Comments from Derek Baker: The following are what I consider the main strengths of this presentation, some comments and an area in which I think it can be improved. Obviously since I am posting this as an example, I consider this to be a very good presentation and the Strengths far outweigh the Area for Improvement. Strengths: ⋅ Most slides are very visual (graphic intensive rather than text intensive) with text used to support the graphics. During the presentation Kerim did a good job of expanding on the slide rather than just reading from the slide. ⋅ All major content is on a white (rather than textured or colored background) background, which makes reading the slide easier. ⋅ References are provided in a smaller font on the relevant slide, rather than summarizing the references on a separate slide at the end. This makes each slide self‐contained and portable. ⋅ Each slide has a slide number and total number of slides in the presentation to orient the listener. ⋅ The Outline is repeated several times throughout the presentation to help keep the reader orientated. ⋅ Clear statement of Thesis Objectives, a flow chart to complete the research (Thesis Guideline), and a Timeline to Graduation. ⋅ The slide show ends with a slide summarizing the most important ideas that the audience should take from the presentation and that helps to stimulate questions. Specifically, the last slide does not just say “Thank you” or similar. ⋅ The presentation lasted 25 minutes (the suggested time). Comment: ⋅ At research conferences you will typically find that the most accomplished speakers tend to have very simple slide designs containing very sophisticated graphics developed through their research to communicate their results; in fact, some of the most accomplished speakers use a pure white slide. The least accomplished speakers tend to have very fancy slide designs but very poor graphics. While I normally do not like the PowerPoint slide formats offered by Microsoft, in this case I thought the water design that Kerim chose worked very well for several reasons. First and foremost, the audience was general Mechanical Engineering MS students working across a broad range of research topics; thus this water format helped to provide context for the presentation. Second, the background behind the main content was pure white, rather than textured or colored, which made reading the slide easier. If Kerim’s presentation was not about the design of a transducer for underwater acoustics, I do not think that this slide format would have been appropriate. Additionally, if Kerim was giving this presentation to a group of experts in the area, I am not sure the slide format would have been appropriate. But in this case, I think the slide format worked well. In summary, be careful when choosing a slide format, especially if it does not directly support your presentation. Area for Improvement: ⋅ Kerim and I went through his presentation on my computer the day before the presentation, and everything looked great. Unfortunately, and as is often the case, the data projector for the presentation was not of a high quality and could not render some of the subtle colors properly. For example, some of the lighter colors were displayed as almost white (which means that could not be read) and the data project was not able to show good contrast between the waves on slide 21 (i.e., the waves were not visible). The result was Kerim had to say “You cannot see the waves on this slide, but…” and then describe what the audience was suppose to see. The problem of having slides look great on a computer but that cannot be read using a data projector is common and something that I have experienced on many occasions. The problem tends to be worse when content is put on top of a textured or colored background, which is why most people prefer a white background.
Transcript
Comments from Derek Baker: The following are what I consider the main strengths of this presentation, some comments and an area in which I think it can be improved. Obviously since I am posting this as an example, I consider this to be a very good presentation and the Strengths far outweigh the Area for Improvement.
Strengths:
⋅ Most slides are very visual (graphic intensive rather than text intensive) with text used to support the graphics. During the presentation Kerim did a good job of expanding on the slide rather than just reading from the slide.
⋅ All major content is on a white (rather than textured or colored background) background, which makes reading the slide easier.
⋅ References are provided in a smaller font on the relevant slide, rather than summarizing the references on a separate slide at the end. This makes each slide self‐contained and portable.
⋅ Each slide has a slide number and total number of slides in the presentation to orient the listener. ⋅ The Outline is repeated several times throughout the presentation to help keep the reader orientated. ⋅ Clear statement of Thesis Objectives, a flow chart to complete the research (Thesis Guideline), and a
Timeline to Graduation. ⋅ The slide show ends with a slide summarizing the most important ideas that the audience should take
from the presentation and that helps to stimulate questions. Specifically, the last slide does not just say “Thank you” or similar.
⋅ The presentation lasted 25 minutes (the suggested time).
Comment:
⋅ At research conferences you will typically find that the most accomplished speakers tend to have very simple slide designs containing very sophisticated graphics developed through their research to communicate their results; in fact, some of the most accomplished speakers use a pure white slide. The least accomplished speakers tend to have very fancy slide designs but very poor graphics. While I normally do not like the PowerPoint slide formats offered by Microsoft, in this case I thought the water design that Kerim chose worked very well for several reasons. First and foremost, the audience was general Mechanical Engineering MS students working across a broad range of research topics; thus this water format helped to provide context for the presentation. Second, the background behind the main content was pure white, rather than textured or colored, which made reading the slide easier. If Kerim’s presentation was not about the design of a transducer for underwater acoustics, I do not think that this slide format would have been appropriate. Additionally, if Kerim was giving this presentation to a group of experts in the area, I am not sure the slide format would have been appropriate. But in this case, I think the slide format worked well. In summary, be careful when choosing a slide format, especially if it does not directly support your presentation.
Area for Improvement:
⋅ Kerim and I went through his presentation on my computer the day before the presentation, and everything looked great. Unfortunately, and as is often the case, the data projector for the presentation was not of a high quality and could not render some of the subtle colors properly. For example, some of the lighter colors were displayed as almost white (which means that could not be read) and the data project was not able to show good contrast between the waves on slide 21 (i.e., the waves were not visible). The result was Kerim had to say “You cannot see the waves on this slide, but…” and then describe what the audience was suppose to see. The problem of having slides look great on a computer but that cannot be read using a data projector is common and something that I have experienced on many occasions. The problem tends to be worse when content is put on top of a textured or colored background, which is why most people prefer a white background.
“DESIGN OF A TONPILZ-TYPE TRANSDUCER”
Kerim Çepni
December 24, 2010Department of Mechanical Engineering
Middle East Technical University
Thesis Supervisor: Dr. Derek K. Baker
Thesis Co-Supervisor: Dr. Mehmet Çalışkan
Outline
Introduction A Little History
Sonar Types & Some Applications
Piezoelectricity
Acoustic Waves
Overview of Tonpilz-Type Transducer
Transducer Modeling Main Types of Modeling
Completed Work: FEM
Thesis Guideline
Thesis Objectives
Timeline to Graduation
2 / 27
A Little History
Aristotle
Leonardo da Vinci
First quantitative experiment in 1826
3 / 27
Reference: Marvin Lasky, 1976, “Review of Undersea Acoustics to 1950,” JASA, 61(2), pp. 283-297.
A Little History (2)
Discovery of piezoelectricity in 1880
First patent about underwater echo ranging, a
month after the tragedy of Titanic in 1912
First underwater piezoelectric transducer in
1917
4 / 27
Reference: Charles H. Sherman, and John L. Butler, 2007, Transducers and Arrays for Underwater Sound, Springer, New York.
