Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Atomic-resolution image of gold surface

Atomic-resolution image of gold surface



 * Reason:This is an outstanding image because it shows the individual atoms that make up a gold surface. It is also a good demonstration of surface reconstruction, as the atoms rearrange themselves on the surface to form regularly-spaced pits.  I realize that this image does not quire meet the size requirement (it is 500px square) but I believe is still has outstanding encyclopediac value since this is the only type one of the only types of microscopy which allows individual atoms to be seen.  It takes a lot of effort and patience to get such a clean image, and I am glad that someone has released this into the public domain.
 * Articles this image appears in:Atom, Nanotechnology, Scanning tunneling microscope, Surface reconstruction
 * Creator:Erwinrossen
 * Nominator: Antony-22

MER-C 09:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support &mdash; Antony-22 21:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose &mdash; Spikebrennan 21:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC). Pity about the signature in the lower left.
 * Support Very interesting 8thstar 21:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not bad, but we could do way better. In our faculty we have a group which specializes in imaging donor and acceptor states in cross-sectional STM. You can literaly see the doping effect in a semiconductor locally. They have some great pictures hanging on the walls, I'll ask around if they'll share one with us.--Dschwen 21:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way atomic resolution is also possible with certain types of AFMs and most modern TEMs of course. --Dschwen 21:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction. If there are other atomic-resolution images that people would be willing to donate I'd love to see those too.  Antony-22 22:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Conveniently, NewScientist just published a gallery — Jack · talk · 00:15, Thursday, 29 March 2007
 * Oppose Too small, but I would support a version that meets size requirements. Plus, if the image is in public domain, we should be able to crop/edit the signature out right?--Uberlemur 21:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Regretful Oppose Signature on bottom, size (not just being bureaucratic, it really does need to be bigger), can only faintly see individual atoms. Not against a better execution, though; very cool subject.--HereToHelp 01:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Atoms, by their nature, are fuzzy. This image will be right up against the technical and physical limitations. — Jack · talk · 13:49, Wednesday, 28 March 2007
 * Even given that, and the edit, I think it should be larger; get a wider scan area, even if it is nothing new.--HereToHelp 01:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose watermark, not sure what is technologically the best size one can get with scanning tunnel microscopy... gren グレン 03:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If - and only if - the watermark can be legitimately removed, and the "1nm" scale made prettier, I support — Jack · talk · 13:49, Wednesday, 28 March 2007
 * Oppose per Dschwen. BlackBear 17:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Question since this is my first experience with Featured Pictures. By size, do you mean the actual number of pixels, or the resolution?  If it is the former, a larger image could be made just by duplicating pixels.  If the former, I don't think that you really can get any higher resolution with STM (taking more samples would not reveal any new features), and scanning a wider field would not reveal anything new either - so I'm not sure that having a larger size would really be advantageous in this specific case.  Antony-22 19:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - I'm sure that's a picture of a beehive. ;-) Actually I really like the picture, and the concept, but I'm afraid it's way smaller than the size recommendations. Also, 'duplicating pixels' wouldn't really be satisfactory. I suppose you mean a tiled effect. How do you eliminate the text at the bottom of the picture? - M rug  2  21:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Just a point that has nothing to do with the voting: the picture is not a picture of the atoms, because that cannot ever be achieved. The electrons and the nucleus are in constant motion and, in Quantum Theory, don't even have a known position. It's a picture of the position of the atoms not of the atoms, so the caption should be reworded - Adrian Pingstone
 * It actually is a picture of the local density of states above the sample surface... --Dschwen 22:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)