy.

All this is basically just to say, systems orient themselves in the lowest energy state. The difference in positioning of the atoms around the chiral center becomes huge when describing the overall energy of the system and the resulting crystal structure. The entropy change is the biggest factor though.

This has to be compared to something else though, hence the change. I can't give you the values to plug into the equation, I'm just illustrating the relationship between the terms.

If you were looking for some kind of mathematical proof, I'm sorry to say that's not how it works. Most of the values in crystallography are measured, not calculated. If you're really enamored maybe you can go find a paper where someone studied the absolute orientation of the hydrochloride salt of arketamine crystals.

I think one of the biggest problems you're having with this concept is that you're confusing crystalline solids for proper crystals. Not all solids or needles are automatically crystals. True well-formed crystals are made up of repeating identical monomer unit cells that collide together to form a repeating lattice. This has to happen slowly to obtain the proper geometry of the crystal.

That's why S can exist as a powder, or the racemate exist as a mixture of think blade-like needles. Same with S, if you evaporate a vial of esketamine, you won't get rod-shaped crystals like that for the same reason. They aren't actual proper well-formed crystals. They're just solid precipitates that appear crystalline. If you were to try to analyze one in an x-ray crystallography machine it would just be a mess.

/u/Sporkington

1 points

8 months ago*

But since you asked for an explanation in terms of thermodynamics, the spatial positioning and orientation of the molecule affects the enthalpy and entropy of the system because the internal energy contained in the bonds is completely different due to the change in orientation, intermolecular forces, intramolecular forces, etc

All this is basically just to say, systems orient themselves in the lowest energy state. The difference in positioning of the atoms around the chiral center becomes huge when describing the overall energy of the system and the resulting crystal structure. The entropy change is the biggest factor though.

This is completely wrong! Enantiomers have the exact same bonds. The difference in spatial positioning doesn't change the thermodynamic properties of enantiomers.

In a chiral molecule, the atoms have exactly the same relative positions with respect to interatomic distances and interactions as they have in its enantiomer. The two enantiomers are thus isometric to each other and in achiral media, behave in identical fashion, as if they were homomers (any two structures which are superposable are called homomers). Thus enantiomers have the same melting points, boiling points, densities, solubilities, refractive indices, dipole moments, etc., and the same thermodynamic and spectroscopic properties

I think one of the biggest problems you're having with this concept is that you're confusing crystalline solids for proper crystals. Not all solids or needles are automatically crystals.

This is absolutely hilarious coming from you. In your original post you describe "cubic crystals" found in your reference 1.

You call them - "very well-formed cubic crystals"

Then you immediately quote the paper, which actually calls them - "cubic salt-like crystalline clusters"

/u/Sporkington

1 points

7 months ago*

have since performed polarimetry to verify the main points herein

As cool as your polarimeter is, you can't actually use it to verify your points. You can't even confirm enantiomeric excess without composition analysis, because a sample of racemic ketamine containing a chiral cutting agent (sucrose, MSG) will have optical activity. You can definitively rule out the presence of optical activity in a ketamine sample with a polarimeter alone, but that's it.

As I mentioned, your ghetto polarimeter is actually really cool! I tried it with salt and sugar in the same shot glass and I was able to distinguish them. What a shame that your post introducing this idea is marred by wildly overconfident claims. You don't seem very capable of critically evaluating your own ideas. It's interesting how easily you came up with plausible sounding explanations (different spatial arrangements, thermodynamics) that are actually wrong. You're so quick to condescend anyone who questions you, and you wound up saying something unbelievably retarded - "r and s are not mirror images, what you're referring to is a concept used to help visualize and explain enantiomers"

I don't have any chemistry background. Years ago I taught myself general and organic chemistry by working through textbooks. I've always been frustrated by claims on drug forums (meth is cut with n-iso) because I couldn't evaluate the chemistry with any confidence. I wasn't capable of responding to something like "the spatial arrangements of atoms are different". And no, I've never read anything about crystallography (you clearly aren't knowledgeable either), but our disagreement is really about stereochemistry (my favorite!), and I was able to evaluate your claims with textbooks. If I had to rely on chatGPT, I'd be just as confused as you are.

/u/socat2me 📢

1 points

7 months ago*

Look man, I get that you're stoked because you did taught yourself enough to catch a lot of these guys who bullshit, those guys annoy me too, but only because I worry about the spread of misinformation. I don't write all these guides to sound smart. In fact, I'd argue I'm pretty fucking stupid, seeing as how most people with any kind of academic work would never post this much text samples because of the risk of stylometry. But my writing style is extremely different now, probably from frying my brain with meth for like a decade.

I graduated long before ChatGPT was ever around. The reason I suggested it to you is because it's a great way to have concepts summarized to you. It seems you didn't type any of the suggestions in, because I know the explanations would have had to have been simple even if you told it to explain it at a graduate level. I would bet you anything you the thermomdynamics question had a similar answer that I gave, just because it's so simple. Look up the expalanation for melting point depression. Same equation. That's covered before organic chem you should be familiar with it, if you skipped gen chem 2 you should do that course because there's a lot of important concepts in there.

This isn't an argument about stereochemistry, it's an argument about the effects of the different types of ketamine and the various forms they can be found in. The stuff you're quoting is correct but you're misunderstanding how it applies to the material. The hydrochloride salt of an enantiomer is not what those section are referring to, pure enantiomer is the molecule in it's pure, base form. They're referring to homogeneous crystals of the base. Hydrochloride salts have different behaviors in terms of the crystal structure. Things get very different when you add other components, especially ions in the mix.

Crystal geometry is an entirely separate topic that's far outself the realm of what you can rationalize with just the information you've learned in the gen chems and orgo. You need to take linear systems and understand complex opertions on matrices in 3 dimensional spaces to tackle crystal structure. There's a reason it's not addressed in organic, because it requires extensive prerequisite math because you're describing the arrangement and manipulation of complex structures in three dimensional, which means complex operations on matrices that describe the arragement of the components of the crystal. That's what the entire field is.

And damn straight, I forgot most of it, that shit is boring as hell and I took it 15+ years ago. I'd like to see anyone remember that stuff that didn't specialize in it, but you don't get to graduate level and forget the fundamentals. I can still remember several gas constants for PV=nRT off the top of my head.

Remember when I said that you can have chiral crystals composed completely of achiral molecules. The issue isn't that you're wrong, it's that you're applying the wrong concepts to a different problem. You're misinterpreting the sources you're providing and how they differ from the situation.

Stereochemistry I could do in my sleep man it's literally right there at the beginning with nomeclature. You need to get to the fun mechanism stuff in orgo 2.

Part of the reason I said that is that there are more expanded definitions of chirality, espeically in crystallography. Is that it quite literally has additional definitions to describe it, like considering that it doesn't undergo inversion.

When you have a mechanism with a trigonal intermediate that's susceptible to attack from both above and below, or it undergoes inversion, you get a racemate, whereas when it's asymmmetric you get stereoselective SN2.

The stuff you keep quoting is for pure enantiomers, the salts of enantiom

Also, isn't it a little weird, if I have no education, that I somehow understand physics well enough to make an improvised polarimeter but that I wouldn't know how specific rotation works?

Anyway look, your theory is that I have no chemistry education and I'm just blowing smoke right? Message me privately and I'll show you a few things that will end this.

Not my my dick and balls btw.

/u/Sporkington

1 points

7 months ago*

I worry about the spread of misinformation

This is exactly what I care about! Please understand that I’m being such a pain in the ass because your post is still stickied. I get that you wanted to push back against lying vendors, but you’ve created new misinformation.

I don’t think you’re lying about your chemistry background because I don’t see a reason to lie about that. It doesn’t matter either way. Having a background doesn’t make you right. You could be Alexander Shulgin for all I care. Scientific explanations and arguments have to stand on their own.

The hydrochloride salt of an enantiomer is not what those sections are referring to, pure enantiomer is the molecule in it's pure, base form. They're referring to homogeneous crystals of the base.

Those sections clearly refer to ALL enantiomers. Nothing mentions the “base form”. If I left out important context about "the base", it would still be right there in the source. You could find it and win this debate.

You seem to believe that the term "enantiomer" would only apply to ketamine, and not ketamine HCL. Follow this logic:

S-Ketamine HCL is optically active, therefore it is chiral. By definition, chiral molecules consist of two enantiomers. In this case - R-ket HCL and S-ket HCL. Are you claiming that these compounds are not enantiomers? Are you claiming that ionic compounds aren’t chiral? Please make a clear argument and provide evidence. Help me understand.

None of my citations use the term "pure enantiomer", one of them - Flack (2003) - uses the term 'enantiomerically pure chiral molecules'

The term enantiomeric purity is defined as the fractional excess of one enantiomer over the other

A "pure enantiomer/enantiomerically pure chiral molecule" would have 100% enantiomeric excess. It would be all one enantiomer and none of the other. I've never seen your definition about the base form. Please provide a reference.

Every textbook I cited is on libgen. PROVE THAT I AM WRONG. Quote the text and show me. It would be very easy to do this (unless you're wrong).

Isn't it weird, that you argue in bad faith about a scientific claim? You refuse to cite anything except that crystallography paper, despite claiming multiple times in this thread that "academic publications" support your claims. You demanded citations from me even though you STILL haven't provided any of your own, and then you just waved your hand and dismissed all of my citations without even reading them! I know what my sources say, because I read them and found the quotes! Utterly despicable bad faith arguing from you.

Nobody who respects science would act like this. You literally just said "look at how smart I am! how could I be wrong about chemistry?" but you won't post any sources to support your claims! How badly are you fooling yourself? It's EASY to find sources (unless you are wrong).

/u/socat2me 📢

2 points

7 months ago*

EDIT: Just realized now that I'm re-reading this, aside from the fact it was totally fucked and full of mistakes since I could barely stay awake, you ignored my request to take things to the private messages. That, and the fact that you let it drop that your goal is to get the guide unpinned is pretty suspect, and unhinged. It makes me question your agenda. Maybe you're a vendor who's business has been affected by this guide? There are other guides pinned in almost every sub recommending completely incorrect chemistry, including this one, to a sometimes wildly egregious degree. Because of this, and the fact that the last 13 notifications I've gotten are posts from you in this thread, and I have precious few hours to spend on here to begin with, I will be ceasing all interaction with you. Good luck in your quest to get the guide removed / discredit me or whatever.

Sweet Jesus man. I asked you to take this to the private pms. I really don't have a lot of time to go on Dread, but this has gone on so long and each of our posts is long. I'll make one response and then log in over a week later to find you've posted like 5 times all over the place like a man obsessed. Over a guide that's old as fuck too.

Ketamine is heavily cut and misrepresented, whether intentionally or unintentionally as S. Both customers and vendors alike didn't really know much about it. Things like racemic conglomerates can be confusing and are often mistaken mistaken for S. Erowid has/had a side by side comparison photo of R and S. The R was cubic. The S was mislabled racemic but this was a very old photo. I wrote this guide specifically to help people make more informed purchasing when they are shopping between racemic and S, since that is 99% of the customer/user base. To prevent people from getting scammed with cut and mislabeled shit. That, and to outline the effects of the different enantiomers.

It's the ONLY guide out there like it and it's served it's purpose well.

In the guide, I specifically state that you should never make an assumption that a ketamine is S unless it's in one of those forms. I never said it was impossible. But I said if it's in those formats, it is always S or R. Usually visual inspection alone is not that useful, but in this case it is. But notice I didn't say you should just completely abdicate all other forms of testing. So let's just say you're right and cubic crystals of ketamine don't exist.

I don't even know what this argument is about now it's gone on so long. You don't thing cubic crystals of R exist?

If the crystals don't exist, then there's no chance of someone encountering them. If someone does, there are plenty of other methods to verify that it's ketamine.

In the guide, I specifically state that you should never make an assumption that a ketamine is S unless it's in one of those forms. Usually visual inspection alone is not that useful, but in this case it is. So let's just say you're right and cubic crystals of ketamine don't exist.

I don't even understand what you think the consequence of that would be. Certainly not to the point where the guide should be de-pinned, that's bizarre. Especially the amount of work you've put into it, and the time you've had to do it makes me have to consider the possibility that you may just be a vendor of some sort that's had your business affected by it.
To be fair you have said enantiomers crystals are identical in the base form and in the hydochloride form. The thing you aren't getting is that Ketmaine Hydrochloride is indeed chiral, but while it may be true in this instant, the hydrochlorides of chiral molecules are not automatically chiral themselves in terms of the crystal, not the molecule. The ionic compound Ketamine HCl is indeed chiral.

The resulting crystal of a chiral molecule is NOT automatically chiral, That's when you're getting into cyrstallography.

Cubic crystal systems aren't chiral because they are symmetric systems that is true. However you CAN have a cubic system made of the salt of a chiral molecule. Your assertion that molecule=chiral salt=chiral so therefore crystal of salt=chiral is incorrect.

Although If that's you're only complain, then yeah sure, I agree that section could be wrong. but I'm basing it on a Revew methodology section where arketamine is synthesized. According to your theory both the crystals of the freebases and the hydrochloride sallts should be identical, right?

Whether this is the hydrochloride, or the base, how do you explain this:
[qoute="Reference 1, section 2.9 Resolution of R ketamine]After sitting for several days, the large transparent cubic salt-like crystalline clusers were then collected[...][/quote]

You are right about one thing, cubic systems are not chiral in terms of crystal structure, but it is absolutely possible for a chiral molecule to have the surrounding groups positioned in such a way that the crystal itself forms a cubic system, thereby making a non-chiral crystal out of the salt of a chiral molecule. I'm not saying that's the case here, but unless polymorphism actually IS exhibited in ketamine hydrochloride, though I've not ever read that to be the case, then either this chemist is lying or there's a flaw in your logic.

Also, I didn't say look how smart I am and I can't be wrong about chemistry. What I said is that when you have gone to school for something for years, have made a lot of contributions, and demonstrated that you have competency in the material it is generally assumed by people who do not have such qualifications that you're a pretty trustworthy source of information on the topic an they don't demand references for everything you say and try to pick it apart.

it's not unreasonable at all to expect that with that much hard work and contribution, most people give you some respect and trust you probably know what you're talking about. I still provide references though because that's the standard.

When a company hires an engineer they don't question their findings and demand to know how they came to every conclusion they provide, depending on the scenario. When you go to the doctor do you ask for a reference for every suggestion he makes? How about an expert witness? The court doesn't ask for references.

I'm not tied to my ideas at all, and only an actual idiot thinks they are too smart to be wrong. Usually people who come out and tell you how smart they are, they tend to be the stupidest. I'm just trying to emphasize like, I DO know what I'm talking about with these topics. Although it's entirely possible for mistakes to be made. I've gotten into arguments like this, that were far more inflammatory but not as insane, where I immediately admitted I was wrong when they were able to link to a paper that proved their side. We were completely cordial after that. It's not that I'm so tied to my ideas, it's that your arugments are not as compelling as you are interpreting them to be.

Just as you have said I should be more open to being wrong, maybe you should consider the possibility that you're overly confident about commenting on a subject that requires you to have taken at least calculus 1 through 3, and numerical methods or a linear algebra equivalent to understand the nomenclature and be able to properly visualize the operations since they are made up of complex arrangements within a three dimensional spaces.

The majority of your arguments are about a subject that you have to remember you haven't taken that relates to the least consequential part of the guide, and chemistry like most STEM comes together throughout the degree so concepts build on themselves. So, when there isn't a chemistry publication that would be too advanced for me to understand (well there are graduate level ones because I didn't specialize in those areas, I'll tell you privately and it will make more sense).

I'm just saying, that I would be considered an 'expert' (I don't like the term to describe myself, but that is what I would meet the criteria for) so just consider I just might have a bigger picture on the topic, and that you might be missing a bigger part of the picture and not seeing how the references I'm providing support what I'm trying to say. Just hypothetically consider that could be the case.

I'll giive you an example:

You may not be able to fully appreciate the of some of the references were because you don't have enough experience working in labs and taking advanced level material.

I think you're just overconfident because maybe you know the areas you studied really well, but they don't come into play in crystallography very often except the general concept of chirality. So you're kind of overextending yourself here.

I'm not trying to insult you at all it's just counterproductive and if it devolves into it again, I won't waste anymore time. The only reason I came back is because you showed you were open minded enough to try out the test (unless you were just skeptical and assumed it wouldn't work.

But For the love of god man, please take this to PMs. It's fucking up my notifications and this threat NOBODY is reading through this conversation. I promise you. I didn't even read through all of it because I don't have time to read 5 different responses posted in different areas every time I make one it's too unorganized. My notifications are like a whole page of you in a manic state responding like 5 times to my single response. over this post it's crazy. I can only get on here so often but I'll happily discuss it with you in a civil way and provide you with some proof of the level I was at, I'll even send you screenshots of one of my manuscripts that i never sent in so nobody has seen, just don't be a dick and leak it.

I'd even be more than happy to edit the R section, but fuck lol just message me privately what we're doing right now is making us both look very bad.

/u/Sporkington

-1 points

7 months ago

1600 words!!!
0 sources

The resulting crystal of a chiral molecule is NOT automatically chiral, That's when you're getting into cyrstallography.

I already cited a source that PROVES YOU WRONG

The one forbidden case in the upper part of Table 1 is that of an achiral crystal structure formed from enantiomerically pure chiral molecules. It follows that all known crystal structures formed from enantiomerically pure chiral molecules are chiral

What is wrong with you?!? Are you completely incapable of changing your beliefs?

I don't care what level you were at dude. You are contradicting textbooks that I understand. You REFUSE to cite ANYTHING despite writing THOUSANDS of words! Are you just senile?

/u/socat2me 📢

2 points

7 months ago*

Ok, one more time, I can't resist. "I don't care if you spent almost a decade taking courses on math, physics, and chemistry, or worked as a chemist in academia, your background means nothing! I read a textbook! I don't believe you!" You're hilarious man seems like you might be partaking in a little of my old vice yourself.

I cited several things now, only to have you not understand any of it. I tried explaining it conceptually, but you refuse to listen to someone who did this for a living trying to tell you that you're misunderstanding things because your knowledge is not developed enough.

For like the third time, you don't understand what you're reading or citing. This is because you are only capable of thinking about things within the context of the limited background knowledge you have, and additionally you're caught up in an obsessive case of confirmation bias, so you haven't performed any falsification. In case you aren't familiar, this is a core part of the scientific method, you don't just look for evidence in support of your idea, you should be looking for evidence of the contrary.

For like the 10th time, crystals of pure molecules are different than salts. Crystals of pure molecules contain a single molecular component. You can't understand how that's different than a solid made up of multiple different components? Crystals of salts or other heterogenous materials are completely different because there are multiple separate components that are capable or arranging themselves in a wider combination of spacial configurations.

Maybe this will help, read everything you've cited with this simple bit of added knowledge you're missing: salts are not examples of pure molecules, salts are ionic compounds, and are the product of an acid and base reacting. This isn't being pedantic about nomenclature. It's a very important distinction.

Believe it or not when you take almost 10 years of college courses covering math, physics, and chemistry, your ability to analyze and understand chemistry concepts gets better. When chemists are talking to each other, or publishing papers, they don't include citations for basic material that is well-established and known to be true, like things covered in class.

When you work in research, you're solving problems where there is no answer in a textbook, because it's a problem nobody has solved before. You have to use a fundamental understanding of chemistry that you build up from years of taking all the different courses as well as related work. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to contribute anything new.

Here's an example of an achiral crystal formed from the salt of a chiral molecule: ammonium tartrate. The salt formed between ammonia and tartaric acid. Ammonium tartrate forms a centrosymmetric space group so the overall crystal structure is achiral.

Here's one of the opposite: Sodium Chlorate. Not chiral. The crystals of sodium chlorate can adopt a chiral non-centrosymmetric space group.

And no, I'm not going to cite shit on those for you, look those up yourself.

Although, if you want a publication that can point you in the right direction on the concepts in general, try this one:
Ángela Valentín-Pérez, Patrick Rosa, Elisabeth A. Hillard, Michel Giorgi. Chirality determination in
crystals., 2022, 34 (2), pp.163-181. 10.1002/chir.23377

And here's a good textbook on crystallography for you:
Borchardt-Ott, Walter. Crystallography: An Introduction 3rd Edition, Springer, 2011

That's all you'll get from me though I doubt this is going to convince you either.

/u/Eskimogger

1 points

4 months ago

Thanks for the guide. Finally I was able to learn something useful.

/u/DogMom89

0 points

1 year ago

Acknowledging that I'm skipping over reading through here for a second time, and the fact that there seems like alot of true, useful information, I had a short conversation with someone in a director role at Dancesafe regarding isomers etc. Here is their reply:

Thanks for reaching out with your ketamine question...The short answer is that no, I do not believe there is any actual "enantiopure" or even "enantioenriched" ketamine on the standard illicit drug market. Ketamine is racemic (a mixture) when it's made, so in order to create a product that has more or less of one or the other, a labor-intensive, expensive, and high-skill process has to take place. There's also no way for laypersons to actually verify that they have enantioenriched/pure ketamine, which is a really easy way for traffickers to mark up their product by $50/g without consequences.

Everyone is sure their ketamine is "not ketamine" or "different." All of the lab tests – and I do mean every single one of them – I have facilitated to verify those claims has returned as just regular old racemic ketamine. If you really want to check, you'll have to find someone with a polarimeter to verify.

TLDR: I would not believe any of the market hype around this, and every single chemist I have spoken with about the issue has shared that sentiment.

/u/socat2me 📢

1 points

1 year ago*

[response 1] How can someone just not even read something and then comment that it's not accurate.

I don't know what the director of Dancesafe's CV looks like, but I'm guessing you didn't send him this, considering you didn't bother to read it. I have a degree, publications, and years of experience. This is written in the style of a mix between an academic paper and a wiki entry for easy readability. It's broken into easy to navigate sections, and I even cited peer-reviewed papers for every section of the article that could be even slightly contentious with inline citations.

If you have an unknown sample of powder, yes it's true that you would normally need a polarimeter to verify optical activity you measure it with specific rotation. I essentially say as much in this post. Except I posted a NEVER BEFORE SEEN test for verifying optical activity using the same principles as a polarimeter, and posted pictures verifying it's efficacy.

Also the crystal geometry is known to be different for the enantiomers. This is not uncommon at all in chemistry.

Imagine if the scientific method worked this way: "Bro posted this cringe ass paper about relativity or something, I didn't bother reading it but I talked to my friend who's an expert on Newtonian physics about what it probably said, and he said the whole thing idea is wack as hell".

I should have just ignored this and not let it get to me but someone is going to listen to this person and just miss out on the information, and I think that's what I really have an issue with.

/u/DogMom89

1 points

1 year ago

Point taken. I acknowledge a serious lack of knowledge in this area. Combined with, I find verifiable/linked to legit institution expert opinion really valuable in such cases..hence the not detail rereading and trying to address specific flaws in your method. Logically, I suppose (ignoring your test) we can assume that both racemic and s-ket purchased from DNM vendors are testing positive with Morris for ketamine. And the crystals do look different. And probably enough people have tried both and found s-ket to be noticeably different/preferable. So it probably exists.
Anyhow, granted...not the most helpful comment. What I will do as an apology is email the Dancesafe director your OP and let you know what I hear back :)

/u/socat2me 📢

1 points

1 year ago*

[response 2] Late reply here, haven't been on Dread much recently. That would be pretty cool if you ever get around to that let me know. There's something I've been meaning to message her about that has to do with the recent announcements about cocaine reagent testing. I still haven't gotten around to it though.

Also, I read something interesting recently, that I'll add to the main guide. I happened to be reading a uni lab manual on half shade polarimeter usage. This is pretty much the cheapest kind. Anyone who has taken the accompanying lab that pairs with their first organic chemistry will have used one of these unless they had a lab that was well-funded or a lab coordinator unfamiliar with how good undergrads are at destroying everything. Sodium d-line light source, dextrose solution cylinder, you rotate the viewfinder, etc.

Turns out a similar test to mine with the smart phone and sunglass lense has been used as an experiment to demonstrate polarimetry concepts. Instead of an angled path and sodium lamp light source. You have a polarized film you're looking through down an empty vertical path at a polarized light source. Then you add your chiral solution rotate and rotate the film. This was not exactly a shocking development, it's not like I discovered the physics concepts that the experiment is based on. The more interesting thing I confirmed is that this rudimentary method can be used to differentiate enantiomers if you have a reference sample of one.

/u/socat2me 📢

1 points

1 year ago*

[response 3] Look. This is my final address on this topic. This is not new, crazy science. I took the time to write a guide clarifying things that, quite frankly, are extremely simple chemistry concepts that are covered in Organic Chemistry 1 and the lab along with stereochemistry and nomenclature.

All the claims in this guide are supported plenty of inline citations that are taken from peer-reviewed publications in highly respected scientific journals, with some of them even directly quoted to make the content as easy to digest as possible.

I even posted an edit because I learned the test I created is already how an old device called an I2R polarimeter works. It's an already existing, valid empirical measure of optical activity.

If you want to argue with the content in here. Take specific claims and counter them with empirical measurements taken through an outlined methodology, or statements supported by citations from published material, then I'll be happy to respond. Otherwise, this is not science, it's a waste of time.

/u/MathMatix

0 points

1 year ago*

no one is getting s isomer. regardless of what they say. only exists once made spravoto. and even that they want people to use in a medicval facility under supervision. so good luck getting that or the s used to make it. think about it people on DNM cant even get sealed pharma vials. let alone S isomer. at least u are being rational and understanding this. some people may have never had real sealed ket vials and dont know an RC from real ket. they just need to go to mexico once and grab some sealed so they know what real ket is from RCs. know many on dread dont know what real ket is by there responses and the vendors they back or say have legit that i know is an RC and any1 who has had legit sealed ket vials know is an RC.

/u/socat2me 📢

1 points

1 year ago

I'm going to be petty again and do this, here we go:

no one is getting s isomer, regardless of what they say. only exists once made by spravoto

Even a quick google search of current global esketamine production would let anyone know that this isn't true. Not only is Esketamine still manufactured, it's a huge product in the pharmaceuticals made by tons of companies worldwide with a market that generates billions a year and is projected to almost double in production by 2031 in the US alone.

Not even going to bother addressing the rest, I shouldn't be responding to comments like this but sometimes I can't help myself.

/u/MathMatix

1 points

1 year ago

so outside of spravoto and ketanest, s ketamine is used in many pharmaceuticals? If so I did not know this, or am misreading what wrote. also seems odd to have pics and none look to be what ketamine dried out from liquid and scrapped up or cooked on a spoon and scraped off, air dried, etc, looks like. I know a research scientist, who now works in a compounding pharmacy. Will ask him about the pictures etc and see what he thinks about the information and pictures shown. well wishes

/u/socat2me 📢

1 points

1 year ago*

The pharmaceutical reference was just to make a point that esketamine is not uncommon. US domestic ketamine used for recreational use like on the markets doesn't come from vials the way it used to. It's primarily imported from other countries where it's synthesized via sophisticated manufacturing operations, as opposed to being sourced from domestically sourced evaporated vials and prescriptions.

The kind of well-formed crystals you see in the images are the result of crystallization unit operations. With bulk manufacturing this means using crystallization unit operations, equipment designed for the purpose by process engineers.

Rapid evaporation of a liquid is not conducive to crystal growth. You'll get a solid but not crystals. Real crystallization happens when the molecules collide in just the right way and continually stack in repeated identical units that form a lattice.

Crystals typically are formed from supersaturated solutions that are cooled without being disturbed. Evaporation can produce great crystals, and is how myself and all the other research chemists I worked with would grow single crystals for x-ray crystallography, but you need to allow the solution to slowly evaporate undisturbed from ambient diffusion, not from using heat and boiling the liquid, the molecules have too much kinetic energy.

Many of the S crystal pics I took myself.