Sample assessment
The sample was carbon powder without a specified grade, structure or initial distribution. Load selection was a distinctive point in the source note.
Analyst consideration: The stated preference for less carbon and less media makes charge definition central to interpreting this test. Carbon grade is unknown, so no conclusion about breaking primary particles rather than agglomerates is justified.
Recorded objective
Observe the milling response; no numerical acceptance limit was listed.
Equipment and selection
The machine entry is XQM-1. TENCAN Vertical square planetary ball mill is associated at the recorded series level. No exact housing variant is inferred from jar capacity or an abbreviated machine label.
Test setup
| Jar entry | Agate250 |
|---|---|
| Media entry | Zirconia 280g |
| Media-charge notation | Φ3 |
| Sample-load entry | 13 (unit not stated) |
| Controller speed setting | 350 |
| Cycle notation | 5/1 |
Unlabelled jar, media and load numbers remain source notation, not assigned units. Controller settings are not certified rpm. The cycle notation has no independently stated timing unit or reversing definition.
Recorded procedure and results
The source calls the trial successful and states that two minutes was sufficient. Its procedure recommends approximately 5 g material and approximately 200 g media, with an agate jar and zirconia balls. The setup columns instead contain sample entry 13 and media entry 280 g; these do not describe a single reconciled charge.
Interpretation
This is a positive short-duration observation with a specific recommendation to reduce loading. The recommended quantities must remain separate from the setup-column quantities. No measured final fineness or grade-wide optimum is established.
Practical precautions
Resolve the actual successful sample and media masses before repeating. Weigh the proposed charge and record the ball diameter distribution; an approximate load recommendation is not a complete method.
TENCAN alternatives to evaluate
TENCAN Planetary ball mill (semi-circular model). A benchtop configuration can be assessed for the approximately 5 g carbon comparison, subject to compatible jars and loaded mass. Preserve the two-minute observation and resolve the source charge discrepancy. A compatible benchtop jar can be considered for organizing the recommended small-charge comparison, provided the actual sample-to-media loading is specified rather than scaled from nominal capacity. This is an untested comparison proposal, not a result of this trial.
Association follows the explicit XQM-1 source entry; only recorded tested series/configurations are related. No jar-volume inference.
About this trial
TENCAN laboratory trial, 2017–2020. Observations above come from this experimental record; selection considerations and proposed comparisons are engineering interpretation. Results apply to this sample and recorded conditions.