backtop


Print 27 comment(s) - last by mmatis.. on Aug 21 at 7:43 AM


Dr. Kyeongjae Cho, study leader  (Source: UT Dallas)
Mullite replaces platinum, a precious metal that is expensive to mine and limited in supply

University of Texas at Dallas scientists found that a material called mullite, which is from a family of oxides, could replace platinum on diesel exhaust from automotives.

Platinum has been the go-to material for diesel vehicles because diesel exhaust emits more nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxode than gasoline vehicles (however, diesel engines are generally more efficient). To reduce the amount of these pollutants from diesel exhaust, platinum is commonly used. 

The problem is that platinum is a precious metal, mainly because it is limited and very expensive to mine. For 10 tons of platinum ore mined, only 1 ounce is usually usable.

Another issue was that diesel engine exhaust was recently added to the World Health Organization's list of items that are carcinogenic in humans. Hence, finding an alternative that could clean diesel exhaust up further was pretty important.

Enter Dr. Kyeongjae Cho, study leader and professor of materials science and engineering and physics at UT Dallas. He and a team of researchers set out to find the alternative, and discovered that mullite was exactly what the doctor ordered.

After synthesizing mullite and using computer models to see how it consumes nitric oxide/nitrogen dioxode, it was discovered that an oxygen-based composition of mullite is not only cheaper to produce than platinum, but it also reduces diesel exhaust pollution 45 percent more than platinum.

"Our goal to move completely away from precious metals and replace them with oxides that can be seen commonly in the environment has been achieved," said Cho. "We've found new possibilities to create renewable, clean energy technology by designing new functional materials without being limited by the supply of precious metals."

This new mullite discovery is already being commercialized as Noxicat.

Source: University of Texas at Dallas



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Dontcha Wonder...
By FITCamaro on 8/20/2012 9:04:31 AM , Rating: 4
Well now that Justice Roberts gave his horrible ruling that while the government can't force you to buy something, they can tax you if you don't, its feasible. You know all those pesky people out there are just walking CO2 factories which the EPA needs to regulate.


RE: Dontcha Wonder...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/20/2012 9:11:09 AM , Rating: 1
I hope that man kills himself, honestly. That ruling is just indefensible and opens the door to straight up fascism in America. Does he even care what he's done?

Frankly I'm disappointed that someone hasn't taken care of him already. God we're so soft as a nation now...


RE: Dontcha Wonder...
By praktik on 8/20/2012 10:01:55 AM , Rating: 5
Yes let's all worry about a slide to fascism in America, whilst yearning for the assassination of sitting Supreme Court justices because they made a ruling you didn't like.

Nice feat of cognitive dissonance there buddy..:)


RE: Dontcha Wonder...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/20/2012 11:13:33 AM , Rating: 4
It's a bit more than a "ruling I don't like". Robert's just handed the Federal Government supreme UNLIMITED power over it's citizens. Something the Constitution was originally designed to prevent. And what Robert's took an oath to uphold, making him a traitor.

America as we know it died the day he made that ruling. You're just too stupid to see it.


RE: Dontcha Wonder...
By praktik on 8/20/2012 11:16:47 AM , Rating: 2
What is the typical punishment for treason, and would you recommend it be applied to Roberts?


RE: Dontcha Wonder...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/20/2012 11:34:54 AM , Rating: 2
Why even talk about it? I'm not sitting in a bunker plotting the revolution.

Just study your history, when treason comes from those temporarily granted power, in this case judges, countries collapse and move toward one inevitable outcome.

We can sit and discuss things, but others will be left picking up the pieces long after we're gone.


RE: Dontcha Wonder...
By praktik on 8/20/2012 11:40:44 AM , Rating: 2
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance!

Keep fighting the good fight buddy and remember to jump on those canned food sales when you can!


RE: Dontcha Wonder...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/20/2012 11:47:15 AM , Rating: 3
I saw that you were going with that a mile away, nice try.

America will collapse just like EVERY empire in the history of this planet has collapsed when it's power becomes consolidated.

This isn't some "right wing" psycho prediction. This is an understanding of human nature and knowledge of history. The Founders understood that liberty, freedom, and rights were NOT historically commonplace when it comes to government's made by man. America is the exception to the rule. Or rather, was.

"We have given you a republic, if you can keep it"

Why do you think Franklin meant? And why did challenge future generations to "keep it". And do you think we're doing a good job of keeping it?


RE: Dontcha Wonder...
By praktik on 8/20/2012 12:10:15 PM , Rating: 2
You're doing a great job of turning the Republic into a plutocracy, but I'm not sure the ACA decision is the signal event on that train ride (which has been building up steam for quite some time).

Another threat to the Republic could be internal fracture, and when supreme court decisions and policy debates become inflicted with words like "treason", I wonder if the language you use is perhaps a greater signifier of a threat to the Republic than the ACA decision could ever be...


RE: Dontcha Wonder...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/20/2012 12:29:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I wonder if the language you use is perhaps a greater signifier of a threat to the Republic than the ACA decision could ever be...


This is America, sir. It's not a "threat" to exercise your First Amendment rights. That's why it's the First one, not the second or third or fifth.

Honestly how dare you. If my language makes you uncomfortable, fine. But to say it's a "bigger" threat than ACA is frankly insanity.

quote:
but I'm not sure the ACA decision is the signal event on that train ride (which has been building up steam for quite some time).


This is definitely a tide-turner. It's true that we have been sliding down this path for some time, which you've pointed out. Which makes it all the more baffling why you seem to have an issue with someone being alarmed at this.

The ACA decision is so huge because THIS is what they've been wanting. Direct unilateral control of the American population at the Federal level. Something the Constitution desperately works to prevent. They've nibbled at it with gross Commerce Clause abuse, but usually when they reach this far, the Supreme Court has been there to slap them back a bit.

However what this decision does is grant Congress and the Presidency, for the foreseeable future, unlimited power to control it's citizens in almost any way possible. All they have to do is call it a "tax", and almost anything can be mandated. This tramples States Rights, and the Constitutions promise of their Sovereignty. If the ACA is "legal", than almost ANYTHING designed similarly is now "legal" too.

Simply put, this gives the Government unlimited mandate power over the citizens of this country. I think you understand this and that the Constitution was against that, your problem is you don't see this as a bad thing.


RE: Dontcha Wonder...
By praktik on 8/20/2012 12:45:42 PM , Rating: 2
"How dare I?"

HAHAHAAHA

wow you're really good at feigning outrage. Of course I can't take seriously your claim to be offended since you so easily toss out things like the following:

"You're just too stupid to see it"

"..is frankly insanity"

Dial back the outrage machine a tad and remember my point wasn't that YOUR PARTICULAR words were a "bigger threat" than the ACA, but that generally speaking, a fractured political environment where policy debates become grounds for people to think TREASON has been committed could be a signifier of internal dissension commensurate with eventual internal conflict of arms. After all, we put traitors to DEATH, do we not? Would not civil war be a greater threat to the republic than a government mandate power?

As for your last point:

quote:
Simply put, this gives the Government unlimited mandate power over the citizens of this country. I think you understand this and that the Constitution was against that, your problem is you don't see this as a bad thing.


I don't claim to possess the constitutional knowledge to contradict the Roberts decision and recognize that constitutional rights can be abridged when certain judicial tests are met - that being said, I wonder why a decision by the Supreme Court on matters of health care would be seen as a greater violation of the guarantees of the constitution by you and your cohort when Obama claims the power of Kings to draw up secret kill lists which include the names of American citizens.

So where are your constitutional priorities? A government desire to cover all its citizens w/ health care is a great threat than secret kill list drawn up by the President with no review?

Would you trust Michael Moore with the power to draw up a list of American citizens to kill?

Oh wait I forgot who I'm talking to: the guy who would put Justice Roberts at the top of his kill list!

Go ahead and worry about fascism then...;)


RE: Dontcha Wonder...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/20/2012 1:00:54 PM , Rating: 1
Do you understand legal precedence? This isn't JUST about Health Care. Hello?

ACA isn't even about Health Care anyway. It's all about the redistribution of wealth on a massive scale. That's all socialized medicine does. But I digress.

quote:
Would not civil war be a greater threat to the republic than a government mandate power?


If the right side wins, no. No it's not. An outright war with England is why we're here in the first place, after all.

However who's even talking about that? Calling 5 justices traitors is going to cause a civil war now?

You know it's really great that you just want to sit here and over-intellectualize this, but I'm the one who has to live with these decisions and face their consequences.

quote:
I wonder why a decision by the Supreme Court on matters of health care would be seen as a greater violation of the guarantees of the constitution by you and your cohort when Obama claims the power of Kings to draw up secret kill lists which include the names of American citizens.


That's a pretty poor Red Herring you realize? You're presenting an either/or debate when none such existed. BOTH are obviously things to be against.

quote:
Oh wait I forgot who I'm talking to: the guy who would put Justice Roberts at the top of his kill list!


Don't put words in my mouth. I said no such thing and you know it. I would never advocate someone be murdered.

I just might not shed any tears if it happened to certain individuals. That's a big difference. Plus I was obviously blowing off steam, get a grip.

quote:
Go ahead and worry about fascism then...


I seem to recall Liberals talking about assassinating Bush, and even making movies about this happening while he was in office, and nobody had a problem with that. Hell it was downright "patriotic" then.

One mans judge is another mans tyrant /shrug.


RE: Dontcha Wonder...
By Ammohunt on 8/20/2012 2:22:58 PM , Rating: 2
I am pretty sure i know why he ruled the way he did its the fact that Supreme Court Justices are not legislators. In the past Supreme court rulings have been have been given the god like status of being unchallengeable which is just not the case. What he did was hand the decision on this legislation back to the people where it belongs so that the legislative branch is forced to do the peoples bidding fi that's what they really want and repeal the bill properly. I think the guy is a genius and the larger implication of this ruling will be made evident in history; its a hell of a gamble but in the long run the health of our republic as a whole will benefit from it.


RE: Dontcha Wonder...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/20/2012 2:34:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What he did was hand the decision on this legislation back to the people where it belongs so that the legislative branch is forced to do the peoples bidding fi that's what they really want and repeal the bill properly.


Yes yes I've heard this argument before. If this was the case why even have a Supreme Court? If clearly Unconstitutional laws remain law in the thin hope that legislatures will "do the right thing" and see the error of their ways. Or even more unlikely, listen to the people?

The Constitution GIVES the Supreme Court the power to keep Congressional and Legislative power in check. That's it's entire purpose. It's one of the most important checks and balances we have.

In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton said " whenever a particular statute contravenes the constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter, and disregard the former."

In other words, one of the Supreme Court’s jobs is to compare laws to the Constitution, and to demolish laws that violate the Constitution.

Basically you're saying just let the Legislative branch do whatever the hell it wants because things will just magically work out in the end. Uhhh, okay.


RE: Dontcha Wonder...
By Ammohunt on 8/20/2012 11:36:29 PM , Rating: 2
Hardly, lately the Supreme Court and other federal courts have been used to pretty much write law; that as you know that was never their intended purpose. Already the Supreme Court votes along party lines with the exception of justice Kennedy who seems to vote with which way the wind blows on that given day; I question the idea of check and balances with a supreme court setup this way. That being said I believe that Chief justice Roberts feels the same and this is his vain attempt to remove the artificial power of the Supreme Court. If the bill stands the constitutional test and then is later repealed then its dead for all eternity and congress has done its job. If the Supreme Court nullified the bill then we would have years of partisan bickering about how it should be implemented properly to pass the constitutional test. Considering what a massive expansion of the nanny state the bill causes and the complete erosion of rights I think he felt it was a worthwhile gamble considering that it is still quite possible to bring up other aspects of this bill at a later date for scrutiny by the supreme court if it doesn’t get repealed in the mean time. Such as the mandatory birth control provisions that religious organizations are complaining about now which is clearly a violation of the 1st amendment. Thats just a few of the issues with the bill we know about Chief Justice Roberts may have found something else in the bill that will not stand the constitutional test and is just waiting for someone to find that golden nugget.


RE: Dontcha Wonder...
By RufusM on 8/20/2012 9:59:27 AM , Rating: 4
Yes, the leap of logic to add the ability to tax the citizenry for failing to purchase a product is beyond absurd and should have been voted down by the entire Supreme Court. They should have just been intellectually honest and called it what it is: a mandate to purchase a product for being a US citizen under penalty of fine.

This Supreme Court vote had nothing to do with taxation. It all had to do with pushing a 100% federally funded healthcare system above all means of reason and logic. The Justices should be ashamed of themselves.

I'll add to this that taxation in the US has not been just about funding government. It's been about re-distributing wealth and has been for a long time now. This decision just reinforces this notion.


RE: Dontcha Wonder...
By foolsgambit11 on 8/20/2012 7:55:07 PM , Rating: 2
Come on. The ruling was pretty simple. There isn't a difference between a tax credit for behavior and a tax penalty for behavior. The ACA could have been written to increase taxes on everybody, but provide a credit for those who purchase insurance, and it would have been functionally identical to how it was written. Government power - as evaluated by the Supreme Court - isn't about political semantics, it's about the actual actions of government. And without banning all tax credits, Roberts couldn't in good conscience deny the government possessed the power to enact this law.

The problem isn't with the SCOTUS, it's with the pundits who branded the ACA a "mandate". It's no more a mandate than the mortgage "mandate", where you have to have a mortgage or be forced to pay higher taxes.


RE: Dontcha Wonder...
By Fritzr on 8/21/2012 1:03:14 AM , Rating: 2
Another serious penalty tax is levied on those who do not marry and contribute at least $4000 a year to a 401k
If you don't have a 401k you pay an extra $2000 a year in income tax.
If you are single and contribute $2000 to a 401k you pay an extra $1800 a year in income tax.
If you are married and both spouses contribute $2000 to their 401ks then you are do not pay this penalty tax.

Of course the law is written to read 10% credit for single taxpayers & 50% credit for married taxpayers on the first $2000 of 401k contributions from each wage earner, but this is actually a penalty paid by anyone who does not contribute annually to a 401k.

It is also a discriminatory tax as gays in most states are not permitted to claim the 50% credit due to state laws forbidding marriage as defined by the IRS.

If the ACA decision had gone the other way, then the tax credit for 401k contributions would have been subject to the decision also. This is just one of many laws & regulations that penalize taxpayers who do not perform some favored action.

The 401k contribution credit is still able to be targeted by use of the Equal Rights laws that on paper forbid the ban on marriage, but that is a different issue entirely.


"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki