dolata@uazchem.UUCP (Dolata) (02/19/88)
Minsky takes me to task in his last message; m> Dolata's reamrks about nanoscopic chemistry missed the point, so far m> as I can see, in arguing that because it is a scanning microscope it m> is not involved with individual molecules but is more like regular m> volume chemistry. Well, yes I did say that; d> Note that the process involves SCANNING of whole areas, and not d> individual pinning. This is nothing new, it can be done by standard electro d> chemical techniques. That statement is strictly true. Minsky now proceeds to disagree with me; m> However, the molecular rearrangement was not m> accomplished by a conventional bulk effect. Instead, it was m> accomplished by a sub-microsecond pulse applied during the scan so m> that it occurred while the needle was over a particular molecule. Carefull reading of the above statement shows that I didn't claim that the modification was done by scanning, only the PINNING. If you read my next sentance, you see that I implicitly allow thier claim to altering individual molecules by pulsing during the scan (the key word is "then"); d> The ability to then alter individual molecules is d> not very exciting either, people have been doing that chemically with d> polymer bound systems for a long time. Minsky takes exception to my whole message; m> But I see no reason to denigrate m> the technique because it uses scanning. Simply think of scanning as m> examining, and possibly modifying, large numbers of points in m> sequence. What could be better? I now take exception to his taking exception, because I already stated the same thing! d> The exciting possibility was not d> strictly addressed; the ability to selectively alter molecules in a d> spatially regular fashion. I.e., convert one to state 1, convert the d> next to state 2, etc... I assume my words "spatially regular fashion" to be the same as Minsky's "in sequence". We both use the word "possibility" and "possibly", to discribe the task, and so we agree it hasn't been done yet. And this possibility was not demonstrated, or even addressed, in FF&A's letter to Nature. Back to Minsky's message; m> But I see no reason to denigrate m> the technique because it uses scanning. I didn't denigrate the work. My final paragraph had the words; d> I don't mean to completely pooh-pooh their work. It does indicate d> an exciting new direction. If I am denigrating something, I don't use the word "exciting". I did say; d> However, I caution people from either claiming d> that they did something that they didn't, or from being swept up in over d> strong claims. Foster, Frommer and Arnett themselves make the same caution; ffa> Our interpretation of this process as the pinning, removal and cleaving ffa> of the phthalate molecules is still open to question... I respect FF&A's self criticism and scientific caution. AI sometimes seems filled with people making over grandiose claims, using fuzzy terms to disguise that what they are doing is reinventing X's wheel of '65, etc... I applaud clear thinkers who critically evaluate technology rather than try to get into newspapers or get tenure on false claims. (for example, Minsky's (I assume it is the same one?) work on Perceptrons is a good example of critical thinking). I don't claim that FF&A made over strong claims. I do caution people in AI-LIST, or other forums, from being less cautious than the authors (who should know best). In summary, I still stand by my claim; d> What d> they haven't had much luck doing was using mechanical means to create d> spatially interesting patterns of altered molecules. What FF&A has done is d> to point the way, but they missed the biggy.