Holy shit this thread is a lot to read and honestly I’m too lazy to read it all but I’ll just focus on this bullshit statement of yours. If this statement is true then literally no one can copy your exact method because you are the only one holding the specific enzymes… So why the fuck the NDA? Well I’m not as highly edgemukated as you are, I guess that makes me too stupid to understand the highly complicated gene editing BS you are trying to convince us of… What you are saying makes no fucking sense and things you are saying are illogical and hence makes all us idiots blind to your great intellectual dominance. But then again personally I think you’re a fucking piece of shit liar… But that’s just an educated guess… Albeit a bit less educated than what you claim to be. Now shut the fuck up and go make me a samwich.
This got so weird so fast. OP, they’re trying to hire you.
This thread. I’m over here 
I have learned to take my breathes before making calls lately. Even if they’re late.
Like you said earlier in this thread you’re the one who performs the SOP so what does it matter if you won’t tell us your tek, you’re most likely not gonna anyways.
Ahem.
I think it’s safe to assume you can buy nearly anything on the internet. I mean, I’ve seen someone in my area with a full on hydraulic car lift in their garage supplied with the high powered electrical boxes and everything.
… With enough money you can literally make a home lab with a full hplc testing center on the side… You can buy any chemical and if you can’t you could reach out to others here and try to get some sources for chemicals.
… It’s not the early 90’s, if you need a chemistry kit, Amazon will bring it to you next day.
You just reminded me of fast times at ridgemont high 
My old man is a TV repairman, he’s got this ultimate set of tools, I can fix this.
It seems like this patent claims CBDa type esters. Not the MMC “recarboxylation” methodology that he published back in 1969, see Chem Comm 343 (1969).
Mechoulam1969.pdf (132.6 KB)
Works well with CBD and CBG, barely at all with THC.
Not viable for THC, in my opinion.
Did you actually read the paper I referenced.
I you had you will see it republished the 1969 method and referenced it.
Yes we are talking about CBD to CBDA…
Why do you bring up THC to THCA??
Agreed it is small scale demonstration.
I propose growing a field of Hemp if you want CBDA as a simple method .
However, if anyone could offer a CBD to CBDA chemical conversion reaction, safe, simple and cost effective…I would certainly recommend @mitokid.
Go for it.
Why the attitude? Obviously, I had read the patent which is why I said that the patent claims esters of CBDa, not CBDa itself.
I brought up the ineffectiveness of corresponding THC to THCa transformation to highlight the pronounced difference chemically between CBDa and THCa and to stress that just because something works well for CBD, it doesn’t necessarily translate to the tricyclic THC structure.
And if the goal is CBDa, cultivation is much to prefer, anyway. I totally agree.
But if you want to produce CBGPa from CBGP, Mechoulam’s ‘69 paper as well as his patent clearly shows how to do it as chemically, CBGP is much closer in reactivity than THC ever will be.
In the patent I noted above:
Section: Synthesis
0062 CBDA synthesis
[0063] A mixture of Cannabidiol (CBD, 314 mg, 1 mmol) and 2 molar solution of Magnesium Methyl Carbonate (MMC/2M, 1.5 ml, 3 mmol) in dimethylformamide (DMF) is heated at 130 C for 3 hours. Then the reaction is cooled to 0 C, acidified with 10% hydrochloric acid and extracted with ether. The organic layer is washed with saline, dried over the drying agent magnesium sulfate (MgS04) and then evaporated. The crude compound is then cleaned by column chromatography (20% ether-petroleum ether). [0064] Synthesis of Cannabidiolic Acid Methyl Ester (HU-580):
It is quite clear that this is the synthesis I was referring to.
It is not an attitude. You like to quote out of context in some regards.
Patent is 63 pages long with some incredibly boring in vitro pharmacology studies appended.
Did you miss the synthesis section?
If you knew the synthesis section was there…why point to another patent?
the synthesis CBD to CBDA section was a 4 sentence simplistic summary that anyone could read.
I think the OP clearly pointed out the toxic nature of the reagents involved…
And in those regards I agree with him…and his reservations concerning
CBDA synthesis in the noted Patent.
So if you want a jar of CBDA grow a field of HEMP.
Regards…
why decarb in the first place- preserve the acids to begin with CBDAS051822_CBDa_Shatter_Potency__Standard_Cannabinoid_Analysis (4).pdf (358.9 KB)
@Roguelab this true about Europe wanting material like this? We’d love to start moving more of this type of material- this and CBDVa