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.
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.
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.
Thank the Chinese chemists that came up with the regeneration procedure.
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.
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.
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.
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
And ours does not infringe because they are required to have first a base and then a solvent. We don’t require a solvent
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.
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.
For this purpose, do you think using a longer column will improve the separation on GCMS?
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.