Group S1 Rebuttal

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: Review of Solar Technology 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. recommendations 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 General Knowledge 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 WATER TREATMENT Group S3

9. Group S4Review 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 S5Review of Solar Cell Technology Group 5 PradipRijal Jason Savatsky Trevor Seidel Laura Young Group S5

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. Group S6: Review of Solar Technology 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 Group S1

20. Notes on Presentation Positive Notes 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 • 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

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 S3Review: nanoporous membranes Group S3: Michael Koetting Bradford Lamb James Kancewick

23. 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.

24. 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.

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

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. Group S5 • Review of Nano Membranes for Gas Separation PradipRijal Jason Savatsky Trevor Seidel Laura Young Group S5

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

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 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 • 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

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

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 PradipRijal 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. 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

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

49. Positive Notes • 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. Opportunities for Improvement • 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