Club 600

jigfresh

jigfresh

Well-Known Member
Mine was 2 and a half weeks ago. I think you all wished me happy birthday then? WHo knows lol. The french took my first incarnation of the present. This is a make up.

Happy birthday to you Doc. I remember 34... I wasn't a dad then. And happy early bday to you Lt. Dan. We're catching up to you... better watch out. your screen name reminds me obviously of the character. And that character always has me think about how down on ourselves we can get, even when others love the living shit out of us. Funny lot we are humans.

I just got the wonderful opportunity of holding a tiny little bird no bigger than an egg in my hand for like 10 minutes. Poor little guy ran into one of the windows here. We hung out till he was good. LIttle tiny yellow thing. Left the worlds littlest poop as a parting present. Getting presents all over the place. :)
 
giggles26

giggles26

Well-Known Member
The Yorkshireman said:
I've been interested in Triacontanol on cannabis for a few years now, have conducted a few limited side by side tests and it's a substance I am actively investigating, I still have a few grams (enough to treat hundreds of plants) of lab grade 99.9% Triacontanol left sealed in my fridge still to work with.

I've read that paper you linked and all it references many times, if you take the time to dig deeper into old Triacontanol reports you'll find the ARS pop up a few times.

I also have a patent from the Procter & Gamble pharmaceutical company published in the 1980's (before the interest in Tria died off) outlining the methods by which a stable aqueous solution can be made, containing a sufficiently small particle size of Triacontanol in order for the chemical to be properly utilised by the plant from an atomized spray (unlike the crude fire hose/per acre tea method alluded to in the above link).

The fundamental flaw in these very few, very limited in scope and very subjective experiments concerning Tricontanol since the 70's is they all fail to recognise that Triacontanol is not water soluble, so can in no way be utilised by the plant without prior processing concluding that Tricontanol is not the factor responsible in the subjective tests.

This fact throws all papers concerning Tricontanol in a form without sufficient processing into the 'anecdotal' pot.

The limited suppliers of pure lab grade Triacontanol for the purposes of making a drench/spray solution cite the same standard recipe for preparation that has been running round the internet for years, the one utilising Propylene Glycol/Polysorbate 20 in order for the Triacontanol to dissolve in water.

I have used this preparation to no effect whatsoever on cannabis.

The Proctor & Game patent calls for the use of an ultrasonic homogenizer in order to get the Triacontanol particle size small enough in solution that it can be practically administered to the plant.

At the time I found the patent homogenizors/sonicators were costing around £400 for a simple hand held version.
These days they can be sourced for about £150-£200, more within my price range and I can also use it to make THC infused Haribo jelly sweets (something else that's been on the cards for a while).

So soon I can put the patent to the test.



I got interested in Tricontanol and cannabis after hearing tall story's of "buds the size of your head" emerging from non public forums.

I have yet to find a completed Triacontanol grow journel with any quantifiable results in any major public cannabis forum and I've yet to find a single photo of any cannabis plant from anywhere with a substantial yield even remotely attributable to Triacontanol.


I am very, very sceptical that these 'tall story' plants have ever existed until........

1) I see one with my own eyes.

2) The grower can explain the method by which the functional solution has been produced and it side steps known chemical limitations.

3) The same results can be recreated by others.


Until then I'm the one calling BS.
Click to expand...
Call BS all you want, like dst said who cares how you grow it if the end result is good. But that beig said I'd be more then willing to do another controled test.
 
The Yorkshireman

The Yorkshireman

Well-Known Member
giggles26 said:
Call BS all you want, like dst said who cares how you grow it if the end result is good.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant as D's post had nothing to do with Triacontanol.

I care about the blind leading the blind and complete pseudoscientific quackery proliferating forums, the more bullshit myths dispelled the better for all.

And in turn the faster we advance the field with proper scientific methods in this day and age of loosening laws and emerging medical applications the better for all.

If you're happy plodding along doing what you're doing then cool, good for you, some folk like to keep it simple and some folk are actually interested in the scientific aspect (we are producing a psychoactive substance after all) and want to maybe expand their skill set if all variables are properly understood, this is also cool.

But don't cherry pick a paper that at first glance seems to support your pseudoscientific opinion, just to say "Who cares anyway" when it's then pulled apart by somebody who's taken the time to understand it.

It doesn't work both ways mate.

Peace. :joint:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top