I think I found what you're talking about but its 40$ to see the publication
http://montanabiotech.com/cannabinoid-facts-thc-cbd-cbn-cbc-thcv-cbg/
Books and publications costs money.
First you say the THC>CBN may not be what the amber trichs are, now you say the CBN amount is based on how long its flowered. Again, going to the point that more CBN is potentially the reason for the harder stone. You stated my links are bad yet provide no links of your own or quotes from papers or anything. If the paper you gave the name of (yet no quotes from it) says it makes you have a sick feeling, then provide a quote from the paper. I've never had a sick feeling from weed. Obviously chemicals changes occur from peak harvest to late harvest. Late harvest is more of a stone. Maybe it's a different chemical, but I think its always been assumed its CBN. If that paper proves me wrong, I'd love to see it but I'm not going out of my way to find it because it doesn't matter to me. I know late harvested indica bud is good sleep medication.
I corrected your assumption that the change of cloudy to amber is when THC degrades into CBN.
There is no scientific evidence that this is exactly when it happens, we simply don't know.
Don't try to make it seem as if I contradicted myself, you are taking my words out of context.
You edited out a part of the sentence I wrote and distilled it down to out of context statements.
What I wrote (which you so cleverly edited out) was that
the amount of CBN present is dependant on how long you flower the plant and/or how well you store the product.
That is what I wrote.
If you flower a plant for 4 months you will end up with more CBN than if you flower for 2 months, since decarboxylation will have more time to take place and more trichomes will have time to develop.
Same with storing, if you store for a long time, or you store the product badly, you will end up with more CBN.
That does not mean that CBN is the reason for a harder stone, those two statements have nothing to do with each other, except in your head and in your assumptions.
You posted a link to a youtube video and some obscure website about a company with "experts", when in fact if you check the video you see how amateurish it is, and the website has no links to any scientific credible information, or mentions of any educated scientists on the pay roll of that company.
... I cannot link to a physical book, nor can I link to a publication which has been worked out by professional, educated scientists.
These things costs money, like most books in the real world.
If you go to a library, you can possibly find the information there, free of cost, but yes; books costs money, how is that news to you?
I don't have to provide you with anything which puts me in a bad light with the authors.
I don't want to provide you with copyrighted material simply because you're too lazy to go to a library or to read proper information instead of obscure websites and watching youtube videos.
And now you changed your viewpoint to "late harvested indica bud is good sleep medication".
That's not at all what you said before. You just slipped Indica into that statement.
You're contradicting yourself again.
Before you said that CBN is the cause of the couch-lock stone. Therefore a late grown Sativa should also deliver a couch-lock stone.
Now however you changed your mind and put Indica into that statement, you're going in circles and contradicting yourself man.
I cannot quote the books before I don't have them infront of me right now, nor do I own a scanner so I can prove it to you.
But what I can do is refer you to the original work, the books, and urge you to read them if you want to educate yourself.
I can however link to a point of mine:
Δ9-THC is oxidized by exposure to air which reduces to form CBN[SUP]1[/SUP]. CBN is only very weakly psychotropic and not unlike CBD, interacts with THC to attenuate its effects[SUP]13[/SUP]. Cannabis that has been left out unused will have increasing amounts of CBN and decreasing amounts of THC and thus lose potency[SUP]1[/SUP].
http://ncpic.org.au/ncpic/publications/research-briefs/article/cannabinoids-1
That quote is from referenced scientific research (you can find the full reference list on that website I provided).
What the guy in the video you posted fails to mention is that CBN is only mildly psychoactive (as I put it) (or as the scientists put it; very weakly psychotropic).
The guy in the video also fails to mention that this translated into a loss of potency.
The loss of potency is debated and argued about but it's somewhere between 90%-260%, CBN is not the factor which makes weed couch-lock.
CBN attenuates THCs effect(s), it does not account for the couch-lock stone.
The guy who apparently knows it all, in the video you posted, completely fails to take these points into regards.
These are well known scientific facts, he's supposed to be a "scientist", dressed in a lab coat, sat in a CGI (blue screen) lab talking about how certain cannabinoids form.
I'm sorry, but he's talking out of his arse.
He's wrong about how the weak interaction between the CB1 & CB2 receptors in the brain account for the sleepyness of CBN.
The weak interaction is why CBN is much less psychoactive.
And he completely fails to mention important points on CBN, he does not know what he is talking about.
Making a youtube video and owning a (poorly made and referenced) website doesn't make your statements true.
My point here is that if the "expert" from the youtube video doesn't even know these things, how can you possibly trust him on what he says about CBN.
I've just proven that he lies/doesn't know what he's talking about, yet you still cling on to the information he provides as if it's a universal truth.
The amount of fallacies and illogical statements there are made in the youtube video alone should be enough to let anyone know that it's complete and utter bullshit.
But if you choose to believe personal opinion over scientific information, then by all means go ahead and do so.
You can believe anything you want to.
But don't try to spread false information here and claim it's innately true or scientific.