Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!njin!paul.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!nanotech From: mike@everexn.com (Mike Higgins) Newsgroups: sci.nanotech Subject: Re: STM nuclear reactions Message-ID: Date: 5 Dec 90 03:18:51 GMT Sender: nanotech@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Everex Systems, Inc. Lines: 23 Approved: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu In toms@fcs260c2.ncifcrf.gov (Tom Schneider) writes: >ems@buttermilk.princeton.edu (Ed Strong) writes: >toms@fcs260c2.ncifcrf.gov (Tom Schneider) writes: >>>The discussion about STM makes me wonder whether anyone is planning on watching >>>individual atoms decay? Imagine putting down some radioactively labeled DNA >>>and observing the 32P go boom! Broken DNA! Does it leave a pit in the >>>surface? :-) There is a sampling problem you all seem to be overlooking: The STM doesn't take snapshots, it's this little needle waving around. Even if it is scanning the area of say a DNA molecule where a 32P is about to go boom, all you will see is one picture whith everything in place, and the next scan will show something broken. Big deal. If the needle happened to pass over the 32P at the exact moment (low probability) when it goes boom, the most likely result is that the rest of that horizontal scan is messed up. Still not exciting. mike@everexn.com [Actually, seeing "something broken" could be quite useful. However, see the recent Sci. Am. article on "photographing" molecular reaction transition states--a new technology that bids to contribute substantial useful understanding for nano-designers. --JoSH] Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com