Anyone here bitching about an exo-thermic reaction, pretty much just oxidation/(dehydrogenation) better be bitching as hard about thc-o etc. Lots of fuckery going on in here. Fuck is wrong with you guys. Lots of misplaced hate. Profound Naturals is not the enemy. Pffft. Buncha hypos.
1 Like
Combustion isnât just âan exothermic reactionâ. Itâs like making a conversion with crude and catalyst and not bothering with the cleanup⌠youâre reacting everything present uncontrollably and then collecting it all.
Selectivity is not a prerequisite for a reaction. Just because you couldnât appropriately clean up the reaction post process dosent mean they canât. Iâm unsure how many conversions youâve done or participated in, but side reactions happen ALL THE TIME. This industry is plagued with hotdog water. I think I trust the PHD from an ivy(not saying thatâs EVERYTHING) a little more than you jamokes
1 Like
just not seeing where looking for something magic in the smoke to explain the difference between inhaled vs ingested makes any sense when we have solid data on what the liver does to ingested cannabinoids.
pyrolyized CBD isolate.
created 78 âknown cannabinoids/isomersâŚsome of which might be inactiveâ.
there may well be useful stuff there, but âhere, try all 78 at once and see what happensâ doesnât strike me as good science.
isolate them and try one at a time? sure.
some of them may be inactive (we donât know), also implies: âwe donât know that none of them are toxicâ.
does âvapingâ make the all 78? or even 1/2 of them? dunno. worth exploring before deciding âmust be because they set it on fire!â is the defining difference.
âHey look, during pyrolysis we get a cannabinoid that the liver canât alterâ would indeed be newsâŚonce you could actually point at that cannabinoid rather than a swarm of new peaks on your chromatogram. synthesizing that cannabinoid as a soup using fire and claiming âwe got this!â seems premature.
edit: I will give you that actually setting flower on fire does have a qualitatively different effect that vaporizing concentrate. actual data on the quantitative differences (which they donât mention having) between those two might be informative.
9 Likes
I know itâs not this, but itâs a pretty funny idea to be like âcan we patent cannabis smoke?â.
Iâm going to patent protein shake farts and take some lawyers to gyms around town.
3 Likes
That fact that you posed so many questions, makes me more interested in her work than hydrogenating cannabinoids when that NEVER happens naturally.
The liver and high heat actually do a lot of the same TYPE of work. Our body metabolise and oxidizes things just like a reaction. Finding out more information on the phyto cannabinoids, produced by smoke, so that we may INGEST them without pyrolization/carbon/smoke is great.
In my opinion it is good work, and you canât hate someone for trying to protect their IP.
Sometimes some of the best ideas, are born from the most simple principles.
4 Likes
right up until âhere, eat thisâŚâ
I can. I usually donât. given how much is about whose shoulders youâre standing on, and who you interacted with while thinking about it, âmy idea!â is not a trivial sell imo.
if they have IDâd the single magical component, and have isolated it, and are merely obfuscating with the â78 new peaksâ, then sure. if theyâve got no clue yet, and are simply making magic soup, then the product is premature
5 Likes
â78 new productsâ 
bust out the crisco itâs a party.
2 Likes
The answer is no⌠aerosols generated by vaping do not have these compounds, at least not when lower temps are used.
âThe GC/MS analysis showed that the gas phase of the vapor consisted overwhelmingly of cannabinoids, with trace amounts of three other compounds. In contrast, over 111 compounds were identified in the combusted smoke, including several known PAHs.â
5 Likes
They not be âphytoâ unless they are found in the plant.
I also heard ânatural cannabinoidsâ in there somewhere. Which throws a huge red flag for me.
I only recognize two kinds of folks who (absolutely) equate ânaturalâ with âgood for youâ, idiots and liars.
By all accounts, ânatureâ is gearing up to take us out for setting shit on fire in those infernal combustion engines and not considering the smoke.
Gonna have to back pedal just a little on this one. 
âHere, eat thisâ really has been a primary tool in our exploration of our conditionâŚ.
Really could not know sooo much of what we know if some motherfucker didnât âeat that shit and be sureâŚâ
4 Likes
I mean, thatâs how we eventually figured out which mushrooms were totally nebular and which ones killed youâŚ.
2 Likes
All mushrooms are edible, some only once
12 Likes
Off topic, but my favorite âfuck around and find outâ guinea pig was Col. John Paul Stapp. He decided to put his body on the line to test G forces and pilot safety equipment in a rocket sled over and over and over again in the 1950s.
4 Likes
So smart she said cbn is made by dehydration lol idgaf about a PhD especially when they canât even use the correct term to describe how a cannabinoid is made. And then on top of it trying to teach the wrong thing to people. Thatâs even more hilarious coming from a PhD
Symantics?
I think not
One is removing water the other is removing hydrogen big difference especially when you actually know wtf youâre talking about
I find it funny you make comments like the first quote above then wanna blame symantics, how is it that someone as dumb as me knows the difference but a PhD doesnât 
I have a PhD anyways
Pot Head Degree
Hands on > a fucking certificate any day
Atleast I know the difference between dehydrogenation and dehydration
I canât even take the time to explain why you look like an idiot.
7 Likes
Because youâre the idiot claiming symantics when thereâs a big difference between dehydrogenation and dehydration
Please show me where you remove a water molecule from thc to make cbn
You gotta be kidding me⌠I will dehydrate some material with a fucking bic lighter and make cbn. Want to bet? Or do you want to argue symantics?
Either way 11-hydroxy-THC is being formed when d9-THC is eaten, whether it be pre-combusted or not. This metabolite is what is assumed to be responsible for the difference in highs.
Claiming there are other compounds being formed in the combustion process that are going to override this metaboliteâs effect is very bold.
I will be interested to see if it really works, if so, I wonder if they already know what that compound is?
5 Likes
If so, why not just add that one? Maybe they are obfuscating the identity? If so, they are doing so by inclusion of many undesirables.
1 Like
I donât think their claim is to âoverrideâ the 11-hydroxy-THC effect so much as to modulate/add to it by the addition of [not one compound but tens of them, whether or not they have the ability or care to name it/them]. like a âfull[er]-spectrumâ or âentourageâ kind of idea. works for the marketing of âfull-spectrumâ products all day.
and is this modulation of effect not within the realm of possibility? itâs clear that smoking vs. vaping make for noticeably different highs. barring the added effects of actual smoke inhalation, isnât it possible these randomly generated compounds are the reason fot that?
also, itâs really interesting to me that there appears to be less concern voiced on this thread about the very common âactual smoking and inhalationâ route of absorbing these âunknown/undesirablesâ, vs. consumption (ingestion or otherwise) of these same unknown/undesirables via their patented method.
whatâs different? what makes these random pyrolysis-generated unknowns âundesirableâ when you get them via their method, and âdesirableâ or âacceptableâ when you get them via smoking a joint?
(i mean this question less as a challenge than âhelp me understand the concern with this vs. straight smokingâ)
3 Likes