Hi all, in this long and interesting discussion I think that Prof.
Leinenweber has indicated where it is one of the problems in
quantitative phase analysis. Regards,
--
Jose M. Amigo
http://www.uv.es/~amigo/
> Interesting though
Interesting thought and probably worth following up, although it sounds like a
meticulous and possibly time-consuming study for someone or other - any
volunteers? :-)
Following Deane Smith's methodology you should be able to calculate the number
of diffracting crystallites per phase for particul
Hi all,
This is an interesting discussion of quantitative phase analysis. It sounds to
me from what Pam is saying that we can calculate an esd for each phase if we
know its particle size, and that the relative error would be larger for phases
in smaller abundance. If this is correct, then you
Hi Rheinhard
The comments weren't aimed at you in particular! We've been banging our heads
against a brick wall about this stuff for some time, but not many in the cement
community seem to be listening.
Anyway - there is a fundamental statistics problem with quantifying minor
phases (of any s
Hi Pam,
maybe a misunderstanding: I did not try to discuss the amount of
"amorphous" material in cements. I'm aware of the problem, but a
careful Rietveld analysis with an internal standard should be able to
determine at least the magnitude of the amorphous part. Even if not
(e.g. if profile
Another little nugget of information to chew on.
My other half (who just happens to be a cement chemist and the reason I've
worked on this 'orrible stuff!) tells me that most cement kilns have moved to
forced air cooling of the clinker these days - one of the effects apparently is
a reduced sett
Hi Reinhard
Saying the words amorphous content and cement in the same breath is heresy in
many circles! Personally I think that it's a case of 'see no evil, hear no
evil'!
Anyway, many moons ago we did yet another study on the amorphous content in
clinkers/cements and they can vary alot - we
Hi Lubo,
the difference between 6 and 7 % MgO is bigger than 15 % relatively,
thus the error by wrong re-scaling (e.g. if 10 % "amorphous" are
missing) is smaller than the error discussed. And, if the "true" content
of periclase should be about 5 %, than a measured value of 7 % is worth
to be
