 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
| During my 20 years of judging the International Metallographic Contest, I have had ample opportunity to ponder the various elements that comprise a winning entry. Unfortunately, many really fine entries just miss the mark, sometimes for seemingly insignificant reasons. Sometimes the problem is that something important has been omitted, or sometimes one of the contest rules has been violated. The purpose of this article is to help contestants get the best shot at a "Best in Class" or even the prestigious and lucrative ($3000) Jacquet-Lucas Award. The following tips could make a real difference in the way the judges respond to your entry. They are listed in the order of highest to lowest potential score. (The article has been updated for 2007) |
All entries except those in classes 9, 10 and 11, the artistic microstructure classes, are critically judged for their technical content. The maximum score of 45 points is the highest of the four categories, and this is as it should be. Your entry should demonstrate how microstructural analysis plays an important role in solving an engineering problem, revealing the cause of a material failure, or explaining some significant material fabrication process. It may also demonstrate the important role of microstructural analysis in monitoring a critical metallurgical process, such as austempering, hardening or the analysis of thermally applied coatings.
A strong entry uses various elements such as macrophotography, photomicrography, scanning microscopy, elemental analysis or any analytical tool that supports the story and its conclusions. However, trying to dazzle the judges with unnecessary elements will cost valuable points. Each element should specifically contribute to the telling of a technical story. Avoid excessive descriptive text! Your presentation is not an academic thesis; the photomicrographs, captions, graphics and other illustrations should carry the bulk of the story. Most of the verbiage should be confined to a brief introduction that states the problem clearly and concludes with a summary of the main points of the presentation. In more picturesque language, use the KISS principle, "Keep It Simple, Scientist!"
Too many entries are submitted with photomicrographs that display scratches, polishing pits or other preparation artifacts. This drives a stake in the hearts of the judges, many of whom are former exhibit winners. There is only one way that a less than artifact-free photomicrograph can receive high points, and that`is if the conditions under which the samples were prepared were extremely difficult. Two examples that come to mind are: (a) metallography performed in a hot cell or glove box and (b) field metallography, where the work was performed outside the normal laboratory environment, such as at a construction site or a destruction (failure analysis) site. A former colleague of mine used to humorously refer to scratches as "reference lines,' but the judges won't accept this tongue-in-cheek excuse.
High marks will go to entries that employ less conventional specimen preparation methods where conventional methods were inadequate. Some examples are vibratory or electrolytic polishing, multiple etching of dissimilar materials and the use of a sputter coating on a non-metallic material to enhance contrast. The use of anodizing to produce color contrast is acceptable as long as it reveals the microstructure better than simpler methods. Because there are 6 to 8 judges who possess a remarkable pool of experience, your entry will be judged critically but fairly. The judges seriously discuss the various merits of the entries before assigning a score. The maximum score in this category is 25 points.
An unprecedented number of imaging and printing options are now at our disposal. One of the first and most used is the instant print developed by Dr. Land many years ago. (Note that I avoided the use of the very familiar commercial name.) This and video printers have become popular and do produce reasonable quality, but when placed alongside prints made by conventional photochemical methods they still do not compare well. Some new advanced imaging methods are becoming available but are in limited use due to the cost of the equipment.
The important point here is not how the prints were made but whether they have sufficient resolution, contrast and density. It should be a crime to record the microstructure as a fuzzy or muddy photograph after you took great care in the preparation of a specimen.
The use of color in non-color entry classes is discouraged and the judges will instinctively downgrade an exhibit board that uses color when black and white would have worked just as well. Although the maximum score in this category is only 20 points, why risk losing points when a few points sometimes separate winners from losers?
The maximum score in this category is 10 points. It pertains to the physical appearance of the board: how well it is laid out and whether it is graphically pleasing. Although manner of presentation may seem unimportant, it is the judge's first impression of you. As the old saw goes, "You have only one chance to make a first impression!"
In the early days of the contest, most entries were rather plain and simple, consisting mostly of macrophotos and photomicrographs mounted on plain white poster boards with block lettering and no color. The boards themselves were usually lightweight and sometimes flimsy and could not stand upright without support.
More recently, however, the trend has been toward the artsy presentation produced by the company graphics department or an outside concern. In many cases the art has been so obvious that it seems to compete with the message, and in such cases it can be described as overkill. For the judges, there is the risk of being unduly influenced by the glitz beyond the measly 10 points allotted to this category. The judges are advised to resist allowing the artistic influence to spill over into the more scientific judging categories. This influence can be so subtle that a less experienced judge may unconsciously succumb to its influence when judging the technical merits of the board. Most grand prize winners have scored high in this category, but it's refreshing when a black and white presentation has such a high technical quality that the jazzy-looking boards are left behind.
The important rule of presentation is that the judge or spectator viewing the board should be able to follow the story line effortlessly. Neat, stylized lettering applied directly to the board adds a professional touch that enhances the appearance of an entry and when applied to a stiff poster board makes a really neat presentation. Matting is used more and more but should not be necessary. In many multi-element boards it actually may break up the flow of the story rather than strengthen it.
A great entry is usually the product of clear thought and early planning. Start with a strong technical story and gather as much information as you can to support it. Work hard at reducing text and captions to a bare minimum, and check your initial lay-out against the comments above. Enlist knowledgeable persons within your company to act as judges as though they were the actual IMS judges. If you score less than 65 points, see where you can improve.
Remember, don't wait until May or June to begin work on your entry.
| ABSTRACT: Behind the closed doors of a large conference room in a major hotel (or convention center), a group of technical experts gather each year to perform a professional service. They are the invited members of a panel that annually judges the entries to the IMS/ASM International Metallographic Contest. Little is known of the judging process and how the various winners are selected. However, the judging process is well defined and allows maximum opportunity for both technicians and professionals to compete fairly for the valuable monetary prizes and the recognition. This glimpse at the judging process gives any interested person some valuable insight into what really makes a winner. |
Behind closed doors, a group of eight casually clad persons mill about a cluster of tables in the center of a large hotel meeting room. With clipboards and pencils in hand, they gaze intently at large poster boards, each containing variously arranged pictures, diagrams and text. Moving deliberately from one board to another, they read and ponder the meaning of each board. Before moving on, each person records some information on paper mounted to their clipboards.
When one group of boards has been completed, each evaluator takes their paper to a table located in a far corner of the room. There two other persons sit, one feverishly operating a calculator, the other apparently analyzing data gathered by the eight evaluators.
Work continues through the morning and far into the afternoon with only a break for lunch until all eleven groups of posters have been reviewed. Having completed their work the eight meet, together with their leader to make some apparently momentous decision. One selection from each of eight of the groups is removed and laid together for further consideration.
After careful scrutiny and discussion one board is selected, apparently to be the best of the eight. When this decision is reached, the judges show obvious signs of relief and satisfaction. The leader thanks the participants and the entire group exchange hand shakes and back slaps and go their various ways...their job has been completed.
The scene just described is typical of a real life event that occurs annually somewhere in the U.S., Canada, and occasionally Europe. The event is the judging of the IMS/ASM International Metallographic Exhibit. For 34 years these two societies have jointly sponsored the exhibit which features the best work of metallographers and other materials scientists the world over. Its purpose is to promote excellence in the field of microstructural analysis by providing a forum for evaluation and recognition.
By answering these and other questions, it is hoped that the mystery that lurks behind the closed doors will be dispelled and that fear of participation will be blotted out through an understanding of what really occurs. There are ample benefits to reward any who expend the effort necessary to produce a good entry.
The main purpose is to advance the science of microstructural analysis. This purpose is accomplished by providing an opportunity for microstructural analysts to display their work and communicate significant scientific information. Individuals benefit by receiving peer recognition and valuable monetary awards. Cooperating companies also benefit by recognition received for their support to the exhibit and demonstration of their in-house technical programs and expertise.
The rules of the International Metallographic Contest protect the entrants by establishing a fair competitive environment. Various classes are provided so that each entry will have the best opportunity to win recognition. The different classes reduce the unfair advantage that might exist among exhibits based on exotic materials and the more common ones.
Rules should not be a deterrent to any person entering the Contest. Anyone who has enjoyed the honor of either judging or winning an award knows that the contest and resultant exhibit is an excellent opportunity to gain the recognition of his peers and that the rules are merely a tool to promote fair competition.
The judging process is based on the division of a 100 point maximum score into four categories, Technical Content, Quality and Uniqueness of Specimen Preparation, Photographic Quality, and Uniqueness of Presentation.
Technical Content has the highest score of 45 and is awarded according to how well the entry deals with the selected subject. Specifically, it asks, "Does this entry show originality in solving a problem?" This is the most important criterion, requiring the judge to read each technical description very carefully. A strong entry tells a clear, concise story in as few words as possible. It includes only those photographs, photomicrographs and other graphics that are essential to support the text.
Quality and Uniqueness of Specimen Preparation is an important category and has been assigned a maximum score of 25 points. It asks the question, "Has the metallographer succeeded in preparing high-quality samples which yield the maximum amount of relevant information?" A strong entry demonstrates sample preparation expertise including a wide selection and correct application of etchants or other means of microstructural revelation.
Photographic Quality of macrophotographs and photomicrographs refers to image resolution, focus, contrast and tone (dark to light). This category counts a maximum of 20 points. A strong entry utilizes graphics that are clearly resolved, sharply focused and are not dark, washed-out or muddy.
Uniqueness of Presentation refers to the artistic arrangement of the exhibit board. A well organized, neat board with sharp, clear titles and captions will certainly attract the eye of the judges. A total of 10 points is assigned to this category. A strong entry is attractively laid out with neat geometric balance using clear, readable lettering. Captions must include magnification and etchant identifications and relate to the main text. All lines, frames or other artistic devices should help the viewer follow the story through each stage.
Judges are chosen, principally from an elite company of submitters who are acknowledged experts or who have proven their ability by winning previous exhibit competitions. The chairman trys to choose judges who are experts in various areas of microstructural analysis: some are more familiar with S.E.M., T.E.M., or X-ray diffraction. Because the judges are free to discuss each entry, those who have a particular expertise help the others who may be less experienced in a particular field.
"Is it really worth all the effort to compete in the International Metallographic Contest?" you may ask. The answer is a resounding "Yes", and here's why.
Direct monetary awards are led by a top prize of $3,000 which is really two separate awards: a $1500 Pierre Jacquet Medal from the International Metallographic Society, and a $1500 Francis Lucas Award from ASM International. All classes except 9, 10, and 11 are eligible for this award. First place winners in every class receive $200. The first place winner in Class 6 will also receive the DuBose-Crouse Award. Winners of the student categories (classes 7 and 8) also receive the George L. Kehl Plaque. Second place winners receive $100. Third place winners receive $50. Honorable mention awards are made at the discretion of the judges if the quality of the runners-up warrants this additional non-monetary honor.
In addition to the monetary awards, participation in the International Metallographic Contest offers various forms of recognition. The entire exhibit is displayed at the annual IMS Symposium and Technical Meetings immediately at the conclusion of judging. It is then displayed at the fall ASM International Materials Week. Following these two public displays, the exhibit is divided into five units which are sent on request to local ASM Chapters, other societies, meetings, and universities throughout the following year. This assures the entrant that his or her work receives maximum recognition. In some instances selected exhibits have been published by commercial concerns as calendars or as part of advertisements.
Well, that's what goes on behind closed doors...nothing diabolical or sinister, only a sincere effort to advance the science of microstructural analysis through-out the world. Why not join this prestigious group and gain just recognition for yourself and your company. Although there are only so many monetary prizes, all participants win peer recognition.
|
|
|
|
|
|