Gerber and Weibel were back on board as co-authors of a paper sent
to Surface Science Letters in April 1983. (What was the difference
in status and turn-around time of Surface Science and its
Letters?) The paper acknowledged A. Baratoff, a theoretical
physicist who was one of the first to publish on STM theory. Baratoff
also worked at IBM Zurich.
STM scans of Au(110) surfaces revealed (111) facetting and 1x2
structure, with some local disorder. [Au(110) rough (top) and Au(110)
fine (botton)] They compared the results with transmission electron
micrscopy and glancing angle x-ray diffraction. They suggested that
the local disorder might be the reason that averaging techniques,
such as diffraction, had not yet delivered conclusive evidence on
a topic of interest, the transition time from 1x1 to 1x2 structure.
Of course, this amounted also to an argument for the comparative
prowess of the STM. Queries: why were the technicians back on board:
did they set up the TEM and x-ray diffraction? What sort of questions
were scientists asking at the time, and how did this paper affect
Both images on the right were taken from Surface Science Letters,
131, G. Binnig, H. Rohrer, Ch. Gerber, E. Weibel, "(111) facets
as the origin of reconstructed Au(110) surfaces", L379-L384,
Copyright 1983, with permission from Elsevier Science.