Quit buying Chinese crap then get back to me 
Hilarious coming from the dude who cant payback 10k
This was done with
Seriously FUCKKNG READ
If your point is to drag drama to this thread then just stop now. You have nothing relevant to add so why bring up something that doesn’t concern you whatsoever or this post entirely. I’m working on settling my shit, don’t need you to worry about it for me.
Lol the only person dragging down this thread is you with your wook science.
6 Likes
Have a great day boo 
only if you buy the machine’s guess at integrating that internal standard peak…
apparently I didn’t post said write up. I did mention that @srihugh1 tried to talk me out of the purchase in favor of the more capable 310MM.
Edit: above quote is re: “auto(ish)-injector” designed to remove some of the operator specific variation. See linked thread for that discussion.
2 Likes
You should probably read his post before telling him to start reading. He said he has tried every conversion and only one was not making d8 as a by product and that was the one that was not scalable to reactor scale. No where did he say he cant scale up past a RBF on any conversion.
Now you are defending your conversion you posted because its 89% tac? 89% according to a extremely poor analytical test using “pure” 82% (lol) standards.
You have been arguing this thread to death all day all over some shitty analytics done on your sop and for some reason you keep defending the analytics that you admit to know very little about.
2 Likes
All I’ve done is argue what has been told to me by the team performing my sop. With this being their lab techs first rxn for d9 I’d say he did more than acceptable. I posted the testing Available to me by them, which then I was wrong about how they obtained their standards. I admit that part, like I said I’m no analytics tester by any reason. But I sure can read & comprehend no problem. Obviously they can have better testing done, but by the standards they’re running they aren’t co-eluting. Nor am I using a factory sop or patent. There’s many ways to skin this cat, but to be selective in your procedure takes more than just adding shit together & hoping for the best.( which seems to be what everyone here thinks I do.) this is multiple times something was assumed, it’s getting old. But that’s okay, I’ll continue to innovate some more teks & data drop a shit ton of purification white papers as I have been the past week. 
So let’s get this done & over with, I was wrong about this they were performing the “standard” etc, their test shows accurate readings. The man that helps them @srihugh1 would have more answers than me on how they’re going about it or even @cyclopath as he’s had/used one. I’ve answered to my ability on their behalf from what I’ve been told.
Now the fact I was told a test wouldn’t tell me if something was present is just arrogant as you could find a lab that has that standard to test against. Doesn’t need to be a cannabanoid testing facility, 3rd party it.
If you would like to see me personally run this sop & hit 95%+ first go then by all means provide the setting & I’ll perform(given time permits.)
Thanks for the explanation, I also have two SRI GC’s and thats why i knew instantly that those results are sub par and also i knew they were using peak simple which is why I stated right away:
I wasnt trying to attack you or discredit your sop, just make it clear that the answers you were getting from your client were not accurate and shouldnt be the base of any argument.
From your shared graph you can see they shortened their method and the baseline is more like a ramp with peaks in it, please stop saying their tests show accurate readings. They do not. All they show is a couple peaks on a far from flat baseline. SRI GC provides a VERY VERY basic guideline on testing and their provided method is only for CBD THC and CBN.
Now with some minor adjustments to the column temp ramp and pressures you can space out this test and get better separation but its not happening in the 7 minutes your tests show and to think a test is accurate when the baseline hasnt even flattened out is ignorant.
yes you can find a lab to test anything. But you couldnt even tell me a lab that would test for zinc, so why would i assume you would tell your client to use a lab that does?
You actually said a full panel test would show all these unknowns which is VERY concerning for someone consulting on conversions.
1 Like
I’ll summarize this;
3 Likes
This isn’t true
1 Like
Show me the coas.
How about read the paper in this link
…
Ordered a bunch of reagents based off the paper; still waiting for them to arrive.
Ptsa =d8
Polyphosphoric =d8
Metal salts =d8
Hcl = d8
Amberlite =d8
Etc etc I can go on ran and wrote prolly 10 different methods; all have trace d8;
2 Likes
I didnt see your comment about the Sri I’m sorry. But like I said I reiterated what was told to me from the owner, which I’m sure he got from Hugh at Sri.
As I’ve said I don’t know to much about how testing is ran, as to why I consult a few colleagues to help me if there is a reading I don’t quite comprehend. I’ve never seen a reading from Sri myself so it’s just what I had to go off of with this particular mention.
A full panel would shown any unknowns or by products am I wrong?
A full panel will show heavy metals am I wrong?
If you find a lab that makes zinc metals, they will have a standard I assure you.
Now I myself don’t need to text for them as I provide a very thorough post process cleanup, which I ensure no one else here uses the same as I do. I can bet that.
I’m not here to argue analytics or to shit post against @RockSteady as it seems that’s all he’s gonna be here for now. I’ve provided my explanation(s) but I’m not open sourcing this method as I worked my ass off to fine tune it.
If anyone wants to get some help on selectivity for this type of rxn my dms are open. Till then I’ll await their 3rd party test & make sure it’s okay for me to post upon their behalf. Other than that I don’t have anything else to say other than how about some SCIENCE.
There using room temp ptsa and toluene to make 80%+ d9 also
Solvent selection matters more then anything
3 Likes
Most certainly wrong, utterly. A “panel” by definition tests for a certain list of known analytes – an unknown would not be included in the list, since it’s unknown.
3 Likes
Yeah RT reactions are interesting the 48 hour reaction time sucks tho
1 Like