Sample assessment
The feed was a ceramic powder of unspecified composition. A zirconia jar and zirconia media were listed for this exploratory trial.
Analyst consideration: The two ceramic sequences make media-contact distribution a meaningful selection question. A smaller reported characteristic size does not establish whether the remaining coarse fraction or agglomerate population also improved.
Recorded objective
Observe the grinding response; no numerical acceptance criterion was recorded.
Equipment and selection
The machine entry is XQM. 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 | Zirconia 250 |
|---|---|
| Media entry | Zirconia 250 |
| Media-charge notation | 123-250/8-50 |
| Sample-load entry | 30 (unit not stated) |
| Controller speed setting | 620 |
| 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
Water, 30 g, was added. The first sequence gave 6 µm after one hour and 2.5 µm after two hours. After the media-charge entry 123-250/8-50, the procedure records 1 µm after one hour and 0.8 µm after two hours. The meaning of the grouped 123 entry is not expanded in the notebook.
Interpretation
Both recorded sequences show smaller sampled sizes with time. The readings have no percentile label, and the second pair should not be silently combined with the first into a single cumulative curve. The record does not isolate the cause of the difference.
Practical precautions
Resolve the grouped media notation and whether timing restarted for the second sequence. Use the same dispersion method when comparing the reported micrometre readings.
TENCAN alternatives to evaluate
TENCAN Planetary ball mill (semi-circular model). A compatible benchtop trial can compare the small ceramic charge with the same two separate sampling sequences. Resolve the grouped 123 media entry before any platform comparison. The benchtop comparison concerns matching the verified jar and charge to the laboratory task; retaining the grouped-media specification is essential so that a changed contact pattern does not confound the comparison. This is an untested comparison proposal, not a result of this trial.
Association follows the explicit XQM 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.