What happened between batch 51 and batch 63?21 Aug 04:16
Between batch 51 (synthesis on 17.12.25) and batch 63 (first formal failure report, 04.05.2026), the records show two phases of the BYK 9076 equivalent program:
1. Continued lab synthesis (Dec 2025 → Jan 2026). Batch 51 (Vicaspin LUB 1010 + phosphorous pentaoxide + Epomine SP-018 + 2-ethyl hexyl acrylate, phosphate/acrylate/neutralisation route) was followed by successive lab batches 52, 52 A, 53, 54, 54 A, 55, 55 D, 56, 57, 58 — all still on the same route (LUB 1010 / P₂O₅ / SP-18 / 2-ethylhexyl acrylate). Batch 60 also appears in the lab notebook ("9076 Exp 48-60"), though its values are garbled OCR.
2. Application trials vs the same-day BYK 9076 standard (Jan → Mar 2026). Each batch was tested as a dispersant in NC-PU ink against BYK 9076 that day. Trial dates: #57 on 09.02.2026, #58 on 05.03.2026. Results vs that day's standard were mixed — e.g. #58 Violet 23 Gloss 58.9 vs standard 67.6, Resolubility 2 vs 4 (inferior); #57 Violet 27 Gloss 8.2 vs 7.3 but Resolubility 3 vs 3. These are summary-table rows; verdicts are not recorded, and "inferior" here is my read of the numbers, not a recorded verdict.
GAP: no records exist for batches 59, 60, 61, or 62. Nothing in this data drop links them (batch 60 only survives as a garbled OCR page in the notebook). So what specifically happened between #58 (05.03.2026) and #63 is not documented.
By batch 63 (04.05.2026 issued, 05.05.2026 completed), the program had shifted to formal application-test reports, and batch 63 was judged Not OK — "Gloss and Re-solubility inferior" to BYK 9076 (Violet 23 Gloss 55.7 vs 66.4; re-solubility 2 vs 4). Note this drop contains only *failed* test reports, so "no record for 59-62" does not mean those samples passed.
1. Continued lab synthesis (Dec 2025 → Jan 2026). Batch 51 (Vicaspin LUB 1010 + phosphorous pentaoxide + Epomine SP-018 + 2-ethyl hexyl acrylate, phosphate/acrylate/neutralisation route) was followed by successive lab batches 52, 52 A, 53, 54, 54 A, 55, 55 D, 56, 57, 58 — all still on the same route (LUB 1010 / P₂O₅ / SP-18 / 2-ethylhexyl acrylate). Batch 60 also appears in the lab notebook ("9076 Exp 48-60"), though its values are garbled OCR.
2. Application trials vs the same-day BYK 9076 standard (Jan → Mar 2026). Each batch was tested as a dispersant in NC-PU ink against BYK 9076 that day. Trial dates: #57 on 09.02.2026, #58 on 05.03.2026. Results vs that day's standard were mixed — e.g. #58 Violet 23 Gloss 58.9 vs standard 67.6, Resolubility 2 vs 4 (inferior); #57 Violet 27 Gloss 8.2 vs 7.3 but Resolubility 3 vs 3. These are summary-table rows; verdicts are not recorded, and "inferior" here is my read of the numbers, not a recorded verdict.
GAP: no records exist for batches 59, 60, 61, or 62. Nothing in this data drop links them (batch 60 only survives as a garbled OCR page in the notebook). So what specifically happened between #58 (05.03.2026) and #63 is not documented.
By batch 63 (04.05.2026 issued, 05.05.2026 completed), the program had shifted to formal application-test reports, and batch 63 was judged Not OK — "Gloss and Re-solubility inferior" to BYK 9076 (Violet 23 Gloss 55.7 vs 66.4; re-solubility 2 vs 4). Note this drop contains only *failed* test reports, so "no record for 59-62" does not mean those samples passed.
Sources
confidence: medium