Group S1 Rebuttal Most of the comments were positive, which were appreciated. Of the negative...

Group S1 Rebuttal

• Most of the comments were positive, which were appreciated.

• Of the negative comments, while we agree with most, the ones we don’t agree with was our shortened introduction. We believe that our topic was a continuation of the solar cell discussion Dr. Seminario gave on the first day of class, and therefore a long introduction was not needed.

Group S1

Group S2: Review of Solar Technology

Chris HeflinRachael HoukMichael Jones

Positives

• Group S1 was the first to present, and therefore had a harder time knowing what to expect with the presentation. However, they presented a professional, well organized presentation.

• Each presenter was knowledgeable on their respective areas of the topic, spoke clearly and fluently.

Negatives

• The group should make use of the microphones and vocal projection in order to be well heard. Everything was very quiet.

• Many of the slides contained only words and no pictures, making the presentation less interesting.

• Some of the material was a bit more technical than most were prepared for. A bit more introduction would be beneficial.

Bradford LambMichael KoettingJames Kancewick

Week 1 Additional SlidesSeminar

Group S3

GROUP S3: REVIEW OF SOLAR TECHNOLOGY

RECOMMENDATIONS

We felt S1 should have had more detailed background slides towards solar technology.

The information that they presented was somewhat lost on the audience because it was too detailed without having a solid background.

Thus, we attached two additional slides that improve background knowledge.

Group S3

GENERAL KNOWLEDGE

Solar powered electrical generation relies on heat engines and photovoltaics

limited only by human ingenuity most common way is to use solar

panels Passive solar or active solar

Group S3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dish_Stirling_Systems_of_SBP_in_Spain.JPG

WATER TREATMENT

used to make saline or brackish water potable

Solar energy may be used in a water stabilization pond to treat waste water without chemicals or electricity

Group S3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Depuradora_de_Lluc.JPG

Group S4Review of Solar Cell Technology

Joshua MorenoScott Marwil

Danielle Miller

Group S4

Things Done Well

• The group created a very nice power point that was full of good visuals and rich information

• The group spoke very clearly and made minimal use of words like “um.”

• The group presented the material in a fun and interesting way.

Group S4

Things That Need Improvement

• The group needs to try to not fit so much information on every slide. The slides got a bit wordy in some areas.

• The group needs to develop the introduction a little bit more. We felt like it was too short and did a poor job of leading into the material.

Group S4

Group 5Pradip Rijal

Jason SavatskyTrevor SeidelLaura Young

Group S5

Group S5Review of Solar Cell Technology

Presentation Review

• The group overall did a very good job.• They talked about the use of DSSC and

Quantum Dots being used in Solar Cells but they did not tell us what they were.

• Organization was satisfactory.• Could work on speaking louder.

Group S5

Critiqued by S6

Michael Trevathan

Daniel Arnold

Michael Tran

John Baumhardt

Group S6

GROUP S6: REVIEW OF SOLAR TECHNOLOGY

Summary Discussed new solar cell efficiencies resulting

from nanotechnology Needed to discuss the feasibility of this technology

becoming a substantial source of energy Needed more analysis on cost – at least some

estimated ranges based on the material They all dressed nicely and spoke clearly They were knowledgeable and directed their

attention toward the audience Overall – great presentation!

Group S6

Group S2 rebuttal

Chris HeflinRachael Houk

Mike Jones

• Data used showed amine needed to be replaced slowly with a fresh stream because some of it leaves in the tail gas stream

• No info available on the cost of the nano-porous membrane to compare with traditional methods

• The presentation was right after Dr. Seminario did a harsh critique of a previous presentation, so there was reason to be nervous, but we should have rehearsed more.

• Thanks for the feedback on the animation and introduction. We’ll try to continue this practice in our future presentations.

Group S1

Group S1Review of Nano Membranes for Gas

Separation

Notes on Presentation

Positive Notes• Good at answering

questions• Separation animation was

helpful• Summary of chemical

method was thorough and educational

• Good analysis of research and future development needs

Opportunities for Improvement

• Presentation was very short– Could have included more

information and spent more time on use and applications

– Lasted less than 15 minutes

• More eye contact during presentation

• Cite sources on slides– Could not have known due to

guidelines being presented right before

Group S1

Grade

• Slides (20/20)– Informative, well designed

• Oral presentation (19/20)– Good skills but needed more eye contact

• Graphics (18/20)– Needed a few more pictures and diagrams

• Educational Value (20/20)– Topic was well explained

• Group Analysis of Research (19/20)– Needed a little more research on topic for thoroughness

• Overall (96/100)

Group S1

GROUP S3Review: nanoporous

membranesGroup S3:

Michael KoettingBradford Lamb

James Kancewick

Review

The presentation was informative and the slides were generally well done.

Student questions were answered confidently and in detail.

Presentation was not too detailed to be understandable by the audience, yet still detailed.

Review

Speaking could have been more polished, with more eye contact from some of the speakers and less reading from slides/notes.

Some figures in the slideshow were not explained, so they added very little to the presentation.

Despite this, however, the presentation was very good on the whole.

Scott MarwilDanielle MillerJoshua Moreno

Group S4

Group S4Review of Nano Membranes

for Gas Separation

Things Done Well

Very good job with the illustrations and the animations The group did a good job of answering the classes

questions in a full and in-depth manner The group members presenting knew the material and

did an good job relaying that knowledge onto the rest of the class

The Group was very well spoken They made good use of animations and pictures to

illustrate points Their introduction was very thorough and well written The material was presented in an interesting and

exciting way

Group S4

Things That Need Improvement The overall presentation was a little on the short

side. The group needs to develop a better introduction

to introduce the topic and background to the class instead of just jumping to the heart of the material so quickly

Sometimes the slides contained a bit too much information. They should try limit the amount of information on the slides so they can draw attention to the speaker.

The Not-So-Good

Group S4

Pradip RijalJason SavatskyTrevor SeidelLaura Young

Group S5


Separation

Presentation Review

• The groups power presentation and visuals were very well done.

• They probably should have practiced the presentation a little more. The oral presentation was weak and unfocused.

• Their attire was appropriate for the occasion.

Group S5

John BaumhardtDaniel Arnold

Michael TrevathanMichael Tran


Separation

Review

• Slide layout was agreeable and pleasant to look at.• The presentation was detailed and well thought out.• The further research section is a little weak (the

natural gas composition could have included a sample composition of “actual natural gas”

• The presentation overall was quite good, but the presenters seemed a little nervous, and were reading off of the slides.

Review of Information• From a natural gas background, the disadvantages listed are

not valid. In an amine system, there are no chemicals stored on site because there are very few reasons to change the amine. Apart from wanting to try a more efficient amine, standard amine reclamation (cleaning) can be performed to regenerate the existing amine.

• Even without regeneration, amine lasts years in plants without replacement.

• We would have liked a cost comparison of the nano-porous membranes vs the traditional amine, to determine the commercial viability of the membranes in gas plants.

Group S3 Rebuttal

• On the whole, comments were generally very positive.

• Most negative comments centered on the presentation having too much info on some slides. The topics discussed were very information dense and thus mandated a lot of details be presented; however, we agree that some slides could have been split up into two slides for easier viewing.

Group S1Review of Nanotechnology Use in

Delivery of Chemicals

Group S1

Notes on Presentation

Positive Notes• James was very enthusiastic

and interested in topic• Good use of model• The slide on chemotherapy

was very educational• Michael was very

knowledgeable on background chemistry


• Need more background information– Introduction was too short

• Too much text on some slides– Information was good– Needs to be spread out

Group S1


Delivery of ChemicalsChris Heflin

Rachael HoukMike Jones

The Good

• Really liked the use of the fruit to demonstrate the principles

• Lots of pictures that helped explain the topic• Presenters appeared enthusiastic and

knowledgeable

The Not-So-Good

• No mention of further research areas• Failed to address toxicity• Could mention that the paper didn’t talk

about the fruit produced, only the plant during gemination

Scott MarwilDanielle MillerJoshua Moreno

Group S4Review of Nanotechnology Use

in Delivery of Chemicals

Things Done Well

Very good job with the illustrations and the animations especially the model about the nanotubes that was presented

The group did a good job of answering the classes questions in a full and in-depth manner

The group members presenting knew the material and did an good job relaying that knowledge onto the rest of the class

Things That Need Improvement

The overall presentation was actually very good and not a lot of improvements are needed

One thing I do think needs changing is that the conclusion wasn’t that good. The introduction was fantastic but the conclusion left the listener hanging. The questions did help wrap things up though and the group presenting did a good job answering questions.


Delivery of Chemicals

Pradip RijalJason SavatskyTrevor SeidelLaura Young

Presentation Review

• The groups power presentation and visuals were very well done.

• The oral presentation was solid and it was very easy to understand them.

• The group clearly learned from other groups mistakes and was able to not make the same mistakes.

• Some of the slides were a little wordy and detracted from the oral presentation.

Critique by Group S6

Michael Trevathan, Daniel Arnold, John Baumhardt, and Michael Tran

Presented by S3

Group S6Review of Nanotechnology Use

in Delivery of Chemicals

Summary

It was creative to use straws and fruits to demonstrate how carbon nano-tubes are used in the agricultural industry

It was excellent to discuss more than one application for a single technology: medicinal applications and agricultural applications.

The use of pictures and graphs were very well done and they were a great supplement to the text.

The negative impact on humans resulting from the use of nanoparticles in agriculture should have been discussed.

Summary

There was too much information on each Dextran slide to be able to understand all the information.

It was difficult to read the axes on some of the graphs – they could have been placed on their own slide.

Overall, it was a very insightful and educating presentation.

Group S4 Please prepare rebuttal

Presentation:Nanotechnology in the Oil and Gas Industry

By Group 4

Group S1REVIEW of Nanotechnology in the Oil and Gas

Industry

Josh had good speaking skills◦ Seemed knowledgeable◦ Good pace

Slides had good format◦ Large text, except for first slide◦ Lots of graphics

Use of humor in end question slide Presenters answered questions with further

information than what was presented◦ Showed good preparation for presentation

But the presentation was information-light, so adding the info to the slides would have been helpful

Two group members managed well in the absence of third member

Positive Notes

Scott can improve speaking skills◦ Rushed pace◦ Looked at monitor more than audience

Seemed like the group could not find adequate information for presentation◦ Little detail in slides◦ A different topic choice where information was

more available would have been better Slide information was not cited in slides or

at end of presentation◦ Pictures were not cited either


Slides (20/20)◦ Well designed

Educational Value (16/20)◦ Seemed more interested in quantity than details in

information Graphics (20/20)

◦ Frequent and well placed◦ Made presentation more enjoyable◦ But replace a few pictures with diagrams

Some pictures did not add to presentation Oral presentation (17/20)

◦ 1st speaker did well◦ 2nd speaker needs some practice

Group Analysis of Research (19/20)◦ Needed a little more research on topic for thoroughness

Overall (92/100)

Grade


Industry

Chris Heflin

Rachael Houk

Michael Jones

Positives

• Very good at building slides with both pictures and words. Graphs gave good representation of the information.

• Provided multiple applications of the technologies available and delved into each topic.

• Spoke clearly and eloquently.

Negatives

• The presentation was a bit brief. They could elaborate more on each topic rather than moving steadily through the slides.

Michael Koetting

James Kancewick

Bradford Lamb


Industry

Overall

• Good explanations of slides• Good time management• Expanded on topics• Nano robot discusion very interesting

Recommendations

• Have more information/ slides about the topics

• Better time management• More pictures

Group S5

REVIEW of Nanotechnology in the Oil and Gas Industry

Trevor SeidelLaura Young

Presentation Review

• The presentation needed more graphics• Some of the slides were just words• The oral presenters spoke clearly and

were easy to understand• Some of the slides were a little wordy and

detracted from the oral presentation• The topic was well developed and

interesting to the audience

Presentation Review

• The team presented the information well and understood the topic thoroughly

• The oral presentation was good; they spoke clearly and slowly—easy to understand



Group S6

REVIEW of Nanotechnology in the Oil and Gas Industry

Review

• Professional slide layout and, except for a couple graphics, the graphic text sizing was easy to read.

• The presentation was very professional and the interest/passion felt for the topic was evident throughout the presentation.

• The verbal presentation was quite good overall. There was some reading straight off of the slides, which was distracting.

• For some of the topics, we felt, while the nanotechnology research was interesting, the shortcomings of the current industrial methods were not explicitly established.

Critique of Information• We are afraid the actual drive for anti-corrosion

technology was missed in the presentation.• From a natural gas background, the anti-corrosion

section doesn’t address the corrosion aspect of the natural gas industry. In the industry, corrosion refers to the degradation and destruction of pipelines internal walls.

• Whenever untreated natural gas (from a well) travels through a pipe line microbes accumulate throughout the pipeline, and some produce sulfur that corrodes the pipeline.

• Nanotechnology solutions are most likely focused on internal pipeline corrosion rather than low impact sea water, rust, and paint degradation.

Critique (continued)

• We believe that our concerns with the presentation are due to the incorporation of too many subtopics.

• There were so many applications discussed that a clear/in-depth analysis couldn’t possibly have been performed for the background section of every topic.

• This topics were extremely interesting and the nanotechnology information seemed very well researched and established.


Group 1 Evaluation of Group 5

Presentation:Carbon Nanotubes

By Group 5

The introduction was very solid◦ Good information was presented◦ Initial animated graphics quickly grabbed the

audience’s attention The first half of the presentation used slides

that were easy to read and follow. Showing the summary charts of the positive

and negative processes for creating carbon nanotubes was helpful as a quick comparison guide.

Positive Notes

Each of the speakers, especially the third, used too many “filler” words, such as “um”.

The third speaker was clearly nervous in front of the audience. It made his presentation very dry, uninteresting, and detracted from the first two presenters.

The text used in second half of the presentation began to get crowded. More slides with fewer words per slide would’ve been helpful.


Slides (19/20)◦ Well designed, but very basic in appearance.

Educational Value (20/20)◦ A lot of research was presented in a very clear and

understandable manner about a new field. Graphics (19/20)

◦ Use of 3-D animation was great◦ Made presentation more enjoyable◦ But replace a few pictures with diagrams

Oral presentation (16/20)◦ 1st speaker did well◦ 3rd speaker was extremely nervous and unprepared

Group Analysis of Research (20/20)◦ It was evident that plenty of research was done to give a very

thorough presentation. Overall (94/100)

Grade

Group S2 Review of Carbon Tubes

Chris HeflinRachael HoukMichael Jones

Positives

• The first two speakers spoke clearly and eloquently.

• The slides had both pictures and words, with graphics providing good insight into the intricacies of the process.

• The group was well prepared and answered questions well.

Negatives

• The third speaker read his material directly off of the slide the vast majority of the time. Also, almost every sentence contained an “Um”

• The second speaker spoke quickly and moved swiftly through the slides, she could have elaborated more and allowed more time for the material to sink in.

Group S3Review of S5—Carbon Nanotubes

James KancewickMichael KoettingBradford Lamb

Positives

• The introduction to the topic was simple and easy to understand, while providing enough background to follow the presentation.

• The slides appeared well-made and did not present too much information at any one time.

• The first two speakers did a good job speaking on their respective topics and were easy to follow.

Areas for Improvement

• The third speaker appeared unrehearsed and mostly read off the slides in an uninspired manner. More rehearsal would have helped improve the presentation greatly.

• The comments about safety needed some sort of research information to back up the concerns.

• Sometimes the presentation was moved along a little too quickly, especially with charts and graphs.

Group S4REVIEW of Carbon-Nanotubes

S4 Review of S5 Presentation


Things Done Well

Did a good job of defining any technical terms used throughout the presentation.

Had a nice basic informative introduction that allowed the audience to follow along in the presentation.

Did an excellent job of explaining graphics.Laura and Travis had good eye contact and

projection.

Things to Improve On

Graphics in the first half of presentation had citations, but toward the end of presentation there were absolutely no citations for the graphics used.

What article were you critiquing?Some slides were too wordy, but overall most

of the slides had a nice layout.

Things To improve On

Jason- Your part of the presentation contained the most interesting topics, but you were so nervous that it was hard to follow along…..Relax! Have confidence in what you are going to say and look up.

Laura- use a transition or at least a statement to introduce new slides; you just read the title of the slide and proceeded to talk about the body of the slide.




Review• Good color scheme for a professional presentation;

however, formatting on each slide was not consistent (text sizing and bullet use).

• The presentation went into impressive detail on the synthesis of nanotubes. There is too much text on the application slides.

• Most of the group spoke very well. We would recommend that the last speaker work on his public speaking. Public speaking is not learned over night, and is an important skill to possess.

• Overall, it was a very interesting in the presentation.

Critique of Information• During the presentation, we would have liked to have the

information on the strength of nanotubes (slide 5) explained more thoroughly. The slide was changed before we realized the numbers given were ratios.

• There should have been a slide concluding all of the types of synthesizing nanotubes. Comparing and contrasting the multiple methods would have helped tie the information together.

• When presented with the multiple applications that carbon nanotubes have, it was hard to determine which ones were practical, and in what timeframe we would expect to see them in use.

• The slide on reactivity did not add anything to the presentation and was not tied in to the overall presentation.

Critique (continued)

• Our main concerns are that:– There was not any real connections between each of the

synthesis methods (compare and contrast).– No timetable or discussion on the practicality of nanotube

application.– Information was not always tied into the topic. Extraneous

information was given.• It is clear that this group extensively researched their

topic, and concise organization of the material would have served to emphasize this aspect to a greater extent.


Group 1 Evaluation of Group 6

Presentation:Nanotechnology in Industrial Applications

By Group 6

Good speaking skills overall◦ All speakers seemed knowledgeable and well-

researched Slides had good format

◦ Many pictures that were referenced during the presentation The pictures really made the topic tangible

Presenters answered questions with further information than what was presented◦ Showed good preparation for presentation

Organization of the presentation was good◦ Each presenter covered an important section and

spoke about the same length◦ Clear transitions between the presentation parts

Positive Notes

Some of the slides had too many facts◦ We were reading the slides instead of listening to

the speakers Last speaker needed more elaboration

◦ He also had choppy sentences The transition between the third and fourth

section was jarring◦ Conclusion slide at the end of the third section

was misleading◦ Sudden switch from interior to exterior coatings

was not adequately explained


Slides (20/20)◦ Well designed and well organized

Educational Value (20/20)◦ Thorough and informative

Graphics (19/20)◦ Some of the graphics were hard to read due to too

much information Oral presentation (19/20)

◦ In general, very good job Group Analysis of Research (20/20) Overall (98/100)

Grade

Group S2REVIEW of Nanotechnology in

Industrial Applications

--MISSING--

Review of S6—Nanotechnology in Industrial Applications

By Group S3:James KancewickMichael KoettingBradford Lamb

Things Done Well

• The speaking was very good through all parts of the presentation. The presenters all seemed very knowledgeable within their respective sections.

• The use of statistics within the presentation was good at providing a scope for the topics discussed.

• Slides looked very professional throughout the presentation.

• Use of graphics instead of words in several places made for a more interesting presentation.

• Introduction was very good at introducing the topics and the reasons for the research.

Areas for Improvement

• The slides covering heat transfer equations with fouling were not necessary given the audience (chemical engineering students), were boring, and added nothing to the presentation.

• On the whole, this was a very good presentation, with very few negative aspects.


Industrial Applications

--MISSING--

CHEN 481Presentation 6 Review

Group 5Trevor SeidelLaura Young

Presentation Review

• The presentation had a good balance between graphics and words

• Some of the presenters were easy to understand while others were not as clear

• The details of the presentation were in depth and well presented

• The introduction was lacking, it should have been more focused on the topic and why the topic is important

Presentation Review

• The team presented the information well and understood the topic thoroughly

• The applications section of the presentation seemed a little weak



Agriculture

--MISSING--

Review of S1—Nanotechnology in Agriculture

By S3:James KancewickMichael KoettingBradford Lamb

Review

• The first and third sections of the presentation were easy to understand and the speakers did a good job of explaining the material.

• The second section of the presentation (endosulfan experiment) was difficult to follow; the slides also contained numerous spelling and formatting errors, and the graphs were not labeled well.

• Endosulfan experiment should have been explained in layman’s terms instead of with purely scientific numbers and no explanation of the implications of the findings.

Review

• Text and graphics were occasionally too small.• Applications of nanobarcodes in agriculture

were not sufficiently detailed for this presentation’s topic.

• Slide formatting was sometimes haphazard; more parallel slide design would have made the presentation much more professional.


Agriculture

--MISSING--


Agriculture Group 5

Trevor SeidelLaura YoungPradip Rijal

Presentation Review

• The presentation had a good balance between graphics and words

• Some of the presenters were easy to understand while others were not as clear

• The presentation seemed did not flow from one section to the next making it hard to pay attention

• The introduction failed to tie the different topics together

Presentation Review

• The topics were not well connected or well developed, with the second topic containing far to many graphs making the presentation hard to follow

• Experiment detailed in slides 16-23 should have come before its conclusions/summary in slides 14,15.

Nanotechnology in Agriculture (S1) Critique

CHEN 481

Critique by S6:

John BaumhardtDaniel ArnoldMichael TrevathanMichael Tran

Review• The slide templates looked professional. The colors

used made the slides easy to read. • The slides should be more uniform – the font, layout,

text size all varied drastically from slide to slide. • Good use of pictures, however there should have been

more pictures and less text – we are too lazy to read. • The text was too small on many of the slides to read

from the back of the room.• Make research graphs fill an entire slide and explain

them more thoroughly – this is our first time seeing the graph.

Review• Needed a better explanation of the benefits of

red shift to the agriculture. • The barcode section was off topic comparatively

to the other sections.• The crop improvement research needed a

conclusion and application slide• Good job using multiple articles that were

broadly discussed – you were able to encompass more of the agriculture industry.

• Overall good technical presentation.

Review• All the speakers spoke clearly and confidently. It

appeared as though they had practiced prior to the presentation.

• Everyone dressed nicely and took the presentation seriously.

• Limited amount of filler words used. • Great job orally. • If you read off the slides use the monitor instead

of the projector so you don’t turn your body away from the audience


Group S1REVIEW of Food Industry

--MISSING--


--MISSING--


--MISSING--


Group 5Trevor SeidelLaura YoungPradip Rijal

Jason Savatsky

Presentation Review

• The third speaker did not seem very knowledgeable on the topic.

• The third speaker also seemed to read from the slides.

• One of the graphics was stretched out on the presentation slide. It looked like they didn’t take time to put it together—rushed.

Presentation Review

• The first two speakers did a very good job. They spoke slowly and clearly and were easy to understand.

• The presentation content was very interesting and well developed.

• The areas discussed were relevant to the audience, which helped to keep interest.

S6CHEN 481

2nd Presentation by S3 Review



Review• Slide layout was agreeable and pleasant to look at

most of the time, there are some slides with dead space that should have been utilized.

• The presentation was detailed and well thought out.• The presentation was very segmented between the

group members, which results in an absence of presentation flow among the members.

• The presentation overall was quite good, and the audience was acknowledged frequently (good eye contact).

Critique of Information• The research seemed very broad and encompassing, we

would like to have seen a more in depth analysis of the material. Example: instead of telling us that nanotechnology use leads to higher profit, show a side by side comparison of profit before and after nanotechnology applications.

• Even with the segments, the addition of a section with a real-world application slide was great. We like to see the actual use of this research.

• We would recommend more time and space be devoted to this real-world application. This is the most interesting part of any presentation for future engineers and we felt that it should have been the presentation focus.

Date post:	14-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	kayli-eades
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

Group S1 Rebuttal Most of the comments were positive, which were appreciated. Of the negative...

Documents