Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "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."— Presentation transcript:

1 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

2 Group S2: Review of Solar Technology Chris Heflin Rachael Houk Michael Jones

3 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.

4 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.

5 Bradford Lamb Michael Koetting James Kancewick Week 1 Additional Slides Seminar Group S3

6  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

7  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

8  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

9 Group S4 Review of Solar Cell Technology Joshua Moreno Scott Marwil Danielle Miller Group S4

10 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

11 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

12 Group 5 Pradip Rijal Jason Savatsky Trevor Seidel Laura Young Group S5 Group S5 Review of Solar Cell Technology

13 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

14 Critiqued by S6 Michael Trevathan Daniel Arnold Michael Tran John Baumhardt Group S6

15 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

16 Group S2 rebuttal Chris Heflin Rachael Houk Mike Jones

17 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.

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

19 Group S1 Review of Nano Membranes for Gas Separation

20 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

21 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

22 Group S3: Michael Koetting Bradford Lamb James Kancewick

23  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.

24  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.

25 Scott Marwil Danielle Miller Joshua Moreno Group S4 Review of Nano Membranes for Gas Separation

26 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

27 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

28 Pradip Rijal Jason Savatsky Trevor Seidel Laura Young Group S5 Review of Nano Membranes for Gas Separation

29 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

30 John Baumhardt Daniel Arnold Michael Trevathan Michael Tran Group S6 Review of Nano Membranes for Gas Separation

31 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.

32 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.

33 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.

34 Group S1 Review of Nanotechnology Use in Delivery of Chemicals Group S1

35 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 Opportunities for Improvement Need more background information – Introduction was too short Too much text on some slides – Information was good – Needs to be spread out Group S1

36 Group S2 Review of Nanotechnology Use in Delivery of Chemicals Chris Heflin Rachael Houk Mike Jones

37 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

38 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

39 Scott Marwil Danielle Miller Joshua Moreno Group S4 Review of Nanotechnology Use in Delivery of Chemicals

40 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

41 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.

42 Group S5 Review of Nanotechnology Use in Delivery of Chemicals Pradip Rijal Jason Savatsky Trevor Seidel Laura Young

43 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.

44 Critique by Group S6 Michael Trevathan, Daniel Arnold, John Baumhardt, and Michael Tran Presented by S3 Group S6 Review of Nanotechnology Use in Delivery of Chemicals

45 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.

46 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.

47 Group S4 Please prepare rebuttal

48 Presentation: Nanotechnology in the Oil and Gas Industry By Group 4 Group S1 REVIEW of Nanotechnology in the Oil and Gas Industry

49  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

50  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

51  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) ◦ 1 st speaker did well ◦ 2 nd speaker needs some practice  Group Analysis of Research (19/20) ◦ Needed a little more research on topic for thoroughness  Overall (92/100)

52 Group S2 REVIEW of Nanotechnology in the Oil and Gas Industry Chris Heflin Rachael Houk Michael Jones

53 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.

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

55 Michael Koetting James Kancewick Bradford Lamb Group S3 REVIEW of Nanotechnology in the Oil and Gas Industry

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

57 Recommendations Have more information/ slides about the topics Better time management More pictures

58 Group S5 REVIEW of Nanotechnology in the Oil and Gas Industry Trevor Seidel Laura Young

59 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

60 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

61 John Baumhardt Daniel Arnold Michael Trevathan Michael Tran Group S6 REVIEW of Nanotechnology in the Oil and Gas Industry

62 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.

63 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.

64 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.

65 Group S5 Please prepare rebuttal

66 Presentation: Carbon Nanotubes By Group 5

67  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.

68  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.

69  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) ◦ 1 st speaker did well ◦ 3 rd 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)

70 Group S2 Review of Carbon Tubes Chris Heflin Rachael Houk Michael Jones

71 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.

72 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.

73 Group S3 Review of S5—Carbon Nanotubes James Kancewick Michael Koetting Bradford Lamb

74 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.

75 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.

76 Group S4 REVIEW of Carbon-Nanotubes

77 S4 Review of S5 Presentation Group S4 REVIEW of Carbon-Nanotubes

78 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.

79 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.

80 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.

81 Group S6 REVIEW of Carbon-Nanotubes John Baumhardt Daniel Arnold Michael Trevathan Michael Tran

82 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.

83 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.

84 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.

85 Group S6 Please prepare rebuttal

86 Presentation: Nanotechnology in Industrial Applications By Group 6

87  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

88  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

89  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)

90 Group S2 REVIEW of Nanotechnology in Industrial Applications --MISSING--

91 Review of S6—Nanotechnology in Industrial Applications By Group S3: James Kancewick Michael Koetting Bradford Lamb

92 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.

93 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.

94 Group S4 REVIEW of Nanotechnology in Industrial Applications --MISSING--

95 CHEN 481 Presentation 6 Review Group 5 Trevor Seidel Laura Young

96 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

97 Presentation Review The team presented the information well and understood the topic thoroughly The applications section of the presentation seemed a little weak

98 Group S1 Please prepare rebuttal

99 Group S2 REVIEW of Nanotechnology in Agriculture --MISSING--

100 Review of S1—Nanotechnology in Agriculture By S3: James Kancewick Michael Koetting Bradford Lamb

101 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.

102 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.

103 Group S4 REVIEW of Nanotechnology in Agriculture --MISSING--

104 Group S5 REVIEW of Nanotechnology in Agriculture Group 5 Trevor Seidel Laura Young Pradip Rijal

105 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

106 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 should have come before its conclusions/summary in slides 14,15.

107 Nanotechnology in Agriculture (S1) Critique CHEN 481 Critique by S6: John Baumhardt Daniel Arnold Michael Trevathan Michael Tran

108 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.

109 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.

110 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

111 Group S3 Please prepare rebuttal

112 Group S1 REVIEW of Food Industry --MISSING--

113 Group S2 REVIEW of Food Industry --MISSING--

114 Group S4 REVIEW of Food Industry --MISSING--

115 Group S5 REVIEW of Food Industry Group 5 Trevor Seidel Laura Young Pradip Rijal Jason Savatsky

116 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.

117 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.

118 S6 CHEN nd Presentation by S3 Review John Baumhardt Daniel Arnold Michael Trevathan Michael Tran

119 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).

120 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.


Download ppt "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."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google