Notes

Mention TEM first, USPD, and DLS
Slide 3: phi = r(p/po)a^3 times brackets[rough]
Another slide with full equation
Slide 5: verify the validity of this calibration curve. verify calibration from pervious studies using more monodisperse polystyrene.
Title USPD calibration
High dispersion emulsion, high surfactant creates micelles on same slide
Stained and Unstained images, discovered a lot of extra particles, artifact created during the drying step. Perhaps don't show up with unstained
Bring FFT and Highest power spectra distinguished from noise directly after USPD apparatus
Then go to surfactants micelles,
Below objectives slide, compare individual particles and mixtures (USPD and TEM) to generate a calibration curve
same slide: remove polydisperse mixture, occurs after everything with data processing is explained
Test fit to calibration curve:silver nnp
New method: high signal amplifies peaks
slide ten: use average power spectrum on left to put on fft slide in place of average spectra to have the same image.
Graphs that take you into how to get to power spectra and psd. power spectra , number of hits, outlier, psd
Put comparison of USPD to DLS for mixture on same slide. polydisperse samples not good with DLS
slide seventeen: put published diameter for what known SDS size range.
slide eighteen: replace images chosen. Write number of particles mean, std dev and, number of particles
slide 20: USPD may throw out data on the left: mention
Micha: USPD of 70nm as well redo 20nm with new method
slide 23: negligible compressibility and density close to water
Takeaway: drying leading to micelles or micelle aggregates. Different techniques respond differently. Staining outlines micelles
drying causes increase of surfactant concentration: bigger and more micelles. Different techniques will show how micelles are
Throw out baby with the bathwater

Delete future work.
Better to have just a summary slide: go back to objectives, maybe set up box in miniature, m
Dilute samples in USPD .