Investigating Starch Monsters: Review of Tibor Basleti Poar Team Croatia

starch monsters n.w
1 / 5
Embed
Share

Explore the phenomenon of starch monsters formed when a water suspension of starch is placed on a loudspeaker. Review the experiments conducted, analysis of results, and feedback from the reporter and opponent. The presentation was well-made, but improvements in theory and experimental parameters were suggested.

  • Starch Monsters
  • Review
  • Tibor Basleti
  • Investigation
  • Croatia

Uploaded on | 5 Views


Download Presentation

Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. STARCH MONSTERS Review Tibor Basleti Po ar Team Croatia

  2. The problem A water suspension of starch is placed on a loudspeaker. Investigate and describe the resulting starch monsters.

  3. The Reporter Good Not very good Plenty of experiments The phenomenom was explained, concluding the problem To much reading, not intruduced to problem completely No charts explaining/showing dependance of Db on size/number of formed monsters Frequency was plain incorrect

  4. The Opponent Good Not very good Questions quality of parameters Pointed out lack of theory Doesn t focus on whether the problem was solved, rather asks about the parameters

  5. Conclusion The presentation was well made, but the explanation was not complete. Representer could have questioned more parameters than he did The opponent ointed out nicely how the theory was lacking, but failed to see the experiment could have had a lot more parameters

Related


More Related Content