Yeah, that patent was very informative but ultimately fails to produce the same results as my SOP. It was helpful, it did point me in the correct direction, but ultimately that patent is not a working SOP.
fair enough
Why claim itās your SOP people are using when you yourself used this patent to guide you?
What size of an ego do you have that makes you think someone else didnāt use that patent to create their own SOP that they or others have followed.
That patent was written before this forum was even a thought.
Tbh the reason I assume that is because in the beginning I gave the SOP out to a number of frequent posters here. I began selling it at a later date. I suppose that yes, people could have gone through the same rigorous testing with TiBa and gotten the same results eventually. That said I hadnāt heard of anyone on here discussing trials with it and achieving the same degree of success until years after I had propagated my SOP.
Is it really that my ego is too big? Wouldnāt many people in my position make the same assumption after making and sharing a unicorn discovery like that?
I didnāt mean to ruffle any feathers btw
Brilliant people create. Geniuses borrow.
That patent does not work btw. Not as itās written. Trying to get those parameters written in the patent to yield anywhere near what was claimed was a huge money pit. I sunk a fortune into RnD. The changes I made were critical and yeah Iām proud of that. Iām not sure where I offended you, but a patented claim is not the same as a working SOPā¦I made a working SOP.
No offense its just silly to assume you are the only one to have been working on this and figuring it out. I remember a lot of people talking about about tiba and getting sub par results and eventually those numbers went up to high potency/conversion rates but it took timeā¦ it seemed like a year or more from my outside view.
What I gather from that is people were trying and getting lower conversion rates and were improving over time on their own.
At the start of d9 conversion here it seemed like 60-80% was the best they could achieve and it was EASY to tell it was converted and then over time those number went up and eventually it was getting to be 90% plus and hard to even determine if it was converted or not.
I donāt see it as silly all based on the timeframe.
I memba this stuff hitting 70%+ being such a milestone for people. Now its high 90s easy for many. This is definitely an aged topic with a handful I could tag capable and probably not willing to credit others because they too do their own work/tweaking
i mean you shared the SOP and now want explicit credit for being the first to something that has documented history of work.
Iād say its silly to think no one else did the same thing you did after reading that patent.
I donāt believe that it does have a history of documented work tbh. I believe that due to failings in analytical testing that the originator of that patent never achieved the yields my SOP does. Are we really disagreeing over the chain of custody of invention?
The individual who first crafted a working carriage wheel was inspired by the pottery wheel. The inventor of the pottery wheel did not invent the carriage/chariot wheel howeverā¦ because the pottery wheel by design will not work for that purposeā¦
Yes people before me did work with organometalics and some made hefty claims. No one before me achieved the yields that my SOP achievesā¦including the author of that patent
BTW doesnāt it intrinsically matter who got there first when attempting to assign claim to any invention?
If I invented anti lock brakes tonight, completely independent of any schematics or designs previously drafted by the engineers who invented them decades ago, and it came out identical to the version of anti lock brakes already designed by those engineersā¦do I not have to admit that they invented said brakes first?
You all have been amazing. I have received many DMs and am very thankful for the outreach. I am going to select one of the SOPs to purchase but unfortunately I have reached my maximum replies for the day so I must wait 24 hours to respond to some messages. @Roguelab in particular. Thank you so much for sharing your wealth of knowledge and your welcoming attitude. Warms the heart 
More than welcome
As for your HHC sop I am quiet intrigued by your motivation as to why use Raney nickel
For although cheaper I personally find it a more dangerous reaction defenatly at scale
And would not recommend it
But would love to hear your side of the equation
I was getting roughly 98% (50r/48s) with pd/c D9 oil enriched with thca. obviously increase percentages in R being the most desirable. Also when using D8 as starting material I was experiencing an unknown pressure increase (sometimes) batch to batch even though parameters and feedstock all stayed consistent. I switched to Raney at the advisement of a group of Indian chemists that do Raney transfer all day in 55 gallon drums outside like itās the easiest thing in the world. I was since able to bring that up to 75R/23S. Much more lucrative. They main client being a group out of Switzerland that sprays their CBG flower with HHC and then freeze dry it for consumption. They make a beautiful flower it is almost indistinguishable from grade A cannabis. Client demand drove the method. At first I was using a balloon hydrogenation method and have since switched to a large scale hydrogen reactor now that money has been consistent. Very safe AI controlled replicable results. Since it was what I was looking for and I honestly do not know a better way at cost. We stuck with it. I have a board that drives decision making.
It now makes perfectly sense thank you
Be safe
Enrich with thc-a thatās a interesting facet of your sop by the way
As for outside working environment itās a briljant working space for these reactions
And probably a great reminder that ventilation
Is crucial to all those attempting this
Thca and playing with cool shit has so much more evolutuon to go!