Sample assessment
The material was a ceramic powder of unspecified composition. A zirconia jar and fine zirconia-media entries were recorded.
Analyst consideration: The fine-media entries suggest a test of repeated small-contact events, but ceramic composition and feed distribution determine whether those contacts produce useful fracture or mainly deagglomeration. That distinction needs the missing size data.
Recorded objective
Make the sample finer; no numerical acceptance threshold was specified.
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 | Zirconia 250 |
|---|---|
| Media entry | Zirconia 250g |
| Media-charge notation | 0.5/1/3 |
| Sample-load entry | 10 (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
The procedure records 60 g water and three hours of milling. The result was described as better than an earlier twenty-one-hour run. The media entry lists 0.5/1/3 without explaining its distribution. The earlier run conditions and numerical results were not included in this record.
Interpretation
The short trial was favorably assessed, but the record is not a controlled demonstration that three hours always outperforms twenty-one. It also does not isolate media size, loading or liquid addition as the cause of the difference.
Practical precautions
Use matched portions and the same measurement method for a repeat comparison. Clarify the media diameters and masses; the compact size entries do not provide a fully reproducible charge.
TENCAN alternatives to evaluate
TENCAN Planetary ball mill (semi-circular model). A compatible benchtop setup can be compared for this small ceramic charge. Preserve the fine-media specification and three-hour wet sampling rather than comparing elapsed time alone. The benchtop option is a jar-and-load matching comparison for the recorded small charge; retaining the fine-media distribution is necessary to avoid confusing platform size with a changed grinding environment. 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.