Presentation

_images/materials_workshop.png

The final presentation determines the entire grade of the project for all the group. Below you will find an overview of the elements we believe a good presentation should contain. However, the nature of the presentation should be determined by the nature of the simulations and physical phenomena the group explored - anything is possible if it can be justified.

Please note that for those taking part in the English integration parallel course, this presentation is also part of your studies.

Review

Review the development of the laws of friction from the original ideas of Da Vinci, to Amontons, Tabor and Tomlinson. Briefly outline recent results on nanoscale friction, and discuss the physical background to the observed ‘Stick-slip’ behaviour. The review should act as an introduction to your simulations, and reflect the physics you attempt to explore within the project.

A good review should answer these kinds of questions:

  • What kinds of explanations and models are there for friction?
  • Are there any special features in friction at the atomic scale?
  • What aspects of friction are you studying in this project, and why choose those?
  • What kinds of results did you expect before doing the actual simulations?

Methods

_images/visiting_quantum_specialist.png

Describe the plan of your simulations:

  • What types of setup did you use? (images are good)
  • What tools did you use? If you developed your own tools, describe them.
  • What parameters did you vary and why?

Results

Here you should list all the results from the simulations, both positive and negative. If you got good results, great! It is also possible that some of your simulations fail and you don’t get ‘good results’. This is ok, and while you should try to figure out how to fix your problems, you should also ask the Support team for help if you feel stuck instead of trying improve your setup indefinitely. Still, you should always at least speculate on the reasons why the failures occur and how the setup could be improved. This section should be image heavy, but it is important to explain all plots and link them to the simulation plan in the Methods section.

So, try to answer these questions in this section:

  • If your simulations failed, what was the reason?
  • How did varying simulation parameters affect the observed friction?
  • What is the statistical error (confidence interval) in your results?
  • How can the results be presented in a visual format?

Conclusions

_images/paper_writing.png

At the end of the report you should attempt to bring together all the results into a cohesive summary:

  • What have you learned about atomic friction, in general?
  • What were the key parameters affecting friction?
  • How do the results compare with your understanding of the physics? Did the results match your initial hypothesis?
  • How do your results compare to similar ones you reviewed in the literature? how about to classical friction laws?
  • What could be done better next time?

Deadline

Presentations will be given on 28-29 May, with slots allocated to each group (you will need to attend only a single morning or afternoon session).

Before the deadline, those doing the English integration course will have the chance for a rehearsal. Feedback on slides and general questions can be requested at any time.

Marking

The project accounts for 30 % of the total score of the course. Each presentation will be evaluated on a 60 point scale (times the number of people in the group), and the total will be quickly communicated to each group. It is then up to the group to distribute the available points between each of the group members according to their contribution and return the evaluations to the Support team. The elements of the presentation mark are as follows, with some example expectations for grade levels (these are suggestions only!):

  • Review (12 points)
    • adequate: description of friction following a basic textbook (6 points).
    • good: in addition - compare different friction models (9 points).
    • excellent: in addition - explain features of nanofriction (12 points).
  • Project planning and Methods (12 points).
    • adequate: a basic plan, method and setup (6 points).
    • good: in addition - breakdown of group roles, outline of several methods/approaches, setup explained clearly (9 points).
    • excellent: in addition - methods chosen are justified. Plan includes risk assessment for different approaches and possible alternative directions. Evidence of method development will gain bonus points (12 points).
  • Results (12 points)
    • adequate: list of results with figures and some discussion (6 points).
    • good: in addition - discussion of the physics behind the results (9 points).
    • excellent: in addition - structure of the results makes sense in terms of the physical arguments presented, building from the chosen methods to the conclusions. Concise discussion of both positive and negative results, with clear criteria for this categorisation (12 points).
  • Conclusions (12 points)
    • adequate: summary of all elements of the project (6 points).
    • good: in addition - analysis of what was learned about friction from your results (9 points).
    • excellent: in addition - discussion of successes and problems of the methods used, and suggestions for how they could be improved (12 points).
  • Presentation (12 points)
    • adequate: readable text and figures (6 points).
    • good: in addition - presentation is well-structured, using clear text and good figures (9 points).
    • excellent: in addition - excellent use of high quality figures and quality delivery, with all group members involved. Bonus points for handling questions well. (12 points)

Note that in the limited time available for presentations, you will not be able to present all these aspects in detail, but evidence they have been considered will be enough for extra credit.