I have not observed the absorbtion you refer to (i.e., in my d9 peaks when using HPLC + PDA). Which “human visible” wavelengths do you believe are absorbed by d9THC?
Thanks for bringing this up.
I think a couple of factors are at play, first and foremost the seemingly exaggerated “bulk effect” of glassy THC. We all know that a gram of oil in a vial that we take to the testing lab look pretty much colorless while the bulk of the half-gallon jar can be quite yellow, even gold or leaning towards orange. And if anything, the diode array detector is even further from the bulk jar than the sample vial situation.
The other factor may have to do with the homoallylic nature of the 9-10 double bond and the tricyclic ring structure which places the double bond into possible (hyper)conjugation with the resorcinol pi-system. Essentially the same underlying reasoning why d9 is prone to oxidation to CBN while d8 is not.
These two things in concert is why I think “water clear” d9 is a mirage.
Maybe my “visible spectrum absorption” wording wasn’t the best but whatever it is, it is something that our eyes and brain perceive.
D9-THC is actually a pretty unique molecule with uncommon stereo electronic features and it’s actual electronic structure might not be adequately conveyed by a structure drawing without also considering much less contributing resonance structures.
I have spent quite some time trying to find proper model systems, conformationally restricted, electron-rich homoallyl arenes, but haven’t yet found anything useful.
One would have to perform some pretty advanced DFT type calculations to get a handle on this or maybe the new DM21 AI out of Deep Mind will do a better job at delineating any hyperconjugation? I will have to defer to computational chemistry as to whatever wavelength of photons, if any, the putative hyperconjugation prefer to absorb. The last time I did similar “particle-in-a-box” type calculations was more than thirty years ago.
But something (strange) is going on, and to me it seems plausible that the “nearly colorless” is connected with d9’s proneness to oxidation.
The “gram of oil” and bulk “half-gallon jar” (of oil) you refer to is unlikely to be pure d9THC. If true, it is difficult to eliminate the possibility that the yellow color is coming from the impurities.
It would surprise me if a bulk jar of pure d9THC, stored in a way that prevents oxidation, degredation, and conversions, had any detectable absorbance in the human visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum. I say this because this is what we observe in our HPLC + PDA data (for pure d9THC peaks). It is also what we observe when one puts a pure sample of d9THC in a spectrophotometer.
It would not surprise me if the yellow color you refer to were originating from an oxidized, degraded, or converted form of d9THC… but at that point we are no logner talking about absorbance by bona fide d9THC molecules.
2 Likes
Yeah… wait… wut? It was his statements like that backwards bit of obfuscation that made me fail to see ANY point to his response, at all… But I applaud your optimism, believing he was saying it’s all just about banning isomerization and actually has nothing to do with the media which the OLCC obviously does not comprehend (despite the use of flocculants and filter aids in winemaking and brewing since… forever?), but knows only enough to demonize.
I am having a REALLY hard time trying to find a single thread of accurate truth from the OLCC on which we might pull our arguments into this legislation. It’s so narrow minded and obtuse at the same time… like a hypercube of stupid sides, outlined with ignorance!
8 Likes
Oregon terpene testing is optional and an extra cost on some labs don’t even bother with.
I think it will be a long time before they try and muddy up the terpene world as long as it’s cannabis/hemp terps.
3 Likes
This sample was ran through W1 twice. First on initial extraction, then was later mixed back with other fraction of batch and processed again with W1. Wouldn’t think these numbers of d-9 would worry OLCC.
1 Like
OLCC doesn’t care about d9.
It’s the d8 which you are ND on so no worries.
3 Likes
they have actually decided to ALLOW botanicals…but only if you’ve got appropriate documentation.
Cannxperts are so dope.
5 Likes
Ethanol is a catalyst?
1 Like
If you drink enough of it, look at Jim Lahey
1 Like
Decarb goes faster/at lower temps. So yeah, I think that’s catalysis…
there are multiple references to it around here and I believe one of them points at published data.
I was using it for years without knowing it.
4 Likes
Do we think its doing this without itself going under any permanent changes?
I always felt like catalysts are the stuff left behind and solvents (like this one…) are the ones that are the “chemical bowl” things sit in. Usually they under go a pretty significant change - like evaporating or being consumed in some way.
Certainly I don’t recall seeing any publications that call ethanol a catalyst in reaction mechanisms. I almost always see it listed a a solvent in all reaction mechanisms. You know?
In the publication you are talking about here - do they list it and call it a catalyst?
Are we trying to say that residual solvents left in crude oil are catalysts? Is that what is reducing the temperature needed to start the reaction? I was always under the impression that was done by changing pressure (aka vacuum). Indeed - in most cases when I’m trying to decarb - I have to get rid of all the other crap first (especially because its MESSY) before I can get where I’m going. 100% if I’m trying to decarb and distill at the same time.
What would be the CATALYTIC reaction that is happening between ethanol and crude oil which is creating the lower activation energy to allow the carboxyl group to fall off faster? Is there a reaction like that happening? Or are we just creating a partial charge (polar solvent or pH…) that is then allowing the carboxyl group to fall off easier, as its electrons are already getting a partial shove?
In any case - definitions become important for this kind of stuff. And since they seem to routinely come up with some pretty weird rules… using nomenclature that isn’t really peer reviewed. Its probably good to clarify. 
4 Likes
This ^^^^
Lower activation energy. Not consumed.
== catalyst how I was taught.
Right?
They defined CO2 as a hydrocarbon for a bit…
EDIT: @Cassin checked in with @Photon_noir, because I’m a professed non-chemist, and he assures me that solvent based lowering of activation energy barriers are not consider “catalytic”.
I’m gonna go with “Doh! Yeah, solvent is required in too great a quantity (Mol-wise) to qualify. What was I thinking?”
5 Likes
Of course details matter but isn’t this wording specifically for conversions?
It is probably worded for conversions but its also not clearly worded to say you can do it as long as there isnt conversions happening in the end product.
4 Likes
Part of me wants to believe they make these rules so vague so that can have leverage but I just know it’s because they are incompetent and lack the knowledge.
3 Likes