=====
From Sean_Hamilton@amrcorp.com:

good theme, and math, but I got lost in the image.  Some friendly green lights
rescued me though. ;)
=====
From swl7m@virginia.edu:
Interesting, but the repetitive nature makes it less appealing
=====
From gmol@my-dejanews.com:

I really think this is how it looks to be standing on a lattice, wonderful!
Should be used as a textbook cover somewhere!
=====
From gmccarter@hotmail.com:
Visually simple and complex, simultaneously.
Exhaustive technical detail and research.  You win the award for most tedious
text file.  But it's still unclear to this layman: does this image depict an
existing process; a near-term improvement; or some fantasy?
Great choices for colors / forms / structures / construction techniques.
I even like the tiny logo -- it makes the image itself seem more expansive.

=====
From bill@apocalypse.org:
The sense of depth when one looks into the ground is great

=====
From wozzeck@club-internet.fr:
This pic really needs to be inspected for a while before revealing its interest.
And then, vertigo arises!

=====
From 101741.541@compuserve.com:
Nice objects pattern, I like the glowing green under the top layer. At such
small scale, would the quartz chamber look so smooth and sharp ?  I don't
know, I just wonder (thinking of the "landscapes" revealed by electronic 
microscopes).


=====
From r@cust193.webbernet.net:
Good concept and good realization.  I am surprised at the relatively small
number of images the took "element" in the chemical sense.  I note that you are
subscribing to the heavy background school of documentation.  This is an
observation, not a criticism.  I *like* information.  The hole gas looks very
good.  You need a few more foreground and near foreground components diffusing
in, in order to establish the nature of the smaller distant ones.  Well done. 
This comment by clem@dhol.com.