Questions on Chemical Properties of THCa, etc.

[Artificial Emotion]

Lol

 

[Doldrugs]

This is the problem with cannabis science. Too much dick sizing, not enough actual science.

 

[w01fg4ng]

lol

 

[Artificial Emotion]

This is the problem with cannabis science. Too much dick sizing, not enough actual science.

You're claim of "2 years" is ambiguous at best.

I'll ask one more time for an ACTUAL source, but I really don't think you can do it.

This data came from Robert Connell Clarke's work, where he cites Narayanaswami, et al. and other research.

I think that is more than sufficient for a drug forum, this is not some essay, I think you probably expect some harvard referenced source or something but whatever, it's still not going to be good enough. Anything you can do to undermine the credibility of what I say. But upon reading two quoted posts above, simply looking at the photo addresses them both lol.

 

[w01fg4ng]

Allow me to quote what I believe you have sited (thanks for making me squint my eyes btw):

"Degradation of indian hashish and a THC standard stored for two years under normal tropical storage conditions (17-47C)"

Also, on the right side there is the first sentence which states, "The cooler the storage temperature, the longer the resin maintains freshness and potency..."

Thanks for your control group. It was grueling getting it out of you, but as a result, we are still left with the fact that this study is:

#1: About Hash, not weed which is what you are claiming to be decarbed at the 2 year mark.
#2: Do you know hot freaking hot 47 degrees Celsius is?

^^^ This is a laughable standard to hold the world's supply of weed by. We now know you only mean HASH (by one person's experience) at up to 47 Celsius when you say decarbing of weed only takes 2 years. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Artificial Emotion]

I knew you were going to say oh it's hash, not bud, I know exactly how your mind works - any little thing to nit pick and you jump on it, not because of the scientific merits but because you have an agenda. Well guess what the same processes are at play whether it's sieved hash or bud. We're not talking the jump from rats to humans, we're talking about the same substances in the trichomes sieved off.

I said "Most THCA converts to THC in up to 2 years but by this point most of the THC will have converted to CBN anyway.". THC whether in hash or bud (I was not specifying here) contains THC and when exposed to heat, light, moisture, degrades just the same. Hash is just the sieved trichomes so unless you can demonstrate a process by which sieving the trichomes off extends or reduces shelf life I think it's fair to say it's likely to be pretty similar. I stated that it degrades to a point where most THCA converts to THC and most THC to CBD by two years. What is hash? Usually the sieved trichomes pressed into a ball, so the outer 'shell' may offer some protection from oxygen, potentially EXTENDING the shelf life. So if anything, if the results of this study say hash loses half it's potency a year, then bud is probably going to degrade marginally FASTER. Whatever the form though, THC, whether it's sieved off or EVEN FROZEN as the text says, it's still going to degrade relatively fast.

"The cooler the storage temperature, the longer the resin maintains freshness and potency..."

Thanks for your control group

That is not a control group. You have no idea what a control group is do you? You have no background in science, do you? Stop trying to act as if you have so much as a rudimentary knowledge of science because you obviously do not.

You are narrow minded to think that unless the conditions are exactly a way a study is carried out we cannot learn anything from it.

#2: Do you know hot freaking hot 47 degrees Celsius is?

The hash was stored under room temp in normal tropical conditions. So if most of the THCa converts to THC and most of the THC to CBN by two years, in cooler conditions it'll probably take a bit more time, although not that different (REMEMBER THE FACT THAT IF YOU FREEZE IT IT STILL LOSES POTENCY RELATIVELY FAST). A lot of people actually live in that part of the world, so for temperatures for short periods to go up is normal. Those are normal storage conditions! Anyway if you actually used your brain you would work out that the total amount of time at that temp is probably a tiny proportion.

If you're not able to interpet data like this then I'm not prepared to have any further discussion with you. Several people have confided in me about how frustrating it is to try and talk to you and really I'm not prepared to waste any more time on you because I've said all I really need to in this thread. Any more and it's just falling on deaf ears. I won't be replying further in this thread so don't expect a reply if you do make one. For the accuracy of their record they were obliged to record the most extreme temperatures ever recorded.

One more thing I would add. Robert Clarke would not state in bold letters that "50% of the THC in hashish is lost each year when stored at room temperature" if the total percentage THC lost throughout the year stored at room temperature in Nepal is wildly different than the percentage lost in Florida or London. You know that, you just need to be right. Even if it were 18 months at one extreme and 2 1/2 yrs at the other, so what? It still doesn't really change anything. That sort of difference is unlikely anyway that said.

 

[w01fg4ng]

You also failed to show us how the hash is stored (in a jar, in light, etc).

Hash sitting at 47 degrees Celsius exposed to the sun with no jar is going to be at the low end of the time spectrum.

 

[Artificial Emotion]

Lol

 

[tacodude]

This is the problem with cannabis science. Too much dick sizing, not enough actual science.

So true and this whole threads proof of that

 

[w01fg4ng]

I have some wax that not only has not decarbed the THC at all (see test results), but there is also DTHC in there that has not converted either.

Is anyone familiar with this DTHC stuff?

THC: 0%
THCA 76.1%
DTHC: 4.8%
CBD: 0%
CBDA: 0%
CBN: 0%

Test Date: 4/11/2015

 

[Doldrugs]

A chemical breaks down and changes specifically because of the interaction between it and factors like light, moisture, temperature, air, etc. You know... the factors directly affected by storage. These are the least irrelevant factors when it comes to reactions like decarboxylation. Suggesting their effect is negligible or "nitpicking" is the most enormous kind of absurdity.

 

[w01fg4ng]

^ Exactly.

 

[Artificial Emotion]

A chemical breaks down and changes specifically because of the interaction between it and factors like light, moisture, temperature, air, etc. You know... the factors directly affected by storage. These are the least irrelevant factors when it comes to reactions like decarboxylation. Suggesting their effect is negligible or "nitpicking" is the most enormous kind of absurdity.

The main disagreement I have is your statement that decarbing and cooking can easily destroy THC. If you're baking, the temps aren't even getting near to that.

Then look at this graph and see below, temperatures don't have to even exceed boiling by much. It's the same process as what occurs when leaving your hash for two years.

There are two processes at play, the conversion of THCA to THC and the conversion of THC to CBN. When the latter process is happening at a greater rate than the former then you run into problems. The older the weed the more likely this is the case and the decarbing prior to cooking AND the cooking itself will end up potentially harming the potency. It may very well still get you high but be less potent.

OF COURSE storage has an effect on the decarboxylation process.

Robert Clarke states that:

eventually even in frozen storage, all of the THC decomposes, changing primarily into CBN.

..

In short, the longer stored, no matter what the storage conditions, the lower its potency.

There obviously is a small enough variation between normal storage conditions, even when conditions are 'normal tropical conditions', to allow him to state with confidence that '50% of the THC in hashish is lost each year when stored at room temperature'. Like I have said, he is probably one of only a few leading scientists when it comes to cannabis ethnobotany, evolution and history, so if he stating this, not with some caveat that you'll get a wildly different result in London, then I'll take his word over yours any day. When we store weed properly, attempt to minimise the effect temperature, moisture, oxygen, light on THC content, so most are kept at a constant to prevent a large swing in temperature or a fog of damp destroying the bud potency. All things being equal, at room temp under normal storage conditions with most conditions remaining relatively stable, R Clarke states a 50% reduction occurs each year when stored at room temp.

Lets me play devil's advocate and say that even if the annual percentage drop was =/-25% among normal storage conditions, the fact remains that it is still a consideration to think of with older hash or bud. Quibbling over whether the 2yr figure can be given with any accuracy detracts from the bigger picture.

The effect temperature, moisture, heat etc. hash on bud is obviously not negligible.

Not enough actual science? Well if you say so but that's an accusation I would probably say is better suited to you because your understanding seems to be lacking here, no offense.

 

[pajacek]

I don’t find a lots of info on the web about how to make a hight THCa oil with smalles amount of THC!I need the info:
- how much solvent (ethanol 96%) to use for 10 grams of fresh high THCa strain
- what is the best washing time, 2 or 3 minutes or more ? (more time, more chlorofile)
- is it ok to put in ethanol solvent 96% total fresh buds, or thay need to be dray, Im thinkin to cut the buds ant emidelty put them in the proces with the ethanol.

Thanks a lot for any kind of infomrations.
ALL THE BEST TO ALL

 

[Robf11]

I have some wax that not only has not decarbed the THC at all (see test results), but there is also DTHC in there that has not converted either.

Is anyone familiar with this DTHC stuff?

THC: 0%
THCA 76.1%
DTHC: 4.8%
CBD: 0%
CBDA: 0%
CBN: 0%

Test Date: 4/11/2015

I know this is old but I haven't seen anyone come up with an answer to the DTHC thing.

After an initial search i did find some inquiries into what dTHC was. There were some bullshit answers about being labeled improperly or the d standing for delta or decarboxylated. This seemed unlikely because the posters said there was THC listed as well, also, in the list above there is both THC and THCa. So scratch that theory.

Now this is when i noticed that the 'd' in these posts was lower case. Typically when you have a lowercase 'd' before a chemical it stands for dextro, such as with d-Amphetamine(adderall). I wasn't completely sure that this applied to non-alkaloids, but after another quick search for dextro THC. I found this article by shulgin confirming that THC does have a dextro and levo isomers.
http://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/dea/shulgin.html

So next i went on to another search and after a few tries i was able to discover that the levo or (-) optical-isomer of THC is the only form found naturally in the plant. Therefore it would make sense for the dextro or (+) optical-isomer to be labeled as dTHC.
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/drug-profiles/cannabis

 

[w01fg4ng]

I know this is old but I haven't seen anyone come up with an answer to the DTHC thing.

After an initial search i did find some inquiries into what dTHC was. There were some bullshit answers about being labeled improperly or the d standing for delta or decarboxylated. This seemed unlikely because the posters said there was THC listed as well, also, in the list above there is both THC and THCa. So scratch that theory.

Now this is when i noticed that the 'd' in these posts was lower case. Typically when you have a lowercase 'd' before a chemical it stands for dextro, such as with d-Amphetamine(adderall). I wasn't completely sure that this applied to non-alkaloids, but after another quick search for dextro THC. I found this article by shulgin confirming that THC does have a dextro and levo isomers.
http://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/dea/shulgin.html

So next i went on to another search and after a few tries i was able to discover that the levo or (-) optical-isomer of THC is the only form found naturally in the plant. Therefore it would make sense for the dextro or (+) optical-isomer to be labeled as dTHC.
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/drug-profiles/cannabis

Best explanation I've seen for this, and I've been looking for years.


Thank you, Robf11