Melting point

[narta]

In my post I noted:

Yeah, you're not gonna heat it for "3 hours". But even if you only lose 10%, what the fuck did it "degrade" or "decompose" into? Are you sure you want to inject that...

The don't heat tren to 70c or x compound to z temp yada yada is worthless without hard data. We can theorize all we want, the only data we have is countless ugl users that had zero probs so far

 

[lowda99]

The don't heat tren to 70c or x compound to z temp yada yada is worthless without hard data. We can theorize all we want, the only data we have is countless ugl users that had zero probs so far

I gave you hard data twice now. It's in the linked paper. I quoted the linked paper.

If you heat testosterone base to its melting point for 3 hours, 40% of the testosterone will be destroyed.

That's not "yada yada". That's not a theory.

Also which "UGL users" are melting their short esters and then getting them tested for impurities? First of all, none of them are even getting them tested at all but if they did they'd just say "Oh I expected this to be 250mg/mL but I guess it's just 225mg/mL"...even with "bad" test results they wouldn't think "oh god 10% of my raws got turned into something else!"

And the big labs aren't heating to melting point, they're heating to dissolution, a much lower temperature.

 

[narta]

40% of the testosterone will be destroyed.

Not really. Even at the absurb 3h at melting point, It will "degrade" to Androstenedione aka Testosterone precursor that the body can and will convert back to testosterone.

As I said, destroy is a strong word.

 

[29trt]

Soooo.... if we heat it up a little higher or for longer and might lose some % of the initial hormone will we at least get a brew with less PIP like that guy was saying? Thinking of DHB or perhaps injectable orals...
Has anyone actually tried using heat to solve a pippy brew? (except for the guy saying to heat to the melting point)

From personal experience heating does not solve Pip in the case of Test E reaction that I get... but it does seem to reduce the issue slightly.

so the problem is more complex than just making a brew that does not crash and depends on the raws quality or some intrinsic property that gives some people bad reactions.

 

[lowda99]

@narta Really hugely appreciate you reading that study!

I think you based that statement on a look at the following results table:

Stress conditions	% Degradation	+ve mode(m/z)
Treated with heat at oven about to melting point for 3hrs.	39.94%	303,301,287(Imp-A)

And you noted that "Imp-A" is Androstenedione.
However, there were three different primary mass-to-charge ratios (m/z) observed in positive mode, and Imp-A was only the "287".

Impurities with mass-to-charge ratios of 303 and 301 were never identified in the paper, and I find it suspicious that the paper didn't provide a GCMS chart for this test like it did with other ones in Figures 4-6 (they didn't want to show any peaks without "identified" impurities"). Without that chart, it's impossible for us to know what % was androstenedione and what was...whatever 303 and 301 might be.

@janoshik might have some ideas what would have a mass-to-charge ratio of 303 and 301 in this context but I dont know enough to figure out where an extra oxygen/carbon would go and delete some hydrogens and what that would look like.

I also wouldn't be surprised if they were only counting side products / similar impurities and just "ignored" any fragmentation products, oxidation products, etc that were a very different size. The reason I say this is because Figure 6 is supposed to correspond to products with mass-to-charge ratios of
246, 330, and 288 (one of which is just...testosterone). I can see those (and 246 looks very, very minor)...but I also see a shitload of tiny fragments <100 and none of those were listed and probably make up 90+% of the "missing testosterone". But the paper just ignores their existence.

So basically, it's not just Androstenedione. It's probably a bunch of unlisted fragmentation products and oxidation products that the authors just decided to pretend don't exist.

 

[lowda99]

Soooo.... if we heat it up a little higher or for longer and might lose some % of the initial hormone will we at least get a brew with less PIP like that guy was saying? Thinking of DHB or perhaps injectable orals...
Has anyone actually tried using heat to solve a pippy brew? (except for the guy saying to heat to the melting point)

From personal experience heating does not solve Pip in the case of Test E reaction that I get... but it does seem to reduce the issue slightly.

so the problem is more complex than just making a brew that does not crash and depends on the raws quality or some intrinsic property that gives some people bad reactions.

Bad idea...creative thinking! but bad idea. You'll get less DHB -- it'll turn into other chemicals and there's every reason to think those other chemicals will also cause PIP and it's rather likely that some of the new chemicals will be directly harmful (most "random" chemicals are harmful to some degree).

Think of it like you're cooking bacon for breakfast and your woman says "Oh
I don't want that much bacon grease today, it's not good for me".

You COULD get rid of the bacon grease by heating it up until it kinda burns, but it's just gonna turn the bacon grease into charred shit that you have to scrape off the pan that's almost certainly even less healthy than the bacon grease was in the first place. Your girl isn't gonna be like "oh wow thanks for turning the bacon grease into something else, this is perfect now". She's gonna be like "Dude...what the fuck is wrong with you? I'm not fucking eating this charred-ass bacon shit."

 

[29trt]

Bad idea...creative thinking! but bad idea. You'll get less DHB -- it'll turn into other chemicals and there's every reason to think those other chemicals will also cause PIP and it's rather likely that some of the new chemicals will be directly harmful (most "random" chemicals are harmful to some degree).

Think of it like you're cooking bacon for breakfast and your woman says "Oh
I don't want that much bacon grease today, it's not good for me".

You COULD get rid of the bacon grease by heating it up until it kinda burns, but it's just gonna turn the bacon grease into charred shit that you have to scrape off the pan that's almost certainly even less healthy than the bacon grease was in the first place. Your girl isn't gonna be like "oh wow thanks for turning the bacon grease into something else, this is perfect now". She's gonna be like "Dude...what the fuck is wrong with you? I'm not fucking eating this charred-ass bacon shit."

I did not say heating it until melting point or until you get darkening of the brew, I was merely implying if maybe more heat or time will perhaps solve the Pip issue with certain AAS, I am sure some guys tried it already and was curios about the results.
And I realise you might increase impurities and whatnot to some degree, but alas we already takin risks with Chinese raws what's another 1-2% of extra crap IF I can get an unusable raw like DHB to play nice... just sayin...

Edit.. it's probably not that easy otherwise some big time suppliers here would have figured it out by now... having said that there is a variation in the sources here... some have Pip free bold Cyp(with no extra solvents) while others do not... soooo whats the secret.??

 

[janoshik]

@narta Really hugely appreciate you reading that study!

I think you based that statement on a look at the following results table:

Stress conditions	% Degradation	+ve mode(m/z)
Treated with heat at oven about to melting point for 3hrs.	39.94%	303,301,287(Imp-A)

And you noted that "Imp-A" is Androstenedione.
However, there were three different primary mass-to-charge ratios (m/z) observed in positive mode, and Imp-A was only the "287".

Impurities with mass-to-charge ratios of 303 and 301 were never identified in the paper, and I find it suspicious that the paper didn't provide a GCMS chart for this test like it did with other ones in Figures 4-6 (they didn't want to show any peaks without "identified" impurities"). Without that chart, it's impossible for us to know what % was androstenedione and what was...whatever 303 and 301 might be.

@janoshik might have some ideas what would have a mass-to-charge ratio of 303 and 301 in this context but I dont know enough to figure out where an extra oxygen/carbon would go and delete some hydrogens and what that would look like.

I also wouldn't be surprised if they were only counting side products / similar impurities and just "ignored" any fragmentation products, oxidation products, etc that were a very different size. The reason I say this is because Figure 6 is supposed to correspond to products with mass-to-charge ratios of
246, 330, and 288 (one of which is just...testosterone). I can see those (and 246 looks very, very minor)...but I also see a shitload of tiny fragments <100 and none of those were listed and probably make up 90+% of the "missing testosterone". But the paper just ignores their existence.

So basically, it's not just Androstenedione. It's probably a bunch of unlisted fragmentation products and oxidation products that the authors just decided to pretend don't exist.

Link pretty please.

 

[lowda99]

Link pretty please.

https://www.scholarsresearchlibrary.com/articles/simultaneous-determination-of-impurities-and-degradation-products-by-rapid-rpuplcms-method.pdf

Anything for you baby <3 <3
:-*

But seriously, thanks. Correct me on anything I was a complete moron about.

Also just heads-up, I'm seeing a LOT of questions about temperature at which various compounds actually start noticeable degrading in the amount of time (5-30 minutes) that they stay warm during brewing, and what the degrade to. Seems like a nice investigation, maybe we can start a GoFundMe or something to crowdfund it XD

There's shockingly little public data on the thermal decomposition / thermal stability of common AAS (testosterone is the only one I can find any data on, nothing for nandrolone at all)

 

[janoshik]

https://www.scholarsresearchlibrary.com/articles/simultaneous-determination-of-impurities-and-degradation-products-by-rapid-rpuplcms-method.pdf

Anything for you baby <3 <3
:-*

But seriously, thanks. Correct me on anything I was a complete moron about.

Also just heads-up, I'm seeing a LOT of questions about temperature at which various compounds actually start noticeable degrading in the amount of time (5-30 minutes) that they stay warm during brewing, and what the degrade to. Seems like a nice investigation, maybe we can start a GoFundMe or something to crowdfund it XD

There's shockingly little public data on the thermal decomposition / thermal stability of common AAS (testosterone is the only one I can find any data on, nothing for nandrolone at all)

Thank you. Sorry, I was on phone and looking it back up is a pain.

I'd note that the decomposition in oil and the way they tested it might be different - generally in oil there is not oxidative stress present that's present in atmosphere. Oxygen in air really does a number on number of things.

Good quality oil should actually prevent that kind of damage, some oils even contain natural antioxidants.

On the other hand, shitty oils with high peroxide value will degrade the API even faster.

In this manner, I find synthetic oils to be superior to natural oils.

301 / 303 m/z most likely candidate imo. With bad mass resolution it's hard to tell how it's rounded, but you can play with the hydrogens quite a lot.





About the gofundme etc... Well, I'd love to, but we're at something like 1000 samples monthly right now - I barely have the time to breathe... Maybe someday

 

[narta]

soooo whats the secret.??

Carrier oil and solvents %. I am sure someone brewed DHB on castor oil with 20% bb and it was pipless.

Castor oil seems to be the magic bullet for high concentrations and pippy compounds.

 

[29trt]

Carrier oil and solvents %. I am sure someone brewed DHB on castor oil with 20% bb and it was pipless.

Castor oil seems to be the magic bullet for high concentrations and pippy compounds.

yes castor is probably the best choice, but @Liska bold cyp is Pip-less for me and others and is MCT based and I think no other solvent except for BA and BB

 

[lowda99]

yes castor is probably the best choice, but @Liska bold cyp is Pip-less for me and others and is MCT based and I think no other solvent except for BA and BB

@Liska gets a lot of shit from people but I never understood the hate. Probably just cuz they're expensive as fuck and call out beloved sources from time to time. They test the absolute shit out of everything and are constantly reinventing processes to make it better. If anyone could pull off a miracle it'd be them ... but I have no fucking clue what they'd be doing differently here.

 

[Bigguy81]

View attachment 161373


I'm half asleep but I think brewing temperature of nearly everything is no hotter than 50c. Don't over heat Tren.

50°C? That's only 122°F. Maybe if you're making test e Deca EQ and stuff like that but if you're making Fast acting esters such as propionate whether it's testosterone or masteron you're probably going to need a higher temperature brother. Yes it might look like it's melted to the naked eye but there are still small crystals you cannot see and after you inject it it will crash in your ass leaving a knot and some bad PIP for a few days. Js...

 

[Bigguy81]

Stirring the solution (oil bb ba powder), the added BB, will make everything meltt at lower temperature much lower than the boiling point.

From my experience heating Trenbolone Acetate at 94-97°C, is too much and makes it very rusty/orangish color. It gets oxydized too much and very easily.
I would avoid that temp for sure.

Brother boiling point is much different from melting point. If you make your trembolone acetate and cook it to 95° C yes it will oxidize because it's supposed to but that doesn't mean that anything bad has happened or that the hormone is less potent now than it was when it was a lighter color.


Bottom line is there's a difference between boiling point and melting point and every compound has a melting point for a reason.

 

[tenba12]

> yes it will oxidize because it's supposed to but that doesn't mean that anything bad has happened or that the hormone is less potent now

That's not how any of this works. Something that "oxidizes" is now a completely different chemical. 100% that's going to be less potent. Jfc.

 

[longstad7282]

For some compounds/raws, heating to the melting point will destroy the raws. You do not need to heat to the melting point. Just heat until dissolved. The temperature required for that depends on the solubility of the raw in the specific carrier oil you use.

Hearing past the melting point won’t necessarily degrade the raw. Degradation happens near the “decomposition temperature” which is also unique to each compound. The decomposition temperature is generally well above the melting temp of long esters (undecyclonate) because they have very low melting points. but the decomposition temperature can also be well below the melting point of “no-ester”/“base” raws, which have very high melting points. Generally the temperature of decomposition won’t change “much” between different esters of the same compound, but the melting point will.

There’s also not a single “decomposition temperature” per se. Rather, there’s an equation (Arrhenius Equation) which shows that noticeable decomposition happens at all temperatures, just glacially slowly at like 40F, and in a matter of minutes at 250F.

I don’t find comprehensive thermal decomposition data immediately handy but for a general “sense”: https://www.scholarsresearchlibrary...adation-products-by-rapid-rpuplcms-method.pdf

This shows that heating test base to 80C (176F) for 6 hours results in 1.6% of the testosterone degrading. This is probably the highest temperature a high quality UGL would use to try to dissolve it in solution (test base / test no ester is a terrible example because it doesn’t dissolve and is usually injected as a “suspension” in either oil or bac water but whatever just roll with it okay) and all esterified testosterone would need lower temperatures than test base to dissolve. However, heating test base to its melting point, 155C (311F), for 3 hours resulting in 40% of the raw undergoing thermal decomposition. Also some people put their vials in boiling water (100C) when they crash, and that could result in more degradation of testosterone than is desired. I can't find data on how much/how fast.

However, the melting point of testosterone undecanoate is only 60C…so you could heat that to its melting point and expect minimal or no degradation of the testosterone.

Tl;dr: Brewing temperature limit has nothing to do with melting point. There’s a concept of “decomposition temperature” but it’s more of a guideline/curve/rangeand not a strict single number. Just heat to the lowest temperature that the compound dissolved in your oil. Minimize time spent hot too - degradation is caused by “temperature times time”, so minimize both, but if you have to choose between them, temperature is way more important than time.

Also keep your compounds away from UV light for more than a few hours. That consistently degrades raws and oils over time (slowly, but surely).

HGH and other peptides also have a “temperature of denaturization” in addition to “temperature of degradation” but it will be higher than the temperature of degradation and if you’re heating peptides you’re already completely doing it wrong. Effects of thermal and mechanical stress on the physical stability of human growth hormone and epidermal growth factor - PubMed you’ll lose 20% of the hGH by heating it to 70C (50% if you leave it that hot for 3 hours). But it will “denature” at 74C…at which point you will lose 100% of it pretty instantly.

Cooking eggs is an example of denaturing proteins/peptides. It’s not burned, but it’s clearly changed.

Wow bro really helpful information thank you for putting your time effort really helped a lot

 

[longstad7282]

For some compounds/raws, heating to the melting point will destroy the raws. You do not need to heat to the melting point. Just heat until dissolved. The temperature required for that depends on the solubility of the raw in the specific carrier oil you use.

Hearing past the melting point won’t necessarily degrade the raw. Degradation happens near the “decomposition temperature” which is also unique to each compound. The decomposition temperature is generally well above the melting temp of long esters (undecyclonate) because they have very low melting points. but the decomposition temperature can also be well below the melting point of “no-ester”/“base” raws, which have very high melting points. Generally the temperature of decomposition won’t change “much” between different esters of the same compound, but the melting point will.

There’s also not a single “decomposition temperature” per se. Rather, there’s an equation (Arrhenius Equation) which shows that noticeable decomposition happens at all temperatures, just glacially slowly at like 40F, and in a matter of minutes at 250F.

I don’t find comprehensive thermal decomposition data immediately handy but for a general “sense”: https://www.scholarsresearchlibrary...adation-products-by-rapid-rpuplcms-method.pdf

This shows that heating test base to 80C (176F) for 6 hours results in 1.6% of the testosterone degrading. This is probably the highest temperature a high quality UGL would use to try to dissolve it in solution (test base / test no ester is a terrible example because it doesn’t dissolve and is usually injected as a “suspension” in either oil or bac water but whatever just roll with it okay) and all esterified testosterone would need lower temperatures than test base to dissolve. However, heating test base to its melting point, 155C (311F), for 3 hours resulting in 40% of the raw undergoing thermal decomposition. Also some people put their vials in boiling water (100C) when they crash, and that could result in more degradation of testosterone than is desired. I can't find data on how much/how fast.

However, the melting point of testosterone undecanoate is only 60C…so you could heat that to its melting point and expect minimal or no degradation of the testosterone.

Tl;dr: Brewing temperature limit has nothing to do with melting point. There’s a concept of “decomposition temperature” but it’s more of a guideline/curve/rangeand not a strict single number. Just heat to the lowest temperature that the compound dissolved in your oil. Minimize time spent hot too - degradation is caused by “temperature times time”, so minimize both, but if you have to choose between them, temperature is way more important than time.

Also keep your compounds away from UV light for more than a few hours. That consistently degrades raws and oils over time (slowly, but surely).

HGH and other peptides also have a “temperature of denaturization” in addition to “temperature of degradation” but it will be higher than the temperature of degradation and if you’re heating peptides you’re already completely doing it wrong. Effects of thermal and mechanical stress on the physical stability of human growth hormone and epidermal growth factor - PubMed you’ll lose 20% of the hGH by heating it to 70C (50% if you leave it that hot for 3 hours). But it will “denature” at 74C…at which point you will lose 100% of it pretty instantly.

Cooking eggs is an example of denaturing proteins/peptides. It’s not burned, but it’s clearly changed.

How long do recommend test e and tren ace needs to be cooked for because when u did my first batch it dissolved within 15 minutes I am hearing people talk about hours but it only took minutes to dissolve for me ?

 

[lowda99]

How long do recommend test e and tren ace needs to be cooked for because when u did my first batch it dissolved within 15 minutes I am hearing people talk about hours but it only took minutes to dissolve for me ?

Test E, maximum 80C / 175F until the solution is no longer cloudy, 3-25 minutes.

Tren Ace, no clue. I can't find thermal decomposition data on trenbolone.

 

[longstad7282]

Test E, maximum 80C / 175F until the solution is no longer cloudy, 3-25 minutes.

Tren Ace, no clue. I can't find thermal decomposition data on trenbolone.

Thanks but isn’t the melting point for test e 34C - 40C