Seen it in writing before and several others with OH.
Like 11OHd9thc
10aOhd9thc more likely
Seen it in writing before and several others with OH.
Like 11OHd9thc
10aOhd9thc more likely
Yeah. There’s lots of noid docs out there :]]
You’ve very much piqued my interest with the mention of studies finding 20 different subclasses of D8. Do you have a link to that article? I used some of the keywords you suggested but the explosion of papers on such topics has left it hard to find something like this.
Personally, I find this very strange and adding to the amount of side ways looks the hemp chemistry industry has to endure.
That’s what I figured. Interesting that you observe closer to a 1:1 mixture of the 9S/9R diastereomers, and not the approximate 2:1 mixture Mechoulam saw when reducing d8. Reduction of d9 was reported as providing predominantly the 9R diastereomer in a 1:3 (S/R) ratio of products.
I guess taken together your findings sort of validates Mechoulam’s ratios, which I think were mentioned as about 2:1 and 1:3, respectively.
That’s what I’m seeing and I just wanted you to digress on the subject. The major benefit of the HHCs (and also d8) are their much better chemical stability due to their lack of doubly allylic/benzylic 10a position preventing any degradation initiated at 10a. Basically the underlying reason why d9 can be selectively be reduced to CBN in the presence of d8.
I think the discoloration observed in d8 is actually mostly from whatever little d9 is present and it contrasts better from the otherwise colorless bulk material.
Thanks for sharing the raw data which include a smaller chromatographic peak eluting just after the diastereomeric pair of HHCs. Any idea what that may be?
Personally, as far as cannabinoids go, I think we are approaching the last stops of the conversion train. There’s only so much one can do with these molecules, particularly if you are limited to CBD as starting point.
I think you will have to switch tracks and strive for becoming more of a fine chemical or biotech company, opening yourself up to more diverse structure space but also, a lot more regulatory oversight.
Being somewhat of a bystander, it has been very interesting to see some of the many entrepreneurs in the industry, their varied approaches to squeeze out profit from hemp biomass.
Many people have discovered the wealth of information provided in scientific journals and patents alike. This to me is a fundamental aspect of progress and innovation, being able to research as in search again.
I will not be surprised if we will see some wildly successful biotech endeavors within the next decade, endeavors that got their start as simpler hemp conversion labs.
Cbd v, cbd B, cbd H, and cbd P are all coming down the pipe line through selective breeding
The conversion train will roll on, it’s only a matter of time before we get a new starting material that’s hemp derived
H refers to the 6 chain tail analogue if anyone was wondering
I doubt we will ever see advancements in selective breeding that will allow for these commodities to be able to compete with chemical synthesis.
Maybe with the exception of the varins, which from an enzymatic point of view ought to be easier to arrive at.
The B and the H, the even carbon homologs, are essentially the result of erratic behavior in the biosynthetic pathway upstream of CBG.
I very much doubt that any selective breeding will be able to successfully guide you. It is simply much more economically viable to use other starting materials.
But that is just my opinion and prediction. The smart ones will know when to switch trains.
Invariably, the hexyl homologs have been chemically synthesized as designer drugs in order to circumvent some countries’ drug scheduling.
Also, Cayman won’t sell you that standard without you having a DEA license.
Thc H has been found in cannabis plant, they thought the same thing about thc p till they found it was indeed in some strains if cannabis
Pure Cbd V cultivars are hitting the market next year
Thc p has already been found in 6% in some hemp strains, it’s only a matter of time before we start harvesting these cannabinoids
I wonder what the difference is between those Cayman catalog numbers?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-79042-2
If you want to read about thc H
They have d9 exempt standards too
No idea how one could be exempt and one couldn’t be
I wonder if it could be the solvent system used?
I know most use acetonitrile as solvent, David B drank some of that once on accident and had to get air lifted from our little spot in NV to sparks idk if you ever heard about that one
Here’s the info from caymen website
The FM2 was used to find CBD H
No thc H was found in it though
It looks like CRMs can be exempt somehow
I know the non CRM standard for thc p I somewhere else was schedule 1 but this one isn’t
Weird
I did never at any point suggest that they hadn’t been found in any plants, merely pointing out that dicking around with the resorcinol tail has been a favorite activity of more than one clandestine designer drug chemist and they sure as hell didn’t extract the material from any biomass.
Actually, long before the varins and spherophorol were discovered, their presence had been postulated based on considerations as to how the olivetolic acid is biosynthesized. That paper is from the mid 70s.
I suggest you read up on some basic biosynthetic pathway stuff before getting too exited about butyl or hexyl analogs. Life gets better when you consider the limitations presented to us by Mother Nature.
Unless you wanna get into site directed mutagenesis and enzyme engineering. It’s not worth it in this case as in there’s nothing hexyl can do that pentyl can do almost as well.
Yet mother nature wasn’t supposed to be able to produce a plant with high yielding THCP but it has.
We’re still in the infancy stages of this industry, there’s still so much more to learn
The only limitations we have at this point are the one we place on ourselves
You are literally unable to read my posts and it’s frustrating. Who said anything about “wasn’t supposed to be able to”?
I just told you that their presence was predicted in the 1970s.
Will extracted THCP be able to compete with synthesized THCP? That is the gist of my messaging and the question that needs broaching, not cluttering of the thread by disparate Cayman CRM ads and ass-pull assertions.
So technically the CSA can’t be applied if the substance in question isn’t meant for human consumption (unless a direct pre cursor)
Only the CRMs ( certified reference materials) are exempt, it must have something to do with how they’re prepared and the fact they’re a certified reference material must make them “not meant for human consumption”