Transcript Additional Slides - Texas A&M University

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 Heflin
Rachael Houk
Michael 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.
GROUP S3:
REVIEW OF SOLAR TECHNOLOGY
Bradford Lamb
Michael Koetting
James Kancewick
Week 1 Additional Slides
Seminar
Group S3
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
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
Group S4
Review of Solar Cell Technology
Joshua Moreno
Scott 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 S5
Review of Solar Cell Technology
Group 5
Pradip Rijal
Jason Savatsky
Trevor Seidel
Laura Young
Group S5
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
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 Heflin
Rachael 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
Review of Nano Membranes for Gas
Separation
Group S1
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
Group S1
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
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 S3:
Michael Koetting
Bradford Lamb
James Kancewick



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.



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.
Group S4
Review of Nano Membranes
for Gas Separation
Scott Marwil
Danielle Miller
Joshua Moreno
Group S4
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
The Not-So-Good

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.
Group S4
Group S5
Review of Nano Membranes for Gas
Separation
Pradip Rijal
Jason Savatsky
Trevor Seidel
Laura Young
Group S5
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
Group S6
Review of Nano Membranes for Gas
Separation
John Baumhardt
Daniel Arnold
Michael Trevathan
Michael Tran
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 S1
Review 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
Group S1
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 S2
Review of Nanotechnology Use in
Delivery of Chemicals
Chris Heflin
Rachael Houk
Mike 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
Group S4
Review of Nanotechnology Use
in Delivery of Chemicals
Scott Marwil
Danielle Miller
Joshua Moreno
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.
Group S5
Review of Nanotechnology Use
in Delivery of Chemicals
Pradip Rijal
Jason Savatsky
Trevor Seidel
Laura 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.
Group S6
Review of Nanotechnology Use in
Delivery of Chemicals
Presented by S3
Critique by Group S6
Michael Trevathan, Daniel Arnold, John Baumhardt, and Michael Tran
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
Group S1
REVIEW of Nanotechnology in the Oil and Gas
Industry
Presentation:
Nanotechnology in the Oil and Gas Industry
By Group 4

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

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)

Educational Value (16/20)

Graphics (20/20)
◦ Well designed
◦ Seemed more interested in quantity than details in
information
◦ 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)

Group Analysis of Research (19/20)

Overall (92/100)
◦ 1st speaker did well
◦ 2nd speaker needs some practice
◦ Needed a little more research on topic for thoroughness
Group S2
REVIEW of Nanotechnology in the Oil and Gas
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.
Group S3
REVIEW of Nanotechnology in the Oil and Gas
Industry
Michael Koetting
James Kancewick
Bradford Lamb
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 Seidel
Laura 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
John Baumhardt
Daniel Arnold
Michael Trevathan
Michael Tran
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 S5
Please prepare rebuttal
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.



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)

Educational Value (20/20)

Graphics (19/20)

Oral presentation (16/20)

Group Analysis of Research (20/20)

Overall (94/100)
◦ Well designed, but very basic in appearance.
◦ A lot of research was presented in a very clear and
understandable manner about a new field.
◦ Use of 3-D animation was great
◦ Made presentation more enjoyable
◦ But replace a few pictures with diagrams
◦ 1st speaker did well
◦ 3rd speaker was extremely nervous and unprepared
◦ It was evident that plenty of research was done to give a
very thorough presentation.
Group S2
Review of Carbon Tubes
Chris Heflin
Rachael Houk
Michael 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 S3
Review of S5—Carbon Nanotubes
James Kancewick
Michael Koetting
Bradford 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 S4
REVIEW of Carbon-Nanotubes
Group S4
REVIEW 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.
Group S6
REVIEW of Carbon-Nanotubes
John Baumhardt
Daniel Arnold
Michael Trevathan
Michael Tran
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 S6
Please prepare rebuttal
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

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)
Group S2
REVIEW of Nanotechnology in
Industrial Applications
--MISSING--
Review of S6—Nanotechnology
in Industrial Applications
By Group S3:
James Kancewick
Michael Koetting
Bradford 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.
Group S4
REVIEW of Nanotechnology in
Industrial Applications
--MISSING--
CHEN 481
Presentation 6 Review
Group 5
Trevor Seidel
Laura 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
Group S1
Please prepare rebuttal
Group S2
REVIEW of Nanotechnology in
Agriculture
--MISSING--
Review of S1—Nanotechnology
in Agriculture
By S3:
James Kancewick
Michael Koetting
Bradford 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.
Group S4
REVIEW of Nanotechnology in
Agriculture
--MISSING--
Group S5
REVIEW of Nanotechnology in
Agriculture
Group 5
Trevor Seidel
Laura Young
Pradip 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 Baumhardt
Daniel Arnold
Michael Trevathan
Michael 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 S3
Please prepare rebuttal
Group S1
REVIEW of Food Industry
--MISSING--
Group S2
REVIEW of Food Industry
--MISSING--
Group S4
REVIEW of Food Industry
--MISSING--
Group S5
REVIEW of Food Industry
Group 5
Trevor Seidel
Laura Young
Pradip 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.
S6
CHEN 481
2nd Presentation by S3 Review
John Baumhardt
Daniel Arnold
Michael Trevathan
Michael Tran
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 realworld 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.