1. Morphability in all three dimensions;

• ergo snakes and worms do not suffice...

2. Architectures that can sense and morph responsively to openings, e.g., using local tactile sensing;

• need to talk about tactile and optical proximity sensing. whiskers, antennae

3. Flexible backbone structures or architectures that themselves morph or dissolve, then reconstitute - keystone that enables system;

• We will be talking about a morphing structural system but not one that dissolves and reconstitutes, per se. One could imagine ER fluid for something that dissolves and flows. One could imagine a "spine" that segments into many small pieces -- but this is no easier to pull through a hole and a worm.

4. Payloads that remain viable after traversal. Hard payloads, including power sources, must be smaller than the largest characteristic size of the opening. Novel soft payloads that morph and reconstitute may be larger than this size;

• To the extent that delivery of H202 is delivery of a power source, I suppose it could be considered a soft payload...

5. Modest power requirements. ChemBots may be self-powered, self-consuming, or energy-scavenging;

• We will be self powered and self consuming. This is something to mention

6. Autonomous or user-controlled operation, depending on application. ChemBots must not be tethered to controllers or power sources;

• OK

7. Meso-scale in size, preferentially with size-scalable architecture; and

• OK

8. Robust over typical range of military operational conditions (temperature, humidity, rain, etc.). * Need to address specifically.

-- MarkCutkosky - 10 Jun 2007