Have Modern Scientists Made any Advancements in Alchemy?

Please consider changing the spelling of "Sceintests" in the header to "Scientists." Thanks!

So make with the cheap catalytic converters already!

Glad I didn't invest in platinum.

Will this work for fuel cell tech as well or is the mimiced chemistry only good for the function of the catalytic converter?

Why is it that popsci articles are so rushed and riddled with mispelled words and bad grammar? Who writes these, and why can't I have their jobs.

Unemployment is great, it gives me a chance to complain about the incompetence of others who get paid for such perfunctory performances while my brilliance and hard work goes unacknowledged.

Funny quip about not passing for engagement rings... Except that the jewelry stores are loaded with tungsten carbide wedding bands these days.

Define Irony: Someone who rails about an article rife with grammatical errors and then neglects to end a question with a question mark in said complaint while incorrectly spelling 'misspell'.

huh, they must of changed it already!

Wow! These comments are sounding real bitchy.

I'll come back tomorrow.

Logged in for the first time to say my wedding band is tungsten carbide. Doesn't scratch, dull, or wear. It is perfect for a man who understands the symbolism, and does not need rare materials to increase the value of this symbol. It is very functional, and affordable, and attractive. I recommend this to any one, as many men admire it. So in conclusion, instead of making stupid jokes, why don't you actually give us details about this process. You might offend less people, and even interest someone (possibly).

We know how to make gold just not from lead you need mercury instead.

wikipedia /wiki/Synthesis_of_precious_metals

It takes a little work to do but its not that bad.

Ruthenium, Rhodium and Palladium are normal byproducts in spent nuclear fuel, they can be extracted if you recycle the fuel instead of throwing it away.

In fact nuclear fission reactors are just big alchemy engines, turning uranium into all sorts of other elements. Not only the referenced fission products, but most importantly fissile plutonium 239 from nonfissile U238. Silly me, for a second I thought this article would be about nuclear (alchemic) transformations, not some chemical ionization process using lasers.

Silly us to think we might learn some science on pop science. I'm begining to think this site is to science, as like what emo is to punk....

Never listen to anyone who uses wikipedia as a source...

Bricktop: Nicely spelled run on sentence HAHAHA!!
Seriously, although Mr. Paradise didn't do a great job of proofreading his post, I agree with him that when it's your job to write well, you should actually do it. I just looked at another article, where it was claimed that an underwater bot would walk at 98 feet per second... Many READERS caught on that, 98 ft/sec is almost 67 miles per hour. Sadly the staff at PopSci felt that such fact checking was needless.
One look and a small amount of critical thinking would have been enough to avoid an embarrassing exaggeration.

Hmmm perhaps the new millenium requires a new science mag.