## 3 Results and Discussion  
The results obtained after the digital reconstruction of the samples scanned using CT scanning are presented in Figure 3.  
According to Figure 1, the samples \(P_{1}\), \(P_{2}\) and \(P_{3}\) had different lengths due to the different pressing forces used for the same quantity of powders introduced in the die. Based on the information provided by the particle sizer, the focus of the scanner was increased to 50 \(\upmu\)m in order to detect defects, holes or local aggregations in the powders. The target area was the center of the samples and the captured images were selected from the bottom of sample \(P_{1}\) to the top of \(P_{3}\). The results obtained by slicing the samples are presented in Table 1. For defects detected using a compression force of 100 MPa, the standard deviation was calculated to be 40.69 \(\upmu\)m. Similarly, for 200 MPa and 300 MPa, the standard deviations were calculated to be 147.09 \(\upmu\)m and 33.63 \(\upmu\)m.  
Figure 3: Digital reconstruction after scanning. According to the measurements presented in Table 1, the samples compacted at 100 MPa presented an average dimension of defects of around 474 \(\upmu\)m, the samples compacted at 200 MPa presented an average defect dimension equal to 204 \(\upmu\)m and the samples compacted at 300 MPa presented an average defect dimension of around 132 \(\upmu\)m. Figure 4 presents three images obtained during the scanning process. Figure 4: _Cont._  
Analyzing the images in Figure 4, it is expected that the non-uniformity factor of the Barium Ferrite W-type sample, obtained after the compaction process, will influence the temperature distributions in the Barium Ferrite W-type material during the sintering process. It is also expected that the presence of defects will influence the uniformity of the electromagnetic field during the MHH process, taking into consideration the polarization of the edges of the holes. Considering the dimensions of the holes measured on the \(Z\)-axis using the UniTOM HRScanner and the particle size distribution measured using the Brookhaven particle sizer manufactured by Brookhaven Instruments Corporation (Belgium, Brussels, 2006), the calculated non-uniformity factor is presented in Table 2.  
The temperature distributions for the samples \(P_{1}\), \(P_{2}\) and \(P_{3}\) are presented in Figure 5 and the values computed through simulation are presented in Table 3. The highest temperature evaluated by the simulation process is noted as \(T_{max}\) (\({}^{\circ}\)C). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(P_{1}\) (100 MPa)} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(P_{2}\) (200 MPa)} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(P_{3}\) (300 MPa)} \\ \hline
**Defect Size** & **Z-Axis** & **Defect Size** & **Z-Axis** & **Defect Size** & **Z-Axis** \\
**(\(\mu\)m)** & **(mm)** & **(\(\mu\)m)** & **(mm)** & **(\(\mu\)m)** & **(mm)** \\ \hline
420 & 1.390 & 488 & 10.050 & 170 & 19.016 \\
489 & 2.165 & 137 & 11.830 & 188 & 19.620 \\
515 & 5.266 & 376 & 13.090 & 194 & 20.365 \\
503 & 5.170 & 197 & 15.099 & 110 & 21.496 \\
443 & 7.790 & 198 & 17.797 & 154 & 22.889 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Dimensions of defects detected for different compaction procedures. Figure 4: Images with defects detected by CT scanner: (**a**) sample compacted with 100 MPa, (**b**) sample compacted with 200 MPa, (**c**) sample compacted with 300 MPa.