I’ve given up on phos of any kind. It’s not controllable enough for my liking. It’s caused me nothing but sadness. 
@Kingofthekush420 I’ve tried poly with heptane. It cyclizes to d8 fast.
6 Likes
That would require advanced chemistry knowledge which he hasn’t got.
You’re 100% correct, as it should be expected with your background.
Just saying… polyphosphoric acid reacts to make mixed phosphoric esters with alcohols and generally undergoes solvolysis with any protic solvent.
It does work in theory, as it does in practice given the correct ratios of reactants and general reaction conditions, but the way it was presented is a very poor and inferior way in contrast to the classical method (which you obviously don’t even know about). How many times do i have to rephrase it for you so you can wrap your preschooler mind around it? Is reading that hard for you?
If he needs vacuum to remove water of crystallization from PTSA monohydrate, I’m afraid he’s not nearly as godlike a chemist as you claim him to be.
both HHC stereoisomers were first made in 1966.
If you had read the patent, you’d know 
fucking clown
I hold a patent on shitting sideways, that’s just as basic and obvious an “invention” as the stuff in his patent. And mine isn’t even full of embarrassing typos.
4 Likes
It was 200 proof
1 Like
Happened to notice that this patent by Mark does seem to be abandoned. It looks to me ike it conflicts with patents filed as early as 1944.
In his claims it doesn’t look like he went very specific with what the ideal reaction conditions would be. If he’s here I’d love to hear about his thoughts on this application.
This patent is the only one I can find relating to tetrahydrocannabinol with Mark Scialdone in the name. However it seems like his patents are split beteeen Mark A. Scialdone and Mark Andrew Scialdone on google patents so there could be more under a different name.
As I look more it looks like different versions may have been accepted. Here’s one that says granted in the US and active
3 Likes
Is one
Is the other
Here’s the link to the article on HHC
https://thecannabisindustry.org/tag/hydrogenated-cannabinoids/
4 Likes
not really tho
doubtful
it’s not isomerization tho, it’s hydrogenation - and it’s far easier to master than isomerization. i applied a different hydrogenation method, which was done in less than an hour and yielded 97.5% HHC, the balance accounting for mechanical loss during workup
yield and purity are two different things, and hydrogenating a complex mixture of natural compounds is hardly a good approach for a pharma grade product. but i guess if all you have is a hammer (hydrogenation skills), everything looks like a nail (hydrogenation substrate).
not a big surprise to get 98.8% of “hydrogenated cannabis oil” if you don’t even do a proper workup. conversion and selectivity even matter a lot more than they do for reactions of pure compounds.
1 Like
HHC was known, first patented by in 1944 by Roger Adams in US 2419937, see claim 1. HHCA was not known until my patent published, see US 10071127. I was the first to isolate and characterize it. The patents are not abandoned.
17 Likes
thx for. Putting time and effort in cannabinoids really hope we find good use for them 
5 Likes
Thank you for clarifying that! Also, thank you for all the contributions you’ve made to this industry.
4 Likes
Video about the hydrogenation was crazy and awesome
laughs in tetrahydrocannabanoids
3 Likes
A post was merged into an existing topic: Butthole Surfers
“W-w-would you like to see m-m-my m-mmembrane d-dr M-m-Mark?”
5 Likes
@KnowledgeSeth quote
Enlighten the haters please
7 Likes
Every action of our lives touches on some chord that will vibrate in eternity. — Edwin Chapin
11 Likes
Same for me, IFHA is expensive… If you have the name, could you DM me the Lab, too?
1 Like
I can’t recommend IFHA. A customer of mine has had to have them re-analyze 5 samples in one day because the results were obviously implausible (and IFHA didn’t notice themselves, but instead asked for an explanation, wtf?), and they usually get between 5-20 incorrect analyses per month.
1 Like
Same problem with our products.
They diluted our sample by 50% in the lab. I don’t know why.
The logical conclusion to then increase the final cannabinoid content again for the COA did not seem to make sense to them.
And I had a COA from the starting material. Therefore I was able to calculate the approximate concentration based on weight.
The IFHA is a disaster.
Never again
Can you take a guess How many would you say theyre proc3ssing monthly?
about 50