Actually, it's probably "a lot of times" and not "sometimes"...
Anyways, I've recently been reading textbooks. I took a trip to the library last week to look for some background information for my overview (in topics such as recrystallization and grain growth, or x-ray diffraction). While I am familiar with these topics, I find that I am not knowledgeable. They are primarily things I have learned in class and also see throughout the research papers I've read. Although classes generally only try to cover just enough of the basics to understand the field. While research papers, tend to focus on one particular area, and explain how they have built upon that one specific subject in the field. A combination of these two is generally inadequate for seeing the "big picture" in the field. In particular, as you become more and more specialized, and you tend to focus on a particular topic, you lose sight of all the other research going on. (Although Google Scholar and ResearchGate have started providing me updates of recently published journal articles, which in some ways does help keep one seeing everything going on in the topic).
A lot of times as I'm reading through these textbooks, there will be some small piece of information in which everything clicks; all the various things I've been reading in research papers all fall together in how they are related, or linked up. The other times, I realize I've overlooked something significant or forgotten, or just never learnt. My latest lesson was in diffraction.
I've always been under the impression that electromagnetic waves interacted with the atoms in a crystalline lattice. This not entirely false, but more accurately, the electrons in the electron clouds of an atom interact with the electromagnetic wave (there is negligible interaction from the nucleus). This electromagnetic interaction is also different for x-ray diffraction or electron diffraction. While the obvious differences are things such as wavelength and absorption, x-ray scattering is an indirect interaction, while electron scattering is direct.
Hopefully I'll have some more time to start posting again. We've been rushing for some results recently, which we finally believe we've gotten to an adequate point to write on. So the next few days will be devoted to writing again, in which I have another post for that.
Sunday, March 23, 2014
Sunday, March 16, 2014
Infinitely writing...
I suppose this is primarily my fault for pushing everything off. So what have I been doing?
I submitted two abstracts for the upcoming MS&T 2014 conference. One oral presentation and another poster. After the pressure of preparing two presentations last time, I decided I didn't enjoy the experience so much. Although what I've also come to realize though is that presenting any research project for the first time is typically a lot of pressure of how receptive the audience will be. That is to say, last MS&T I presented on both the nano-Ni abnormal grain growth features and the information from the 3D nf-HEDM dataset for the first time ever and was already incredibly nervous for each one individually, and compounding the two did not help.
On the other hand, I was certainly nervous when we had to present our GBE results the first time at the 5th Recrystallization and Grain Growth conference, but when I presented on our next study at TMS 2014, I found myself comfortable with the overall situation. I suppose after giving one presentation, I felt I had validation of my work (as nobody from the audience ridiculed or challenged me) and secondly, and maybe more importantly, I had ownership to the work. The second time presenting it then is essentially watching the growth or next step of the research project. The topics for this upcoming MS&T 2014 involve one on the 3D dataset, and a second (poster) on some of the computational homology studies we've performed. The first should be extremely interesting (although it'll more or a less a repeat of the upcoming 3DMS talk), while the second is again, another side project.
Aside from that, I've been writing my drafts for my papers I keep putting off. I finally felt one was in more of a complete form that I should send off to my collaborator (but not my advisors just yet), and mixing in a second one with additional data now. In addition to the papers are my overview document, which I've begun making more of an effort thanks to my roommate, who had to turn her's in today. Her deadline essentially made mine more real, and forced me to sit down realize what needed to be done.
As a result, this weekend has almost been nothing but writing (and of course procrastinating like in this picture shown...)
I submitted two abstracts for the upcoming MS&T 2014 conference. One oral presentation and another poster. After the pressure of preparing two presentations last time, I decided I didn't enjoy the experience so much. Although what I've also come to realize though is that presenting any research project for the first time is typically a lot of pressure of how receptive the audience will be. That is to say, last MS&T I presented on both the nano-Ni abnormal grain growth features and the information from the 3D nf-HEDM dataset for the first time ever and was already incredibly nervous for each one individually, and compounding the two did not help.
On the other hand, I was certainly nervous when we had to present our GBE results the first time at the 5th Recrystallization and Grain Growth conference, but when I presented on our next study at TMS 2014, I found myself comfortable with the overall situation. I suppose after giving one presentation, I felt I had validation of my work (as nobody from the audience ridiculed or challenged me) and secondly, and maybe more importantly, I had ownership to the work. The second time presenting it then is essentially watching the growth or next step of the research project. The topics for this upcoming MS&T 2014 involve one on the 3D dataset, and a second (poster) on some of the computational homology studies we've performed. The first should be extremely interesting (although it'll more or a less a repeat of the upcoming 3DMS talk), while the second is again, another side project.
Aside from that, I've been writing my drafts for my papers I keep putting off. I finally felt one was in more of a complete form that I should send off to my collaborator (but not my advisors just yet), and mixing in a second one with additional data now. In addition to the papers are my overview document, which I've begun making more of an effort thanks to my roommate, who had to turn her's in today. Her deadline essentially made mine more real, and forced me to sit down realize what needed to be done.
As a result, this weekend has almost been nothing but writing (and of course procrastinating like in this picture shown...)
Friday, March 7, 2014
Graduate Science Cafe and Graduate Symposium
These are two entirely different things.
The first is something a group of classmates in the material science department are trying to start, where we basically dedicate a hour or two each Friday morning to discuss any paper we thought was particular interesting, or maybe just a general science event of the week.
Perhaps the one most notable news of this week, is the report of a 1.5 micron giant sized virus released from an melting ice cap, that was still found to be ACTIVE (note I chose not to use the word alive). Global warming or not, this does stress why we should be sensitive to things such as climate change rather than just saying, "Oh this winter is much colder than the previous one." In this case, while the giant virus doesn't infect humans, it's size scale is something that we as a scientific community have not approached before, and hence the delicacy and requirement to further investigate it.
Overall we talked about a plethora of stuff, and I had a lot of fun with my other four classmates. While no time is set yet for each week, just comment and let me know if you (imaginary readers) are ever interested in joining.
The second was the Graduate Symposium.
Now in it's seventh year, it went extremely well. I wonder if I am more biased simply because I presented as well, and therefore had an overall good impression of it being a participant as well, or that all the student posters and speakers were excellent. The graduate symposium acts to provides all of us a chance to learn about one each other's research, but I noticed one more additional detail which isn't advertised. That is the interaction between students and professors (who are not their advisors). Having several professors stop by and talk about my poster, and be genuinely interested and understand what is going on, revealed to me the breadth of knowledge they have. It does make me wonder how long or how much one has to read before they can engage students to critically think like so, rather than just being receptive to what the poster is presenting.
The first is something a group of classmates in the material science department are trying to start, where we basically dedicate a hour or two each Friday morning to discuss any paper we thought was particular interesting, or maybe just a general science event of the week.
Perhaps the one most notable news of this week, is the report of a 1.5 micron giant sized virus released from an melting ice cap, that was still found to be ACTIVE (note I chose not to use the word alive). Global warming or not, this does stress why we should be sensitive to things such as climate change rather than just saying, "Oh this winter is much colder than the previous one." In this case, while the giant virus doesn't infect humans, it's size scale is something that we as a scientific community have not approached before, and hence the delicacy and requirement to further investigate it.
Overall we talked about a plethora of stuff, and I had a lot of fun with my other four classmates. While no time is set yet for each week, just comment and let me know if you (imaginary readers) are ever interested in joining.
The second was the Graduate Symposium.
Now in it's seventh year, it went extremely well. I wonder if I am more biased simply because I presented as well, and therefore had an overall good impression of it being a participant as well, or that all the student posters and speakers were excellent. The graduate symposium acts to provides all of us a chance to learn about one each other's research, but I noticed one more additional detail which isn't advertised. That is the interaction between students and professors (who are not their advisors). Having several professors stop by and talk about my poster, and be genuinely interested and understand what is going on, revealed to me the breadth of knowledge they have. It does make me wonder how long or how much one has to read before they can engage students to critically think like so, rather than just being receptive to what the poster is presenting.
Saturday, March 1, 2014
Good talks. Content or Speaker?
Is it the content that matters, or the speaker? I think the answer is obvious, but for the sake of discussion I'll continue.
After attending many talks, listening to several seminars, giving a few of my own presentations, and finally watching a multitude of YouTube videos, the answer lies in both. A novel presentation can be ruined by a poor speaker (here I'm referring to poor flow, lack of confidence, or wrong emphasis). But similarly it seems a good speaker can still give a bad talk (again not organized, or overall lack of new, fresh content).
Here are some things I've noticed in good talks. The speaker is calm and natural, and nothing else beyond that. It's easy for an audience to detect nervousness, or something that is too emphasized, too forced. Being excited isn't bad in science, after all we're humans and not robots. But forcing excitement lacks the genuineness of an Eureka moment.
A good talk walks you through the whole process. You're not just being thrown theories, data, and results at you, being forced to absorb it. Instead you're suppose to walk through the thoughts of the speaker, run through the same procedures, and see the same results as they did.
And there's a multitude of ways this can be achieved. Sometimes it's breaking down a presentation into simpler concepts for the audience to understand. These may or may not be relevant to science, but as long as the analogy is drawn and the audience recognizes it. Other times you have to show the flow, step by step, and spoon feed your audience in a subtle manner. Make sure they appreciate the math as much as you do, rather than being intimidated by it.
Often, the good talks come from the older professors. (I have heard excellent talks from students and post-docs, but I am simply stating an observation with the first point.) But then we have to realize how many talks they must have gave. How many "ums" and pauses they made, how many times they thought they gave a poor talk. How many times they were tongue tied, wavering their voice, or their knees shaking below them.
Public speaking comes with experience. Every opportunity you are presented with a talk, you should strive for the best. Even if it all goes wrong, as long as you have learned and taken something out from it, it was not a lost cause. As a scientist, being able to give a good talk is absolutely something we should strive for.
After attending many talks, listening to several seminars, giving a few of my own presentations, and finally watching a multitude of YouTube videos, the answer lies in both. A novel presentation can be ruined by a poor speaker (here I'm referring to poor flow, lack of confidence, or wrong emphasis). But similarly it seems a good speaker can still give a bad talk (again not organized, or overall lack of new, fresh content).
Here are some things I've noticed in good talks. The speaker is calm and natural, and nothing else beyond that. It's easy for an audience to detect nervousness, or something that is too emphasized, too forced. Being excited isn't bad in science, after all we're humans and not robots. But forcing excitement lacks the genuineness of an Eureka moment.
A good talk walks you through the whole process. You're not just being thrown theories, data, and results at you, being forced to absorb it. Instead you're suppose to walk through the thoughts of the speaker, run through the same procedures, and see the same results as they did.
And there's a multitude of ways this can be achieved. Sometimes it's breaking down a presentation into simpler concepts for the audience to understand. These may or may not be relevant to science, but as long as the analogy is drawn and the audience recognizes it. Other times you have to show the flow, step by step, and spoon feed your audience in a subtle manner. Make sure they appreciate the math as much as you do, rather than being intimidated by it.
Often, the good talks come from the older professors. (I have heard excellent talks from students and post-docs, but I am simply stating an observation with the first point.) But then we have to realize how many talks they must have gave. How many "ums" and pauses they made, how many times they thought they gave a poor talk. How many times they were tongue tied, wavering their voice, or their knees shaking below them.
Public speaking comes with experience. Every opportunity you are presented with a talk, you should strive for the best. Even if it all goes wrong, as long as you have learned and taken something out from it, it was not a lost cause. As a scientist, being able to give a good talk is absolutely something we should strive for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)