Improving the Timing of Conference Presentations Using Web Applications

Author(s):  
Paul Green

Four rules are suggested to keep sessions on time. 1: While the current presenter is answering questions about their presentation, the following presenter should be connecting their laptop and loading their presentation. This eliminates about a half minute of dead time between presenters. 2: For other than the plenary presenter, the session chair should only give the name of the next presenter as a cue to start their presentation as other introductory information is on the presenter’s first slide. This saves about a minute. 3: Project a second-accurate time of day display (e.g., time.gov) so everyone knows when the session should start. 4: Show a countdown clock with large digits showing the remaining time (e.g., online-stopwatch.com ) on a monitor in front of the presenter, and make it apparent to the presenter (by flashing the time) and the audience (by ringing a bell) when the presenter should stop.

2001 ◽  
Vol 114 (9) ◽  
pp. 1599-1600
Author(s):  
A. Caveman

An occasional column, in which Caveman and other troglodytes involved in cell science emerge to share their views on various aspects of life-science research. Messages for Caveman and other contributors can be left at [email protected]. Any correspondence may be published in forthcoming issues. Previous Sticky Wickets can be viewed at: www.biologists.com/JCS/caveman/index.html I've had it with the big invited, rock-star speaker at meetings. The last straw was at a small meeting last summer. Participation was limited, and the format was designed to provoke interactions and discussion between scientists from different disciplines. Talks were short (~20 minutes), and the Chair of each session was asked to give a general introduction so that the subsequent speakers could focus on ideas, data and models. I thought that it was a privilege to be asked to participate. Clearly, this was not the case for some of the big shots. Three problems arose at this meeting that are symptomatic of meetings in general. First, the Chair of each session did not present a coherent introduction, at least not one that summarized the topic in an unbiased manner or one that helped place the subsequent talks in any sort of context. The introduction invariably comprised short, seemingly off-the-cuff remarks about the speakers that did little more than announce the titles of their talks and their professional affiliations (which were noted in the program). Any summary was restricted to out-takes from the Chair's talk. A consequence was that the subsequent speakers, who had not included an introduction (‘focus on ideas, data and models’), were left scrambling to put their talk in some sort of context. Second, the Chair was usually the first speaker. Never have the Chair of a session as one of the speakers. The Chair's talk invariantly went over time - well, who was there to keep track of the time? The consequence of the Chair's speaking too long was that the rest of the speakers now felt that, if the Chair went over time, then they could too. However, the Chair, realizing that too much time had been taken, tried to reduce the time allotted to each speaker either by cutting the talk off early or reducing the discussion to one or two short questions. The former was simply unfair, and the latter was contrary to the purpose of the meeting (‘provoke interactions and discussions’). Third, many of the invited speakers turned up the day before their talks and then left the following day. In one session, two of the speakers left immediately following their talks and were not available for the ‘round-table’ discussion at the end of the session (i.e. ~40 min later!). These ‘shift’ changes in speakers, as one group rotated out and was replaced by the next, were very frustrating - with the decreased discussion time caused by the Chairs and speakers' being present only for a short time, there was never time for discussion. Those who went to the meeting to learn, discuss and interact were let down. What sort of level of arrogance does it take to go to a meeting to present a (canned) talk and then leave without answering questions, discussing ideas or contributing to the interactions? What's the point? I suggest that there should be a Speaker's Contract with the Audience. *The speaker will attend the whole meeting and be available for discussions. *The speaker will prepare a talk that reflects the theme of the meeting/session. *The speaker will keep to the allotted time. *The Session Chair will not speak in the session and will keep time fairly. *The Session Chair will provide a summary of the session that blends ideas, directions and the topics covered by the speakers. *The Session Chair will provoke questions and discussion, and have at least one question ready after each talk in order to start the question period. The speaker should sign the contract in advance of the meeting. Speakers who break the contract will forfeit their honorarium and reimbursement (and probably should have to pay the registration of some of the audience!), and hopefully their lack of participation will be reflected in a decline in speaking engagements. Let's put the audience first, for a change, and the rock-star speakers second.


Author(s):  
JR Fryer ◽  
Z Huang ◽  
D Stirling ◽  
G. Webb

Platinum dispersed on γ-alumina is used as a reforming catalyst to convert linear hydrocarbons to cyclic aromatic products. To improve selectivity and lifetime of the catalyst, other elements are included, and we have studied the distributions of Pt/Re, and Pt/Sn, bimetallic systems on the support both before and after use in octane reforming. Often, one or both of the components are not resolvable by HREM or microanalysis as individual particles because of small size and lack of contrast on the alumina, and divergent beam microanalysis has been used to establish the presence and relationship between the two elements.In the majority of catalysts the platinum is in the form of small panicles, some of which are large enough to be resolvable in the microscope. The ABT002B microscope with Link windowless Pentafet detector, used in this work, was able to obtain a resolvable signal from particles of 2nm diameter upwards. When the beam was concentrated on to such a particle the signal was at a maximum, and as the beam diameter was diverged - at the same total beam intensity and dead time - the signal decreased as shown in Figure 1.


Author(s):  
John J. Friel

Committee E-04 on Metallography of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) conducted an interlaboratory round robin test program on quantitative energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS). The test program was designed to produce data on which to base a precision and bias statement for quantitative analysis by EDS. Nine laboratories were sent specimens of two well characterized materials, a type 308 stainless steel, and a complex mechanical alloy from Inco Alloys International, Inconel® MA 6000. The stainless steel was chosen as an example of a straightforward analysis with no special problems. The mechanical alloy was selected because elements were present in a wide range of concentrations; K, L, and M lines were involved; and Ta was severely overlapped with W. The test aimed to establish limits of precision that could be routinely achieved by capable laboratories operating under real world conditions. The participants were first allowed to use their own best procedures, but later were instructed to repeat the analysis using specified conditions: 20 kV accelerating voltage, 200s live time, ∼25% dead time and ∼40° takeoff angle. They were also asked to run a standardless analysis.


2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacquelyn J. Graven ◽  
Tracy A. Manners ◽  
James O. Davis

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document