4.7 Article

Why the ball to powder ratio (BPR) is insufficient for describing the mechanical ball milling process

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
Volume 39, Issue 18, Pages 9883-9887

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.03.009

Keywords

Hydrogen storage; Ball milling; Magnesium hydride; BPR; Ball to powder ratio

Funding

  1. National Science Centre in Poland [2012/04/WST8/00718]
  2. Polish Ministry of Sciences and Higher Education [POIG.01.03.01-14-016108]
  3. Foundation for Polish Science and Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education
  4. Ministry of Science and Higher Education [IP2012 007272]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The ball to powder ratio (BPR) is a processing parameter that is frequently used in both mechanical (ball) milling and mechanical alloying. A number of recent studies provided the BPR as a principal milling parameter while neglecting other parameters, such the vial volume, the, diameter and quantity of milling balls and the powder mass. In this experiment, different batches of magnesium hydride powder were milled using varying ball size, powder mass, and other parameters and a constant BPR. The hydrogen desorption properties (i.e., differential scanning calorimeter) and phase evolution (i.e., XRD phase analysis) of the milled powders were subsequently investigated. The obtained results demonstrated that the BPR cannot be provided as a single processing parameter. The DSC curves obtained during decomposition with a scanning rate of 5 degrees C/min revealed significant differences in desorption peak temperature among the samples milled using the same BPR. Additionally, XRD patterns revealed that the crystallite size after milling varied, suggesting that differences existed in the effectiveness of the milling process. Copyright (C) 2014, Hydrogen Energy Publications, LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available