Good morning and welcome to this session, we are going to spend the next 3 hours trying to do some tutorials on technical writing and email writing. You have already gone through the videos and you have seen what was told about writing and we have also had a couple of example writings which we discussed during the lectures. So today's session I am planning to do as tutorial, so we will take couple of these examples, we will discuss them and we will take one or two answers from some colleges, we will ask some of the other colleges to comment on the material and then we will discuss it at the end. So this is how I am planning to do and if you have any questions or if you want to discuss anything then you can raise your hand so we can take up the questions and discussion. Just to remind you there was several videos that we made on technical writing and we told about how to identify good reading material and how to start writing on your own and what type of norms you should follow when you are doing technical writing and some things which are not standard in the sense that typically you are told to use passive voice when you are doing scientific writing but that is not necessary, more modern writing is actually uses lots of active voice. And when I say modern I mean probably past 70, 80 years because some of the examples that we took where from the writings of Raman and Einstein and Raman's paper was published sometime in 1928. So it is about 90 years or so ago but there were people who were using active voice, IV and such things are used very regularly and it is not a bad thing. So it is completely acceptable, it depends on in what sense you use and how you use. So just to remind you I just want to go through the section on Raman and Prishnan's paper announcing the discovery of Raman effect which we have seen during the lecture. I just want to remind you and I want you to read through once more if you have any comments you can raise your hand and then we will take it up for discussion. I have specific questions after you read through and we will take them one by one. So this is about announcing a new discovery and this is the announcement of the Raman effect and the first line of the paper starts if we assume that the x-ray scattering of the unmodified type observed by Professor Compton corresponds to the normal or average state of the atoms and molecules while the modified scattering of altered wavelength corresponds to their fluctuations from that state. This is still part of the first sentence. So here Raman is talking about x-ray scattering observed by Professor Compton in which there were two things that were seen modified type and an unmodified type and what they correspond to is what is being told and the sentence continues to say that it would follow that we should expect also in the case of ordinary light two types of scattering. One determined by the normal optical properties of the atoms or molecules and another representing the effect of their fluctuations from their normal state. So Raman is first drawing an analogy between what Professor Compton did in x-ray to what is being done in the optical light because both are electromagnetic waves. So if you expect something to happen in one you expect it to happen in the other also so that is the first sentence. It is a long sentence even though you will be told to write short sentences and it is a good idea to write short sentences. It is not possible to write and the main idea is not writing long sentences or short sentences. The main idea is to convey if longer sentence conveys yes you should use the longer sentence and you can see it is quite a long sentence but it carries one idea. It carries this idea namely that Compton did something and we expect the same thing to happen in the ordinary light also and there is a little bit more of explanation as to what Compton observed and why he observed and what is its relevant to optical light. So everything is put together in one sentence this is the first sentence then he goes on to continue it accordingly becomes necessary to test whether this is actually the case okay. First he has made a statement now he is talking about testing whether that is really true the experiments we have made have confirmed this anticipation and shown that in every case in which light is scattered by the molecules and dust free liquids or gases the diffuse radiation of the ordinary kind having the same wavelength as the incident beam is accompanied by a modified scattered radiation of degraded frequency okay. So first sentence said what Compton did and what is expected and second sentence said that okay this has to be tested and third sentence discusses again a very long sentence and says that they have done experiments in some particular materials and they have seen this whatever was anticipated. And then the next paragraph starts with the sentence the new type of light scattering discovered by us naturally requires a very powerful illumination for its observation. The title of the paper says a new type of radiation apart from that nowhere in the sentences that we have read Raman or Christian say that we have discovered but the discovery is introduced as a natural extension or conclusion of whatever they have done and in the new paragraph it just says new type of light scattering discovered by us and interestingly here they are using the passive voice they are not saying we have discovered a new type of light scattering but they are making it passive by giving importance to the scattering and not to themselves. So this is a very nice literary device that is used by Raman and Christian in their paper okay. So there was a discussion on this so there is you might have gone through this so Raman tells a story he starts with an expectation and sets the background for his experiments and says that the expectations are fulfilled nowhere he says we have discovered a new type of radiation and he uses the word we freely and we is used in two different senses which is also important which also was discussed a little bit during the lectures. Because when you say for example here it would follow that we should expect also in the case of ordinary light two types of scattering the V includes Raman and Christian and anybody else who is reading the paper because this V is for both the speaker and the audience both the writer and the reader because this is a common thing electromagnetic radiation and if you see it in one electromagnetic radiation you expect it in all electromagnetic radiation so that is a universal physics law so there is no dispute on that or at least Raman and Christian are assuming that the readers who are reading this material will agree with them that we should expect this in ordinary light. So in this sentence the V means both Raman and Christian and the audience whoever is reading like us for example it includes us Raman and Christian expect that we also agree with them that this is expected on the other hand when they say the experiments we have made here the V stands only for Raman and Christian we have not made any experiment the reader has not made any experiment so the V is used in two different senses and this is typical whenever pronouns like V are used so it can include the audience it can exclude the audience depending on the context then we know whether it includes the audience or it does not include the audience. So this is one of the examples so do you have any questions or comments if you have please raise your hand. Anjaneer Pirmal Manimai Kalei College. Hello sir. So this is a wonderful session I think so doing the workshop coordinate that workshop your presentation was very nice we learnt a lot of new information regarding with documentation that is writing skills so here again our participants are questioning whether voices are important for documenting of experiments. Well previously it was believed that when you are doing science it is supposed to be objective so the person who is doing science is not important so that person should not be brought into the discussion so one should use passive voice this is the reason that was given for saying that passive voice should be used. But the more modern understanding is that like all human activities when human beings do some activity their likes and dislikes and their way of looking at things will interfere in whatever it is that they are doing. So it is acceptable to put forth your view point there is no single view point if any such single view point emerges it emerges from the work of several people who have done that maybe subjectively maybe not very objectively. So in that sense even though we have been taught in school to use only passive voice as much as possible while describing experiments and things like that it is okay to use active voice I am not saying all experiments should be described only in active voice I am also not saying that everything should be described only in passive voice I am saying that depending on the need and the way the writing would flow you should decide to use both and it is allowed and accepted to use active voice when you are writing about experiments or about scientific things. Does this answer your question? Yes sir really sir. Okay thank you so we will take the next one from GRET Cookatpalli do you have a question? Yes sir I am Indira from GRIT and your inputs were very valuable to me sir the tips that you have given towards improving writing or rather writing were very very very insightful sir and in fact I have been reading I have been a voracious reader since 17 years but I have never been a good writer and the points that you had mentioned that you know if you look at some other material then you know you tend to write through GR so you don't look at anything and every day you need advice that was very very helpful sir I started doing it and thank you very much sir. Thank you sir. My question is in the example that you have quoted about Raman effect sir the way they have expressed about their work was very modern listen in layman or otherwise if he has to understand what they have done what they have proved then they have to take normally when we write papers the work that we do is greater pitch so that the others understand their presentation was very modern so do you think that is adopted using that people who are reading it will be able to easily understand what we have done? I didn't get the question completely ma'am you are saying that Raman and Christian's writing is very modern? No no it's very modest very modest modest yes in the sense they have done a great work they have made a great discovery and the way they have put it is very modest in the sense if any layman or otherwise a technical person reads it then he has to read it twice or twice to understand what they have done. Right. They have put it at a lower pitch I said based on Mike and we have learnt about elevated pitch normally in papers it is the elevated pitch which is used and anybody who reads it once understands that this is what they have done. What my question or query is is this one good way that we can add up it should be modest that we also have. Well it is not clear whether this would have been seen as a modest way of writing in 1928 okay when Compton scattering was just announced and they are announcing similar thing in optics maybe people have felt that this is you know not so modest way of saying I mean they actually title their paper as discovery of a new radiation and somewhere in the paper they do say that the new type of radiation discovered by us but what I am trying to say is that it is not about modesty but about the emphasis. First they are telling a story they are not saying that they got it out of nowhere so the setting is very clear to the reader and they take the readers along by including in the V in the very first sentence or so the readers are also made part of this discussion and then they set up an expectation they fulfill that expectation and when they fulfill then they claim that this is what is we have discovered but they do it by emphasizing on the discovery and not emphasizing themselves and there is also this other fact you know generally in management schools they will tell you that if you are higher up in power you are supposed to speak low okay because others will anyway listen to you only if you are not so powerful then you have to speak louder. So if it is a really great discovery maybe you do not have to make too much of noise because people will immediately recognize but if you have made a very small improvement then unless you say it people will not understand the importance of what you have figured out okay. So one of the advice that we do give for our PhD students for example is that in their work if they are present you should come out very clearly as to what is new what is already there and how it is important. So I am not suggesting in terms of either modesty or you know being arrogant about things I am saying that depending on the audience depending on what you have and depending on the effect you want to get from the audience you have to tune it okay maybe same thing you will say it differently. We have also seen an example of Roman talking to school children about the radiation scattering and things like that. So it is important to know the context it is important to emphasize on communication and one should not be afraid that you know people will say no no you were talking too much about yourself or people might price you saying that okay you are very modest but scientific communication is not made to either get price about the way you behaved or about the way you did things it is for communicating a concern okay. So that is the most important thing and so your emphasis should be on that rather than on what people would say about what you are saying okay. Thank you ma'am. I will take the next one very college of engineering. My question is if somebody is not from a particular field of education and if it is interdisciplinary can he be publishing the paper in the other domains? Yes when you publish papers what is important is what you are saying not what your degree is about okay. So at research level there is no distinction between different areas people like to talk about interdisciplinary but that is also at some level more management speak. If for example you are doing research in material science which is where I come from it is important that you know programming you know mathematics and you know material science unless you know these three in some areas of material science like computational material science for example you cannot work and in some areas for example if you are working with optical materials you need to know lots of physics and material science and chemistry with respect to processing and things like that and then lots of analysis techniques which will tell you how to go about interpreting experiments. So at research level nobody asks you okay your degree is in production engineering so you cannot publish in a material science journal or you cannot publish in a biomedical journal that is not true. You can publish where the audience for what you have done would be interested in knowing about what you have done okay. So there is no restriction you can publish wherever you want and people generally do not ask about your qualifications to publish all that they will look at that is why peer review is there is what is it that you have done whether that makes sense whether that is scientific and correct and then it will get published okay. Yeah thank you sir. Okay so the next question I will take from Indoor Institute of Engineering. Sir regarding that in writing skills when you are going to give stress for the active voice and passive voice both in search what is the situation when you are going to use that passive voice or when we are going to use that active voice. So when you write the sentence you have to see how it sounds okay if writing it in active voice sounds better you should use it if writing it in passive voice sounds better you should use it. Now you might ask the question how do I know how it sounds okay. So that is why we are doing these exercises where we take up some writing that people have done we read through we understand how is it that they are conveying and you think about an exercise if I have the same information will I put it like this okay. So this sense of when I should use is obtained by doing more reading but reading not to just get the information reading as a writer reading keeping in mind as to how it is written also not just what is written right sometimes I take for example I take the newspaper this morning I read the news the primary emphasis for me is to get the news what is happening in Chennai and what is happening elsewhere but when I look at writing reading as a writer for example if I take the open-ed page and I am reading about some commentary about something then I am not just getting information because the information is already known to me they are discussing about a problem that has already happened right maybe Paris terror attack but there is a writer who is trying to say something more than that so there I will also pay attention to how it is being said okay or why it is being said. So that kind of critical reading is what will help you identify where you should use active and where you should use passive but in general whenever you use passive you take emphasis away from yourself and whenever you use active you are emphasizing also your presence right. So when we say we did this experiment then the emphasis is on you that you did the experiment this experiment was done when you say the emphasis is on the experiment it does not matter who did okay so it do not have to you know falsely try to make everything passive saying that okay I am not important here that is not the purpose of scientific communication if you have done something and if you want to say we have done this and this is why we did this then you should say so thank you okay. So I will take the last question Kavi Kulguru Can you please tell us what do you mean by styles of writing See the same thing can be said in many different ways okay and in which way you say is what is decided by style for example let us take the radiation discovery by Robin. Robin is saying that if we look at the X-ray scattering experiments are done by Professor Compton and the modified type and unmodified type and so on okay. So this is a style which is meant for writing in a journal article which will be read by people who know about electromagnetic rays Compton's experiment and who are interested knowing more about what Raman and Krishnan did. Suppose Raman is writing this for some college student and he is not going to say that based on the experiments done by Compton okay it might start for example saying that in the year such and such Professor Compton did the following experiment he took X-rays and he did that with this X-rays and he detected these two things and the explanation is the modified type is happening because of this and unmodified type is happening because of this. Now you might think that like X-rays optical light is also electromagnetic wave so do we see this in electromagnetic wave. Now this is a style which will be considered as pedagogical meaning that it is meant for teaching you are assuming that your audience might not know about Compton and his experiment it is very important that you keep this stylistic voice in your mind because if you go to a technical audience and if you start telling them about you know Compton did this experiment and he took X-ray and all they might get offended they might think that I mean does this guy think that I do not know this okay. So when I say style I mean the way in which the information is put across okay and why that what I mean is you guess what your audience know and you take from that point and you try to explain what is it that you are doing. Now the same information depending on the audience will be told in many different ways each is a style something is a research style something is a pedagogical style something is a very conversational style like for example you might want to write a newspaper article then you will say that you know maybe you take two balls billiard balls and you hit them and then they go in different directions this is called scattering in science and it is not just billiard balls which do but there are energy packets known as photons and they also do this and things like that so that will become a very conversational thing that is written for a newspaper made and in a conversation in an actual face-to-face conversation you might also have very informal way of describing things you might say you know this guy comes and knocks it off and the knocked off radiation goes like this so this is what I mean by style different ways in which you communicate the same concept and how formal or informal you are when you are doing that decides your voice whether you have an informal voice or you have a formal voice that depends on that okay thank you so I think it is time for us now to go do a new exercise which you haven't seen till now so I am going to show you a paper which was written quite some time ago maybe about more than 30 years ago I think so we will take this PRL paper by Dan Shetman okay I want you to read through the abstract which is just four lines okay the abstract is just four lines the paper is called metallic phase with long-range orientational order and no translational symmetry this was published in 1984 okay so this is about near about 31 years ago the authors are Dan Shetman black gratias and Khan and this was published in the journal physical review letters some of you might know about the importance of this paper we will discuss that for now I want you to read through the four line abstract and we will discuss the paper published in physical review letters in the year 1984 sometime in November metallic phase with long-range orientational order and no translational symmetry that is a paper written by Dan Shetman black gratias and Khan and the abstract is just four lines okay there is a long story behind the paper and the story is that Dan Shetman was a researcher from Israel was spending some time in US he did some experiment and he found some results which were not supposed to be seen in an experiment according to the understanding at that point there were textbooks which were written like the textbook in solid state physics by Kittel which said that certain things are not possible in crystals and Shetman did the experiment he found that what is expressly forbidden in the textbooks is something that he has seen in his experiments he could not understand how this is possible right something says in a textbook that this is not possible you do an experiment you find that that is possible so when he started informing people they thought that he doesn't know how to do experiments the director of his lab came and told him that you know here is a textbook I think you should read what you are saying is not possible Shetman told him that I know I also teach my students that this is not possible but I have done the experiment and I have seen this the director came back the next day and told him to leave the lab he said that you don't even know basic things so you are bringing down the reputation of this lab so please leave so Shetman had to leave us he went back to Israel and again in Israel he was telling people not many listen to him except for this one professor called black so black listen to Shetman and he thought that maybe what Shetman is saying is true and so they tried to see if under any circumstance it is possible to see such a result and they did some calculations and they proved that it is possible that in some cases you might see something like this they wrote the paper I think they sent it to Journal of Applied Physics and the paper was rejected then they submitted the paper to another journal called the Metallurgical Transactions and that paper was under review and then Shetman visited John Khan who was in Maryland National Bureau of Standards and John Khan again initially did not believe what Shetman said because remember this was taught in textbooks so but but after seeing all the experimental evidence that Shetman had Khan believed that there is some sense in what Shetman is saying so they took help from a French crystallographer called Gratias and so Shetman black Gratias and Khan wrote the paper and submitted it to physical review letters it got published in physical review letters because John Khan is a very big name in material science okay so unlike only Shetman and black so it got published and when it got published it had lots of response from people many of them negative for example the great chemist Linus Pauling told Shetman that this is all nonsense he made this statement in a conference to an audience saying that Shetman does not know what he is talking about this is not possible it is there in textbooks it is proven and so whatever he is doing must be wrong of course it took about 27 28 years finally Shetman got his Nobel prize in 2011 okay so even though the paper that they wrote first is published after this this is the first paper which documented in scientific literature what is it that they have found out what they have found out is what is known as a quasi crystal this is not the real crystal okay in the sense that in which crystals were defined at that time now we know that these are also crystals so the international union of crystallography has changed their definition of what is a crystal based on this work okay so I want you to read through these four lines and after that we take it up for discussion so I am going to call some colleges I want to take their opinion and their comments on what is written okay so I will give you a few more minutes if you have read through please raise your hands okay very good so I am going to read it out for you for the benefit of those who might not have had a chance to read it so it says we have observed a metallic solid aluminum 14 atomic percent manganese with long range orientational order but with icosahedral point group symmetry which is inconsistent with lattice translations its diffraction spots are as sharp as those of crystals but cannot be indexed to any Bravais lattice the solid is metastable and forms from the melt by a first order transition okay so let me start the first interaction with GL Bajaj group of institutions Akbar poor it's it's very we feel very fortunate to have these sessions with you sir and my comment on this is that as a general audience we are not able to get what the abstract is exactly maybe moves from physical science or material science they get exactly what it is talking right but is that okay or is it not okay so I suppose it's not that okay because in abstract writing we learn from your session that there should be something which is also to general audience so that they can also take it something from that abstract writing that's right but this is an abstract written for physical review letters so the audience is supposed to be meant for physical science audience so keeping that in mind would you say the abstract is okay or not okay the abstract in I suppose it's all okay right but even then whatever the research is going on in any part of the world it is somehow delivered something to the general audience also okay now for a general audience suppose if you didn't understand all lycosahedral point group symmetry Bravais lattice everything but just from the English do you have any comments I think that it's it's correct I don't find it something wrong okay they use active voice the first sentence says we have is that okay sir can you just show me the abstract once again yeah so the first sentence says we have observed a metallic solid aluminum 14 atomic percent manganese with long range orientational order etc etc etc is this okay I suppose it's correct because they have observed something and they have directly telling that that we have observed that very good man thank you very much so it is correct and if you read the paper the paper first sentence also starts by saying that we report here in of this and that and things like that so it is okay and this was about 30 years ago and so you can use active and passive voice mixed and wherever it is needed you can use active voice and it is a good practice thank you very much okay we will go to Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology Ilhabat sir I have a question yes when we are going to write a technical paper related to any subject so then what is the main questions about writing the abstract it is generally the number of words okay the physical review letter the abstract is four lines because probably they were told that they cannot use more than 250 words or something for the abstract this is when we are going to write a paper and the abstract going more than 30 bar or 40 bar then it is quite impossible to write the whole thing whole summary of the abstract it is an abstract it is not the whole summary okay there are many different things like there is abstract there is summary there is executive summary so these are all different things an abstract tries to communicate what is the problem what is it that we have found what is its importance okay for example in this paper if you see the abstract first line says what is it that they have observed second line says a more problematic observation it gives very sharp peaks like a crystal but it cannot be indexed to any Bravais lattice if it is a crystal it should be indexable to a Bravais lattice right so that is the implication and it is a very serious problem at least in 1984 when it was published it was a very very big problem all the crystallography work that was done for the past 200 years where down the drain because you have found now something that is forbidden by text books okay so the abstract is not meant to give you all the details in fact I have also uploaded that paper that Shetman and black published in Matrance which is a longer paper which is running into several pages probably 10 12 pages and it is a good exercise for you to read both the papers physical review letters paper which is running into four pages and the metallurgical transaction paper running into 12 pages they are communicating the same result and the result is that traditional crystallography theory fails in this experiment but when they are or you can take a look at the abstract of that other paper for example okay which we will do next after this so an abstract should communicate only two or three things those two or three things are what is the problem what is it that we have found what we have found what is it important or what is the problem with that or where it is leading okay so abstract is not a summary you should not try to summarize and you should always keep the word length in mind and within that you should try to communicate you prescribed previously that in writing that we cannot use the word like I and P and in the morning only in the morning you told us that we can use the word V yeah I have been saying it for quite some time in my video lectures also I said that you can use I and V and I have been showing you examples of Einstein and Roman and Shetman and all these Nobel laureates who are using I and V and you can take many papers which are not written by Nobel laureates for example in my papers I typically say we have done this or we have implemented or we have seen this okay so it is okay I know that traditionally we are told I was also told when I was in school that we should not use I and V but that is not strictly true when you do scientific writing okay yeah that is the point I am trying to make it is not necessary okay thank you very much okay so let us take a couple of comments from people who are waiting patiently to give me comments so engineering technology Ranga Reddy, Andhra Pradesh hello good morning sir we had raised a hand earlier and you have already made the observations so I am just repeating your observations I think the abstract did not have a background information it just did directly with the observations and ended with the results so whether that is alright is the question oh ma'am the abstract did not start with background observation but the second sentence actually gives the background it says that we have found very sharp diffraction spots like in crystals but we are not able to index it to any Bravais lattice now that gives the background because anything that gives a sharp diffraction spot are known to be indexable to Bravais lattices that was the background everybody who knows crystallography at that point would have known to be true so when they make this observation they are giving more impact to their observation by saying it first and then pointing out that is not in agreement with what you expect of course they could have said that it is generally known that sharp diffraction spots correspond to Bravais lattices but we have found a case where it is not so but that is just a stylistic decision this is where the style is first they want to give you a punch they want to say we have seen this and then they are emphasizing on the importance of what they have found by pointing out that this is not in agreement with what is traditionally known so there is background but the background is given after the observation is made so like I said in my video lectures given though the rules that I gave or like some norms it is not necessary to write well that you have to follow them you have to see what works best for you is what you should choose and in this case Shetman and his co-authors have decided to do it this way and I think it is okay it is not a problem if it is implicit there in the next sentence or the sentence later on then it is already that is what I understand because I am not from a scientific background all the time saying is yes you can give observation and you can put the observation in the context of what is known that is also allowed you can either start with the context and then give your observation which is what Raman did or you can give your observation and put it in the context of what is known so either way it is allowed as long as it is there it is there yeah that is right thank you very much so I will take an interaction with Islamic University of Science and Technology Jammu and Kashmir I think that the abstract is complete in itself because last day but when we were having lectures about abstract the parts of the abstract we should be included in the abstract even though the abstract has been confined to only four lines but as you have been explaining from the morning it has the background as well even though it is a technical paper but you have been explaining that it has a background it has a problem statement it has the conclusion of the findings which have been presented in the paper as well so the number of words is not necessary in an abstract it should put forward your point of view what you have done what is the problem and what is the solution for the problem I think that this is a complete abstract very good thank you very much the points that I have been trying to make are only this that many good abstracts are written and even with the word limits that you have they manage to do a good job and they give all the information what is done in what context why it is important as well as within the number of words and personal pronouns are used and active voice is used that is okay so this is all the point that I have been trying to make as you very nicely summarized thank you very much sir so I will take the last comment from IPS Academy Indoor you have any comments questions we feel that the abstract is absolutely beautifully written I am not from the science background at all at the first outset because it is all technical but when I read it again there are 2-3 things that are very clearly coming out one is the discovery of a metal or a material the authors have pointed out one or two unique properties of that material compared to existing material and the last line is all about the uniqueness of that material so whatever is the technical jargon I feel this is a very well written abstract even as a layman thank you very much so we will try to move on to the next part where I want to show you a slightly more involved abstract from the same authors so this is Shetman and Black this is a longer paper that they wrote in metallurgical transaction so it is a slightly bigger paper but for the benefit of those who want to read on the screen I am projecting it on the screen again the abstract itself is only 5, 6 sentences long and this is called the microstructure of rapidly solidified aluminum 6 manganese so this is the more detailed paper by Shetman and Black which was under review at that time it was first rejected by general of applied physics and then this is the second one that they submitted but before this got published the other PRL paper got published but because now this paper is longer and it has more technical details because yesterday somebody was asking about the difference between a technical paper and a letter physical review letters as the journal name itself indicates is a journal made up for letters and metallurgical and materials transactions as it is called now and metallurgical transactions as it was called at that time is a journal which publishes both letters and research articles this one is not mentioned as a letter and the length also indicates that this is not a letter so this is a full article that was published and obviously this full article will have much more of details than what a letter will have because in the letter the only emphasis is that we have found a new material it is not behaving like what you would expect materials to behave like what the text books say our material is not behaving that is the only point that they are trying to make but in this paper there is little bit more of detail it is also making the same point it is not making any new point but it makes it in a slightly more detailed manner so I want you to again read through this subtract which is about 6 and of lines and I want you to want you to think about what the letter subtract was and what this subtract is and whether you think that this is a good abstract and if you see any differences between the way the other paper is written the abstract is written and this paper abstract is written remember the first two authors are the same the other paper had two more authors gratias and con and in this just Shetman and Black so I want you to read through you will be able to download this paper also so you can download and read or you can read from the screen and after you read through I specifically need comments comparing it with the letter abstract the differences between that and this and independent observations about this abstract itself is it well written do you see any stylistic points do you agree with them do you not agree with them and what is your take so ok so that is what we will do so after you do please raise your hand I will take couple of comments from people who raise their hands as well as from people whom I want to randomly call and interact with ok I see that many colleges have read so for the benefit of those I will read this abstract once more the microstructure of rapidly solidified aluminum manganese alloys containing 18 to 25.3 weight person manganese was studied by transmission electron microscope one of the phases found in the microstructure exhibits icosahedral symmetry manifested in electron diffraction patterns having 5 fold symmetry the new structural concept is proposed to account for the observed electron diffraction patterns the structure is assumed to be composed of many connected polyhedral although not forming a regular lattice such structures are able to produce a sharp diffraction peaks the terminal stability and transformation of the icosahedral phase was also studied and reported ok so let me take comments of some colleges who have raised hand so M.E. Society's I.M.C.C. Pune in comparison to the previous abstract this abstract is I would say a rather detailed presentation of what exactly observations the writers have seen however when they begin this abstract it is a very an absurd statement the microstructure of rapidly solidified instead a new structural concept is proposed is what should have been the beginning of the abstract so in any case the abstract doesn't have a problem statement it doesn't have any background of the work whatever is included in the abstract is majorly a detailed observation that the writers have seen so these are the comments that it is more detailed but it doesn't give the problem statement it is not well written some sentences are not ok and the order is not ok so it's not that great an abstract ok so let me take a comment on this comment from Jawaharlal Nehru National College of Engineering Shimoga sir how important it is to confine the words that are mandatorily put across by the organizers we are saying an abstract should be only in 300 words so as a writer should I be confining or is it ok that I stretch a bit more well in principle you should stick to the constraints very strictly for two reasons one is that it shows your professionalism if you don't do even if the organizers accept then it is not ok on your part because that was given to you a priori and two if they are really professional organizations they will reject ok there are places where you can't submit if you go online for example you will find that the moment the number of words exceeds it will stop you from submitting now as a writer do I have a say in how long it should be well for example if you are writing poetry right suppose if you have some particular meter right like sonnet means 14 lines and lines and this much similarly in our own regional languages also we have rules for poetry right if I am writing in this chandas this is the number of lines and this is the number of matras so you can't say I am a writer so I am going to change it ok the best writing is within the constraint how best you are communicating ok so to answer your question yes whenever there are restrictions given please strictly adhere to the restrictions they are there for a reason and it is better to learn to write within the constraints now the question I had was about the comment that was made by the previous college that this is not a well written abstract the second abstract that I have shown and they had several problems with the abstract what is your opinion do you agree with that or do you not agree sir I don't agree to that why because I feel it's too elaborate and the problem statement I feel there is a gap ok so you also feel that this is not a well written abstract yeah ok very good so I will take the next comment from sir one question like how do the organizers decide for 300 words or 500 words is there any formula yes it depends on how many participants are there and how big their abstract is going to be and in general it is also found that if you go beyond 150 to 300 words people who read when I have abstract booklet I am having it because I want to decide which talks I have to attend to but if I have half page then I am going to miss reading because people don't have that much of patience you have 3 days and you will attend 50 talks no point in having half a page per talk right so there is more reason and logistical reasons why there is constraint and that is why it is better to adhere to it so it is a subjective formula yes it is subjective suppose if I have only 10 talks I wouldn't mind having one page abstracts for 10 talks but if I have 200 talks I would not give more than 150 words if I have somewhere around 50 60 talks I might give it to 250 words thank you sir from the entire team for the support thank you very much so I will start an interaction with Amal Jyoti college of engineering when I read the first and second abstract what I found is from the first abstract the abstract was very precise that is they told the problem and told the result very nice but also in very few lines but when we second abstract what I felt is that abstract is very much simpler for a mechanical engineering when a mechanical engineering is reading this abstract he can identify what is the problem how the experiment is conducted what is the material taken what is the percentage everything is there so he get a good idea about the experiment also what is the new research what is the new finding what things are there in A6 line so as a researcher as a student if I am reading the second abstract I am getting more idea about the experiment they conducted and the results they got very good sir may know your name my name is Sherin Thambi okay I do not know if my pronunciation is correct but I tend to agree with Dr. Thambi because I also feel that the second abstract is relatively well written even though the first two commentators felt that it was not and this is because the first abstract was for a letter so it had some two three lines so they condensed everything if you see the first abstract it talks only about aluminum some atomic percent manganese the other systems which were studied were not reported in that paper on the other hand the second abstract talks about the range of alloys that they have studied and also the method that they used to study okay and with respect to the sharp diffraction peaks and Bravais lattice which was finished in one sentence here we have more of the details they talk about some connected polyhedral shapes and they talk about how that is expected to give sharp peaks even though it is not a regular lattice and things like that so because this is a slightly larger abstract and talks about all the problems not just what they found out which is the most important result which went in a letter that is the reason why it went as a letter this is a very important discovery it shows that some of the existing theories at that point were not correct so it went as a letter and when they are writing this paper they are giving more information than about the particular result they are giving emphasis to all the results also and in that they are pointing out that there is this special case so I agree with the assessment that the second abstract is also well written and thank you very much so let me go to Mount Zion college of engineering and technology go ahead sir so I think the second paper given from metallurgical transaction is having more clarity than the first paper published in the physical review letter because the tool is uniquely highlighted in the second paper the diffraction spots are sharp as those of crystals is given in the first paper but the second paper the diffraction is taken from the transmission electron microscope this is the unique identity which tool is used in the second paper is clearly said so that is why the second paper is best than the first paper moreover many technical details are given in the second paper in the first paper only the Bravais lattice the sharp peak is not indexed in the Bravais lattice is a generalized one but in the second paper it is indicated that the observed electron diffraction pattern structure is assumed to be maybe composed of the polyhedral so some structures have been proposed and the results have been discussed in the second paper so I think the second paper is clear than the first paper thank you very much so good observations yes the second paper has more details but given the purpose of the first paper for that purpose I believe that the first paper is also very well written because there the emphasis is only on making the impact and the first abstract did that the second abstract wanted to give all details and tell about the importance so it did that so that way I feel that both the abstracts are very well written I just want you to do one thing there is a set of exercises that I gave during my video lectures so I am going to project that slide here now so the 5 minutes you can spend on looking at it when we come back that is where we are going to start our discussions from the first exercise for example says Pythagoras theorem how do you describe it to your parents who do not have any technical background your daughter who is in third standard and your cousin who is in 8th standard each description should not be more than 15 sentences this is one exercise I also had another exercise pick any experiment process or concept so how do you describe it to somebody who does not have any technical background or somebody who is in high school or some colleague who has the same technical background so here it is about the age so what I want to do is to take some of these write ups from some colleges and we will make the other colleges to critique these writers and we will see where it takes us so the first exercise is describing Pythagoras theorem okay and all the three descriptions that I have asked for or for people who do not have any technical background or very limited technical background okay somebody in 8th standard might have little bit more technical background to understand Pythagoras theorem because it is done somewhere around 6, 7th standard for example but somebody who is in third standard or parents it is a good idea to see how you will explain the way we are going to do this exercise is that I am going to get to some colleges as somebody there to give the explanation and we will take some other college to give comments on those explanations so first I am going to take KLE Institute of Technology in Huberli Sir can I tell the answer for the second question? Yes please do Sir the process what we have been taking is the stack the data structures stack so the first we would like to tell our parents they will be cooking in the kitchen so the idli plates how they will be arranging so the first one which will be kept that will be the last one that will be removed that is how we tell for our parents and for the next is the 8th standard school for the high school student books keeping the books in a rack so obviously the last one which have been kept will be the first picked up and for the technical background we will tell them how the recursion works or the procedure calls will be removed so which is the last one which has been called will be the the first one that will be co-op first Thank you very much ma'am so you will have explained to your parents using idli making for 8th standard children using stacking of books and for a technical person using I do not remember what it is because I am not a technical person now okay alright so we will take comments on this we will go to devi hallya university yeah we are giving example of an playground to the student of 8th standard student like how we can reach to the other corner of the playground easily like which is the shortest distance we can travel across the playground diagonally so the student they can understand which is the shortest distance so we can relate like the shortest distance which is diagonal is the square the square of the diagonal is linked with the square of other vertices so that we can make them understand easily this for 8th standard students yeah but see one is Pythagoras theorem is not about the shortest distance and second thing is actually Pythagoras theorem is that if you square the diagonal distance is actually equal to the square of the other two distances so the student will think that these two are now the same do you see my problem if the student says that you know a square plus b squared is equal to c squared then the diagonal distance squared is equal to the sides of squared so they will think that they are equal I have a problem with that yeah like I was talking about 8th standard students so they can understand the meaning of square so that we can make them understand okay so you will also use the fact that the a plus b whole squared and that is extra and all that information like the small technical term we are going to introduce but the thing is like they can understand with the example of playground okay I see your point how about the 3rd standard kid our standard students actually some we have to draw something and then we can make them understand like some drawing we can give to them like make a drawing and they can understand the drawing term by making some square drawing of like other corner and simple triangle should be there right sir hello yes sir if you put the 3 colors like 3 color strips so we can say that the red color strips is equal to the blue color strips of green color strips the color strips are put on the axis of the triangle ah 3 color strips are there very good the blue color strips are there equal to the green color strips yes so this this diagram you will do probably make them cut those squares and then put it together and see that the areas are equal and yes so that is a very good explanation and now I have a question okay but the question will go to some other college thank you very much very nice explanation yes 3rd standard kids can understand ah thank you very much but I am going to go to Sarvajani college of engineering Surat okay you saw an explanation for Pythagoras theorem for 3rd standard kids by drawing some squares and coloring them and probably cutting them and seeing that the square areas are equal and things like that is this technical communication hello yes ma'am it is partially technical communication huh SS 3rd standard can understand the square because the shapes are explain them right ah so it can be used to explain the 3rd standard right another way is what we are thinking is if we consider one room square room and we ask the student or the child to stand in the opposite diagonal corners and that can be used to explain the in terms of the length like the if one start walking from one corner to another corner and then reach to the opposite diagonal corners and other start walking directly to the diagonal corner mm-hmm so that repetitive addition can be used to explain them how it will give you the Pythagoras theorem ah very good nice idea thank you very much ma'am thank you so very good so I do agree that even though we said that the diagrams are for 3rd standard children all of science relies very heavily on diagrams and plots and maps and such visual information and building models ok so it is very very important for example layman also can understand better for example if I take this cut pieces and show it to my parents and show how the area of these two are equal like if I take the cut pieces and put as they showed in the diagram people will understand better so all of science that is why we give so much of importance to plots and diagrams and pictures and models and things like that so very good so this is part of technical communication that is why we spend some amount of our time in discussing about how the plots should be made how they should be labeled and how they should be put so yes diagrammatic communication is one of the most important ways of communicating science and we should use them as much as possible with all classes and doing and learning like it was suggested by you is another great way of learning concepts so thank you very much so let me take some college for an interaction Goa College of Engineering Sir this is Goa College of Engineering and we want to basically today is a public holiday here but despite that like many of our colleagues have come despite being a public holiday yeah that's the enthusiasm for this particular program sir so just commenting about about the comment which you raised about the models I think so one of the presenters when they talked about the model for the Pythagoras theorem that is a very beautiful way of explaining in terms of the diagram as well as the colors and it will be a very good way of explaining it to a third standard student as you also like double commented on it saying that this would be a very appropriate way of putting it across to a third standard student similarly another college had commented about explaining it to the eighth standard student so as rightly pointed out there there is an assumption which is made that there would be a certain knowledge that an eighth standard student would know and the way they have explained it so we have to build on knowledge so that is a real beautiful progression about how they are explaining it to their eighth standard student I think so both have done a commendable job about explaining things very good thank you very much sir ok so let us start an interaction with Geetanjali Institute of Science and Technology Gangavaram Nellore I want somebody who can take some concept and tell me how to explain it to different audience who is the audience and how you are going to explain the eighth class student we can discuss in technical point of view no I do not want Pythagoras theorem that we have done so what is your background sir it is a technical background EC department so pick one concept suppose if I tell you do you teach or deal with Fourier transforms yes sir ok so if you want to explain Fourier transform to some eighth standard kid for the eighth class student we can explain by taking the right angle triangle how Pythagoras theorem could be explained no not Pythagoras theorem no no I am asking about Fourier transform will you be able to explain to a eighth standard kid no Fourier transform you cannot do Fourier transform you cannot do yes sir we can explain the Fourier transform even to the eighth class student so how will you do it I take the help of technical Gadget like CERO I speak and the speech is recorded and the recorded speech is transformed using the electronic Gadget CERO then I can show the wave form in the frequency domain to the eighth class student then I can explain how the speech can be converted to different frequencies wonderful so is there anything that they will see everyday life that would be related to Fourier transform but images it can be shown sir in a real time even images okay but the way brain analyzes voice and timber and you recognize that this is my father's voice or my friend's voice brain is also doing some type of analysis is that related to frequencies or no yes sir frequencies okay very good thank you very much yeah it is a very nice way you can put a CRT tube and take a voice convert it into the frequency domain and show them that this is how sound is perceived by you consist of these frequencies yep and probably you can even distort a little bit by increasing the frequency of one and showing what happens to the voice and things like that okay thank you very much so let me take Siligree Institute of Technology sir what I am from the non-engineering background what I have understood as a layman if I am going to make anyone understand then first things first I will tell to take a paper say this is a paper and then I will make it fold in this way say for an aeroplane and eventually it turns out to be a triangle over here and then if he or she is a child naturally that child knows how to multiply now you might see that it has been divided into two there are two things over here and another two over here now if I say that this is A and B this is A and B A B and B C so if I if I am trying to take out this one so what I will say that this one into this one and plus this one and this one will some of the will come out result of this one sir yeah to some extent but there is still a problem if the child adds up so 2A plus 2B equal to C if the child decides like that then there is a problem okay so you have to bring in somehow the concept of area for the diagonal the area you have got through your construction okay so I can see for diagonal your construction would work but for the sides it is a little bit more tricky. Thank you very much so it is nice okay so I am going to stop the discussions of these exercises