Thread: Test cocaine purity!

Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. Collapse Details
    Test cocaine purity! 
    sorry mods for cross posting but I did not know where to put it. Feel free to take it away.
    With modest pride in our achievement we would like to announce the arrival of our newest test : EZ Test White.
    With this test you will get an idea as to how pure your coke really is. The test is really EZ to do (20 seconds) and discriminates from very low to very high cocaine contents!
    please go here to read more and order.
    Reply With Quote

  2. Collapse Details
    Revelar is about to release it's own Cocaine tester. It's a two-pack, and is easier to use - similar to current reagent test kits - just place a drop on the substance and look for a colour change. The density of the colour tells you reletively how strong it is.

    Stay tuned....

    Reply With Quote

  3. Collapse Details
    Hi Chem Gen, it is good to see you guys are back in business. The more tests that get to the public, the better.
    There are however some things I would like to say about the way you are and have been marketing your products in the past.

    On your website from the past you were claiming that with the mandelin reagent , people could tell the difference between meth and amphetamines. With these kind of tests this discrimination is not possible! You will have to use other tests to do this!

    Also the information you are giving with your cobalt coke test is not completely correct:
    First of all, EZ Test White is totally different from the old fashioned cobalt thiocyanate tests. The reagents and the technical specs are very different so they cannot be compared. It does not help that you have named one of your reagents Co-test White. This will be very confusing for the public.

    Second, a cobalt thiocyanate test can't tell you anything about purity. You're saying something about relative purity, but that's impossible with this test, which is only good for the presumptive identification of cocaine.

    Third, there are many substances that will give a false positive with any cobalt based reagent. To name a few: lidocaine, benzocaine, procaine, methamphetamine, diphenhydramine, pcp, heroin, ephedrine and quinine.

    I think it's great that you guys are back in business, but I would appreciate it if you would pay more attention when you're writing your promotional texts and stick to the facts, both positive and negative. Don't try to sell tests to people that do not completely do what people are made to expect from them, it is harmful for the whole harm reduction through testing principle, and makes other suppliers also look bad.
    Last edited by easy e; 20-07-2005 at 11:17.
    Reply With Quote

  4. Collapse Details
    Thanks for your feedback and opinions Easy E.... here are some of mine....

    The website information indicated that you could tell the difference between amphetamine and methamphetamine, as well as MDA and MDMA, using Mandelin reagent. We brought Mandelin to the world, and did a lot of research for it, so we know the product well. If you are an experienced tester and use good 'advanced' testing techniques (as we've previously shared), you can tell the difference. We've never claimed that this should be considered as conclusive proof. Merely - if you test carefully you will see the difference. And when we say 'difference', we don't mean black/white, we mean subtle colour CHANGES. You, and many people in tester-land, seem to be very focussed on immediate colour. These testers should be viewed as a colour change over a period - as outliined in our advanced testing techniques. Perhaps i can suggest that you read these?

    With the new Cocaine tester from Revelar, again we've done years of research into the products, and detemined the best combination of products to avoid false positives. Cobaltous thiocyanate (modified - Co-Kit Blue) is still very much a leading edge tester, and yes, the new tester is very different to yours. The name of the second tester (Co-Kit white) is an unfortunate coincidence for you.

    The combination of these two products end up giving you very similar information about the presence of Cocaine and the relative purity. With the two-pack product, the second tester was designed to pick up those compounds that give false positives to the cobalt thiocyanate tester (a known issue with all these single cobalt thiocyanate based testers). In this way, when used in combination, you end up with a very high level of assurance.

    You have made a strong comment on the suitability of our cobalt based cocaine testers for determining purity without having any informaiton about our new product. I consider it inappropriate to comment on something so strongly when you know nothing about it. Please don't. More information to follow on our website on the purity aspects of the Co-Kit Blue product (

    On the subject of false positives, as mentioned above, this is well recognised, and is why we have a specialised combination two-pack product. Some of the compounds you mention would only show up with testers such as Marquis and Mandelin - which we recognise, and is part of our testing regime.

    I congratulate you on your new Cocaine tester. Whilst i have not had the pleasure to use your new Cocaine tester product, i will at some stage, and will provide some feedback. I remain concerned at the use of what i think is Chloroform, as well as the 'single' tester - there is always something that can fool a single tester! That's why we brought out Mandelin (to support Marquis - and which now is considered a better product), and also why we have a two-pack Cocaine tester!

    Thanks for the welcome back - it's been a long few years, but it gave me heaps of time for Revelar to do a whole lot of research, product development and testing.

    I think that of anyone here, i have always stuck to the facts, and have one of the strongest backgroudns in research and application of these testers - i have HUNDREDS of journals and papers on many and varied topics, and support this with field research through user groups. This is on the back of a very solid chemistry degree and years of industry experience in drugs.

    Our motivation is to bring harm minimisation products to the world - as evidenced by Mandelin a few years ago, and our support of harm minimisation groups. Yes, we are a business, and so are you, but we are not motivated by greed.

    I personally believe that I have significantly improved the technical knowledge base of this site, and the reputations of all tester producers.

    Good luck with your new products. It will indeed be interesting to see what happens as Chemical Generation and Revelar lauch new product world wide...... stay tuned.....

    Reply With Quote

  5. Collapse Details
    Well, I am not going to waste my time and energy on a pointless discussion, however, there are a couple of things that I want to say to you.
    First of all, I find your allegations, where you say that we do not know anything about testing drugs and are motivated solely by greed, appalling! I would like to remind you that EZ Test, which was the first ecstasy test kit that was offered to the public, goes back until 1996 and is still going strong.
    We chose to be a company because it would ensure our independence and it makes doing business easier. Making a profit is necessary to the point where we need to make money to stay in business, we are not completely geared towards making a profit just for the sake of the profit.

    Our continuous efforts in promoting awareness about the whole field of testing street drugs has led to the arrival of several other suppliers of these test, which we have always greeted with much enthusiasm. The more tests that are brought to the public the better! Our good reputation in the marketplace has been achieved through our focus on providing people with the equipment and information they need and this is exactly where I think you can improve yourself.

    You're making it sound like testing street drugs is rocket science, where we both know that ALL of these techniques go back to the 50's and 60's, when sophisticated equipment was not readily available.
    Mandelin, Marquis, Mecke, Scott and Simons reagents are therefore hardly innovations, the recipes of these have been known for ages and their applicability is well documented.

    I have read your 'advanced testing techniques' and just cannot seem to find anything that explains the chemistry behind your claim that these tests can tell the difference between primary and secondary amines.
    Both Mandelin and Marquis work as follows: sulphuric acid works as a dehydrant and oxidant. first, the aromatic compound (benzene ring) condensates, then it oxidizes the resulting diarylmethylene compound to colored p-quinoidal products.
    This reaction does not seem to be affected by the exact place of the nitrogen (which makes the difference between a primary and secondary amine). If you can show me the chemistry that proves otherwise: please let me know and I will offer you my apologies. When testing for secondary and primary amines you will need another class of tests, in this case Simons and Robadope reagents (btw: the latter is an EZ Test only true innovation).

    For the coke test you are going to lauch soon:
    I have made the same test a couple of years ago, it is a modified version of Scott reagent, where the modification is probably a water-glycerol mixture in solution 1.
    I have abandoned this project for the reason that the results were not reliable enough. All it does is prove that there is (some) cocaine present in a sample, which is almost always the case.
    Therefore, at the time I did not think much of the test and I still don't.
    EZ Test White does not react to other drugs such as: heroin, methaqualone, PCP, quinine, methamphetamine,barbiturates, procaine, benzocaine, tetracaine,lidocaine, butacaine, and methapyrilene, and i know that there are substances on this list that would give a false positive with your test .
    I would have loved to read on your web site which substances it tests for and which it doesn't, but unfortunately the information was not there.

    This is exactly my point about your way of giving information: it is either unsubstantiated, not (entirely) true or just not there. Just stick to the facts, both positive and negative! You do not need this kind of sales technique to bring your products to the public!
    Again, I am happy to see you guys are back in business, but I hope you will improve the quality of information that you're giving. Misinforming the public only creates insecurity with the public and it is not good for the harm reduction scene at all.

    PS: MODS, we will settle this in the OD forum so feel free to lock it.
    Reply With Quote

  6. Collapse Details

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts