1.Kuczynshi, G.C., Trans. AIME 186 (1949) p. 169.Google Scholar

2.Alexander, B.H. and Baluffi, R.W., Acta Metall. 5 (1957) p. 666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3.Kingery, D.W. and Berg, M., J. Appl. Phys. 26 (1955) p. 1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4.Nabarro, F.R.N., Report of a Conference on the Strength of Solids (Physical Society of London, 1948) p. 75.Google Scholar

5.Herring, Conyers, J. Appl. Phys. 21 (1950) p. 437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6.Burke, J.E., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 40 (1957) p. 80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7.Burke, J.E., in Grain Growth in Industrial Metallurgy (American Society of Metals, Cleveland, 1954) p. 1. The volume fraction of inclusions just necessary to prevent grain growth in a uniform array of grains with a uniform dispersion of inclusions was subsequently specified by Zener as f = 4/3(r_i,/G) where f is the volume fraction of inclusions, r_i, is their radius, and G is the average grain diameter (quoted by Cyril Smith, Trans. AIME 175 [1947] p. 15). In the present case where the pores are the operating inclusions and must initially lie on grain boundaries, they are much more effective. Therefore under those conditions f = 8(r_i/G)² (J.E. Burke and J. Rosolowski, Treatise on Solid State Chemistry, vol. 4, edited by B. Hannay [Plenum Press, New York, 1976] p. 621.)Google Scholar

8.Burke, J.E., in Atom Movements (American Society of Metals, Cleveland, 1951) p. 209.Google Scholar

9.Cahoon, H.P. and Christenson, C.J., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 39 (1956) p. 337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10. R.L. Coble, U.S. Patent No. 3,026,210.Google Scholar

11. Pore-free alumina is not transparent because aluminum oxide is birefringent. An entering ray is split into polarized ordinary and extraordinary components vibrating in planes normal to each other and showing different refractive indices. Upon entering each new grain, all rays are again split, so a point source viewed through the ceramic emerges as a circle of confusion, which is greater the smaller the grain size and the thicker the specimen.Google Scholar

12.Bruch, C.A., Bull. Am. Ceram. Soc 41 (1962) p. 799.Google Scholar

13.Harmer, Martin, in Sintering of Advanced Ceramics, Ceramic Transactions, 7 (American Ceramic Society, Westerville, Ohio,, 1990)p. 13.Google Scholar

14.Lucke, K.Tour de Physique ,Colloque C4, suppl. 10 (1975)p. 339;Cahn, J.W.Ada Metal 10 (1962) p. 789.Google Scholar

15.Coble, R.L. and Burke, J.E.Progress in Ceramic Science 3, edited by Burke, J.E. p. 199.Google Scholar

16.Johnson, W.C. and Stein, D.F.J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 58 (1975) p. 485.Google Scholar

17.Peelen, J.G.JMater. Sci. Res. 10 (1975)p. 443.Google Scholar

18.Monahan, R.D. and Halloran, J.W.J. Am. Ceram. Soc 62 (1979)p. 564.Google Scholar

19.Burke, J.E., Lay, K.W., and Prochazka, S.Mater. Sci. Res 13 (1980)p. 417.Google Scholar

20.Burke, J.E.in Sintering of Advanced Ceramics, Ceramic Transactions 7 (American Ceramic Society, Westerville, Ohio,, 1990)p. 215.Google Scholar

21.Gilman, J.J., Johnston, W.G. and Sears, G.W.J. Appl. Phys. 29 (1958)p. 747Google Scholar

22.Burton, W.K., Cabrera, N. and Frank, F.C.Google Scholar

23.Gleiter, H.Progress in Metal Physics, Chalmers Anniversary Volume edited by Christie, Haasen, and Marsalske (Pergamon Press, Oxford,, 1981)p. 27.Google Scholar

24.Soni, K.K., Thompson, A.M., Harmer, M.P.,Williams, D.B., Chabala, J.M. and Levi-setti, R.Appl. Phys. Let 66(21) (1995)p. 2795.Google Scholar

25.Rossi, G. and Burke, J.E.J. Am. Ceram. Soc 56 (1973)p. 654.Google Scholar

26.Prochazka, S. in Special Ceramics 6 edited by P. Popper (1971)p. 171.Google Scholar

27.Charles G., Greskovich, Cusano, Dominic, Hoffman, David , and Riedner, Robert J., Bull. Am. Ceram. Soc. 71 (1992) p. 1120.Google Scholar