A Working PPT & Talk!

posted in
Send by email

I spent the weekend writing my speech and editing my JSHS PowerPoint presentation to my satisfaction! (For your viewing ease, my speech for each slide is in the notes in PowerPoint. There are some animations and GIFs that won't play unless you enter slide show mode, though. Either way, you'll see the whole collaboration during my presentation practice!)

I would love to hear your feedback, if possible!

Thanks so much! :)
-VD

Comments

Oscar for best QDSC presentation!

This is quite impressive. Very nice logical organization throughout. I am wondering if this truly fits into the time frame indicated on the slides, or if you calculated that using warpspeed Dingspeak. We can talk more in depth in person, but here are some initial thoughts:
Slide #8, point #1 - the potential has already been stated in previous slides, and this first point doesn't seem to fit under the "challenges" heading. As such, is it worth keeping here, or is it redundant and expendable?
Wise of you to have prepared both technical and non-technical versions of your model descriptions.
Slides 15, 16, 17, graphs of 1, 2, and 3 QDSC are fuzzy, but the 5 and 9 stack on later slides are much more clear. Can the first 3 be improved in resolution to match the last two?
Slide 20: I can't figure out why the percent of incoming usable solar energy starts out higher than the percent of incoming photons absorbed by each stack, but then the green bars gradually surpass the blue. Should I not even be attempting to compare these to each other?
Slide 22: is it worth somehow highlighting the most important numbers via color/bold, etc? I'm sure you'll be able to point with a laser pointer, but it might help to do something visual on the slide to call attention to the appropriate spot.
Slide 24: silly question - what does interdisciplinary mean, in the context of describing this model? JAVA + Monte Carlo?
Is the drop in price over the last few years exclusively due to an increase in efficiency? The increase on slide 32's graph doesn't seem sufficient to explain the dramatic decrease in price in the graph on slide 5.
Whatever is happening in slide #30, I love it.

Hi, Leo

Thank you so much for your detailed feedback! I actually timed myself speaking each slide in regular (slower than I normally speak) Dingspeak because I know I get too excited sometimes.

Slide 8: It's redundant. At the time, I thought it was necessary for stress and context. I have now modified my talk and the slide to eliminate point 1.
Yes, the fuzziness is because I ran the first three through another software to slow down the GIFs (while I deemed 5 and 9-stack to be at reasonable speeds because they have more parts to the animation). I can't improve the resolution without remaking the GIFs, so I will look into that. Thank you.
Slide 20: That's a critical distinction I should make clearer, and perhaps re-graph. Number of photons does not equal energy absorbed. Usable ENERGY thus "surpasses" percent of PHOTONS absorbed in the first few data points, but note that it is always lower than the yellow (energy absorbed).
Slide 22: I'm not sure I totally follow you - which numbers are you referring to? I suppose I could highlight the more important designs, though.
Slide 24: Interdisciplinary = Quantum Physics + Earth Science + Power Engineering
Slide 30 is a backup slide, peripheral information I found interesting during my treks of the interwebs. Kardashev scale!

Oops.

Must have accidentally clicked twice. Now I can't delete. Just know that these two replies are the same. Thanks!

Hi, Leo

Thank you so much for your detailed feedback! I actually timed myself speaking each slide in regular (slower than I normally speak) Dingspeak because I know I get too excited sometimes.

Slide 8: It's redundant. At the time, I thought it was necessary for stress and context. I have now modified my talk and the slide to eliminate point 1.
Yes, the fuzziness is because I ran the first three through another software to slow down the GIFs (while I deemed 5 and 9-stack to be at reasonable speeds because they have more parts to the animation). I can't improve the resolution without remaking the GIFs, so I will look into that. Thank you.
Slide 20: That's a critical distinction I should make clearer, and perhaps re-graph. Number of photons does not equal energy absorbed. Usable ENERGY thus "surpasses" percent of PHOTONS absorbed in the first few data points, but note that it is always lower than the yellow (energy absorbed).
Slide 22: I'm not sure I totally follow you - which numbers are you referring to? I suppose I could highlight the more important designs, though.
Slide 24: Interdisciplinary = Quantum Physics + Earth Science + Power Engineering
Slide 30 is a backup slide, peripheral information I found interesting during my treks of the interwebs. Kardashev scale!