=====
From tek@evilsuperbrain.com:
Very novel interpretation, though the end result looks a bit simplistic.

=====
From evilsnack@hotmail.com:
Baffling concept, not much to the animation.  Some of the product molecules
appear to be impossible.


=====
From Martin.Magnusson.7121@student.uu.se:
There are no "errors" or ommissions in this anim, but IMHO it's lacking
something. Some action, maybe. Just seeing a molecule being split isn't
terribly esciting. A more interesting background or something would help. 
=====
From martin@simaltech.com:
Highly original!  The obvious cut when the molecule combusts is distracting and
the simple objects hurt the technical score.  Much better the second time
around after reading your description of the scene so I knew what was
happening!  :)
=====
From chris_darcy_irtc@yahoo.com.au:
The movie didn_t make sense without reading your notes.
Nice effort though.


=====
From bill@apocalypse.org:
A seemingly simplistic scene, that I really needed to read the txt file to
understand.  Also, the "wood" texture in the background seemed odd to me,
though I suppose it does imply what going on, it's also out of place.

=====
From jonathan@scudder.no:
Original interpretation, and nice collision/explosion animation. Slightly
distracting background texture, and generally quite plastic, but I suppose
realism is not an issue here anyway... :-P

=====
From jouni@mikrobitti.fi:
Very interesting indeed. Lacks the drama involved in a forest fire, but the
concept is good.
=====
From angelsdie2@aol.com:

I'm not crazy about the woodgrain background but I don't know how you could have
improved it... maybe an out of focus mesh of particles in the distance or
something....  I like the idea a lot though....  good work!
=====
From p_chan@shaw.ca:
Nice work with the placement and motion of the particles.  I feel the colour
change for the "sky" should either be quicker or start earlier.  As it is, it
doesn't really match with the time of the reaction.  What might also help is to
change the colour from blue to orange in a different manner, as it seems to get
darker at first as it is now.

=====
From quinet@gamers.org:
Nice idea, but the wooden plane and the sky are distracting because they do not
match the molecular size of the scene.  It would have been much better to use a
uniform background (maybe dark brown) and have hundreds of molecules around
the one that is at the center of the scene.  For extra bonus points, you could
start the scene with the cliche "zoom in from normal size to molecular level"
and then at the end zoom out and see a fire.  That would require much more
work,
but the animation would be easier to understand and more fun to watch.

=====
From batronyx@alliancecable.net:
Interesting.

=====
From glenn@mccarters.net:
A "force of nature" at a fundamental level!

=====
From irtc_mail@yahoo.co.uk:

There is not enough in the animation to work out that it is supposed to
be a forest fire. Molecules like to rotate about their centre of mass
but yours rotates about its end. This is a technical point, but yours
is a technical interpretation.



=====
From r@adsl-65-64-194-217.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net:
hm... with my chemistry skills, I get that. But does everyone?


=====
From r@adsl-157-198-97.dab.bellsouth.net:
intelligently put together.  It has a good effect.
Notable for originality