Absolutely agree with this.
I would not be surprised at all if the government targets d8 and possibly also other isomers once they decide to further loosen restrictions on d9.
1 Like
How’s it going @pdxcanna?
Still here .
We may have had a a little rough start but we’re here and things are good.
Recent in progress.
As someone who runs wfe exactly how you explained to me, I can tell you d8 and d9 are not easily separable on a wiper
Cbd and d9 are much easier IMO I’ve seen ppl able to leave 1% d9 in there cbd crude
My pope should be up in a week or so if you’d like to come try it for yourself
I’ll even have my 2500 liter per second edwards diffstak 250 hooked up to it so you’ll be able to get whatever vacuum level you want
2 Likes
That I believe. I was referring to d8 and CBN as probably having adequate difference in volatility to allow their separation by WFE.
From the literature, you should be able to equilibrate any d8/d9 ratio to 97:3.
Now you oxidize d9 only to CBN and you should have d8/CBN at 97:3.
I’d be very surprised if you wouldn’t be able to evaporate d8 only.
To me, this seems like a foolproof way of arriving at essentially pure d8.
Sounds like a plan!
3 Likes
I had that idea a while ago and lacked the scientific knowledge to remediate the catalyst you’re speaking of
Wtb clean up sop
This is our favorite chemist at CCL talking about DDQ and chloranil
Somewhere he said ddq is impossible to clean up, I can’t find the thread
David B (RIP) actually corrected him
I thought you might want to read those threads since that’s where I got the info about ddq and chloranil that we talked about
I never know what’s true and false when dealing with Wes which is why I ask you
You mean remove the hydroquinone that the quinone turns into.
The reason I think this will be easy is because the amount of reagent will be much less than if you were oxidizing a batch of d9. You’ll only use enough reagent to convert whatever low percentage of d9 is in your mainly d8 distillate.
Sure, we can work on an SOP together.
3 Likes
Couldn’t we also just convert the d9 into d10 with mecholums sop too?
Then you wouldn’t need to clean up the chloranil
As always just thinking outside the box
I have no personal experience of DDQ which is just a more recent version of chloranil, a reagent I have quite extensive experience with.
And an upside with chloranil is that what it turns into during the reaction, the corresponding tetrachlorohydroquinone, that hydroquinone can be reoxidized back to chloranil with reagents from your favorite pool supply and grow stores.
Pretty good yield.
1 Like
I remember you mentioned this to me!
Such a great idea
I won’t work with HMPA and very reluctant to infringe on existing d10 IP.
1 Like
Thank the Chinese chemists that came up with the regeneration procedure.
1 Like
I’d be interested to see if there IP infringes on @AlexSiegel patent seeing as that his patent covers d10 made above 150c or something with any catalyst
Of course you know how I feel about patents lol
I’m pretty sure the Canopy patent won’t clash with the patent you are referring to. Matter of fact, I doubt it will even survive scrutiny as it seems to be an obvious Srebnik knock-off.
Gotta read the claims section, but generally, I have no interest in d10. Maybe if the individual diastereomers were used to make the individual d6a(10a) enantiomers à la Srebnik.
1 Like
If you don’t want operators to use tech that you feel is yours, you certainly shouldn’t copy tech straight out of published IP. At least not brag about or capitalize on it.
It gets murky if you strongly feel that the published IP is steer manure.
2 Likes
The problem I see with CCL hhc sop is he posted it on the forum here before
Anon93688 is Wes
That’s a question for an IP lawyer.
1 Like
Their patent doesn’t infringe unless their methods of making d10 also generate trace d6a10a and CBN. Looks like they paid some for nice chemists
3 Likes