Infiltration of Mixture of Coarse Nickel Powder and Graphene by Molten Aluminum to Form Metal Graphene Composites

Samia El-Meanawy “Infiltration of Mixture of Coarse Nickel Powder and Graphene by Molten Aluminum to Form Metal Graphene Composites”
Mentors: Pradeep Rohatgi, Amir Kordijazi, Swaroop Behera & Kaustubh Rane, Materials Sciences & Engineering

 

Comments

  1. Hi,
    You have a good poster and presentation. I was intrigued by the results and would like to know what you can explain about the Raman spectroscopy results and wettability of the composite with water (not Al), as these weren’t covered in your talk. What do we learn from these results? Please let me know.
    Thank you for your time.

    1. Hello and thank you for your questions,

      The Raman spectroscopy results showed the chemical composition of the sample showing the presence of graphene in the matrix as sharp peaks in the graph. The wettabilty with water was tested by adjusting the droplet size and recording the resulted contact angle, most of which where above 90 degrees which means the hydrophobicity or corrosion resistance of the surface can be credited to the presence of graphene. Note Aluminum although a hydroponic material has a contact angle of less than 90 degrees.

      Thank you for your interest and time.

    2. Congratulations on being selected for the SURF program! You had a very great presentation. However, since I have a fairly small laptop, I was unable to read your poster. But, the layout is very clean and organized. I’d suggest using a bigger font. I think you also did a great job explaining your research and it was very clear.

      Great job!

  2. Nice looking presentation. You were not there when I dropped by so I only had the poster to go on. The idea and outcome appear to be very progressive for manufacturing development.
    ** In general for text boxes, fill the space – use a larger type face that can be read. I had a 27″ monitor and could read much of your legends, had to squint to get some text.
    ** In general for figures, make the figure axis titles and explanatory notes within the frame much larger and clearer. Typically the axis borders are very lightweight, while data symbols or lines are thicker and heavier so they stand out.
    ** Intro – looks like it says “course nickel” but I can barely make it out. That would be incorrect, but the title is right.
    ** Hard work to read-see even on a big screen
    ** Experimental: “were melted” (plural things). Also, use past tense. You did it before the presentation, it is not peer-reviewed and approved to be a universal truth yet.
    ** Results: Labels on EDX figure are far too small to read. Figure 5 – is this a calibration curve? Is there another molten metal like iron to compare this to? Figure 6 has illegible axis and notational labels. Is iron comparable to aluminum corrosionwise? What about aluminum NOT composite?
    ** Conclusions: C3 is a method not a conclusion. C5 needs something to compare with to give meaning to intelligent lay people.
    ** Future work: Is it “disruption” or “distribution” that you want to be more even?

    Technologically, this seems like an amazing development and you should get a great internship.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.