u/Over_Teach850

Thanks!

Damn ahahah at first glance i thought they were AI

thank you for your feedback. I was just trying to help people!

I'm vegetarian, i think that my water-usage is being offset by that hahaha!

wouldn't you prefer using google to search for things instead of DIY?
Well guys if you don't like it i understand 1 year ago (https://www.reddit.com/r/trees/comments/1lqnroa/i\_built\_a\_free\_cannabutteredibles\_dosage/) you guys told me it was amazing now after some posts you don't like it anymore and i don't understand why.

I always questioned myself why my autos outdoor never grow past 30cm hahaha inside amazing outdoor 30cm

... I don't understand what IS sketchy on my website? can you point out some things?????

Bro again, the calculations ARE NOT made by AI. It's the exact same math that was used in scientificedibles. I copied the code from the webarchive. extrapolated the calculations.

{
    "densities": {
        "butter": { "density": 0.911, "mass": "g", "volume": "ml", "efficiency": 0.93 },
        "oil": { "density": 0.916, "mass": "g", "volume": "ml", "efficiency": 0.96 },
        "coconut": { "density": 0.903, "mass": "g", "volume": "ml", "efficiency": 0.93 },
        "olive": { "density": 0.916, "mass": "g", "volume": "ml", "efficiency": 0.96 },
        "mct": { "density": 0.95, "mass": "g", "volume": "ml", "efficiency": 0.90 },
        "coconut oil": { "density": 0.903, "mass": "g", "volume": "ml", "efficiency": 0.93 },
        "olive oil": { "density": 0.916, "mass": "g", "volume": "ml", "efficiency": 0.96 },
        "mct oil": { "density": 0.95, "mass": "g", "volume": "ml", "efficiency": 0.90 }
    },
    "decarb_efficiency": {
        "no": 0.2,
        "oven": 0.75,
        "mason": 0.8,
        "already": 1.0,
        "alreadydecarb": 1.0
    },
    "unit_conversions": {
        "g_to_oz": 28.3495,
        "ml_to_fl_oz": 29.5735,
        "ml_to_cup": 240,
        "ml_to_tbsp": 15
    }
}

        return {
            DENSITIES: {
                butter: { density: 0.911, mass: 'g', volume: 'ml', efficiency: 0.93 },
                oil: { density: 0.916, mass: 'g', volume: 'ml', efficiency: 0.96 },
                mct: { density: 0.95, mass: 'g', volume: 'ml', efficiency: 0.90 }
            },
            DECARB_EFF: {
                no: 0.2,
                oven: 0.75,
                mason: 0.8,
                already: 1.0
            },
            CONVERSIONS: {
                g_to_oz: 28.3495,
                ml_to_fl_oz: 29.5735,
                ml_to_cup: 240,
                ml_to_tbsp: 15
            }

Yeah? It’s been free for over a year, no signup, and a few thousand people a month actually use it to dose edibles. I built it because the old calculator disappeared. Using modern tools to ship something useful isn’t the crime. Writing every CSS file by hand like it’s 2010 wouldn’t make the mg math more honest.

besides, If the calculator’s wrong, tell me. “AI” isn’t a bug report.

I understand what you are saying! ;-) in fact i added the calculation brakedown on it! So that if the math doesn't seem right you (guys) can help me where the calculator went wrong!!!

looking forward to your reply!

Thank you!

Thank you! i've posted since 2025 here but people say it's AI only right now that they know it is possible...

Pls DM me if you are open to help! :-)

except about those who do!

the calculations ARE NOT made by AI. Only the ui. DUH???

Yeah? It’s been free for over a year, no signup, and a few thousand people a month actually use it to dose edibles. I built it because the old calculator disappeared. Using modern tools to ship something useful isn’t the crime. Writing every CSS file by hand like it’s 2010 wouldn’t make the mg math more honest.

besides, If the calculator’s wrong, tell me. “Ugh AI” isn’t a bug report.

can you send the settings you used?

So that i can understand what is the calculation the tool has done?

Or you can use the share link directly, every information in in there!

i used the same calculation of the source code of scientificedibles for the main calculation.

Can you help me to improve the tool? I don't want to gain anything from it: matter of fact it has no ads in it.

So your help would be much apreciated.

Really appreciate this — and you're spot on.

Static HTML was intentional: no server, no account, math you can verify yourself. For a dosing tool, trust matters more than fancy UX.

Decarb + infusion is exactly where calculators get sketchy. Fixed 90% butter extraction looks clean on paper but real batches swing hard with temp, time, and fat type. I've felt the same gap between predicted and actual.

Honest current state: Calc420 uses fixed factors (decarb method selector + solvent-specific infusion % from config), not custom overrides yet. Conservative on purpose, but custom efficiency sliders would absolutely get closer to what you actually feel — that's fair feedback and probably the next meaningful upgrade.

Genuinely helpful comment.

Surely the feedback from reddit folks

Really good catch on both points.

Calc420 does not assume 100% conversion — oven decarb is 75%, mason jar 80%, which is deliberately below the ~87–90% you'd expect at 240°F/40 min once you account for unconverted THCA and CBN degradation.

On molecular weight: honest answer, we don't apply the explicit 0.877 THCA→THC mass correction as a separate step. The calculator expects you to enter Total/Potential THC from your COA (which most labs already molecularly adjust). If you plug raw THCA% into the THC field without converting, you'll overestimate — 20% THCA ≠ 20% THC, it's ~17.5% at perfect decarb, and you're right that's how a lot of first batches go wrong.

The 75% factor is a bundled process-efficiency number (incomplete conversion + degradation), not a replacement for the molecular math. Stacked properly you're looking at ~0.877 × ~0.87 ≈ 0.76, which is why we stay conservative.

Separate THCA/THC inputs with auto conversion is a fair feature request. Appreciate you actually reading the math instead of just clicking calculate.