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
And ours does not infringe because they are required to have first a base and then a solvent. We don’t require a solvent
3 Likes
Really. So did @Chelsea and @hemphop get their product finally? Because to me taking money without ever intending to deliver product sounds like something you should be put behind bars for.
Your comment should be directed to Hemp Choice distribution, but we are happy to answer.
Pegasus has no partnership with Hemp Choice Distribution and they are two separate companies.
We don’t have any right to speak on their behalf.
As for our company Pegasus Processing,
We never received payment from Hemp Choice Distribution for the product in regards to @hemphop .
@Chelsea can speak to her interactions with Pegasus if she wishes, But we find her company pleasant to work with and happy we could help.
1 Like
Yes. It is not an intermediate product. I am of the belief that the small “1.5-3% D9” peak seen in my latest process is actually a cis-D8 or other D8 isomer… mainly because it seems nigh impossible that D9 could continue to exist under the process conditions. The only way to know for certain is to isolate this peak/shoulder of D8 and perform NMR on it… since apparently the results of mass spec analyses between D9 & D8 are too close to call. Even though this little peak/shoulder gives MS results different from the D9 standard most labs still consider it to be D9.
3 Likes
For this purpose, do you think using a longer column will improve the separation on GCMS?
2 Likes
Send it to KCA…Bet you $1.00 it’s 4,8 iso THC.
It elutes the same on a C18 HPLC method, elutes differently (sometimes) on a GCMS and if you look at the spectra it is characteristically different from D9. It’s happened to us a few times also.
12 Likes
So, ignoring DEAs definition of THCs, does that make all of the so called hot d8 legal?
1 Like
No, not at all.
I think some processes can turn D9 to 4,8-iso. I know it sounds outrageous when you look at it mechanistically, but anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise.
Edit: in other words, there’s plenty of hot d8
5 Likes
The majority of processes have d9 as the intermediate between CBD and d8 as well, no?
3 Likes
According to their definition of THCs, d8 is illegal. According to their definition of isomer, the iso-THCs [d8-iso and d4(8)-iso] are not isomers of d9-THC.
The designation hot d8 implies that the d8 in the hot d8 is assumed to be legal but the hot is not.
“Legal hot d8” is an oxymoron. Actually two oxymorons.
4 Likes
All of them do.
I’ve been under the impression it was necessary to cycle through d9(from CBD at least), but we’ve got people claiming not to now
2 Likes