High-Temperature Transport Properties of Yb4−xSmxSb3

Polycrystalline L4Sb3 (L = La, Ce, Sm, and Yb) and Yb4−x Sm x Sb3, which crystallizes in the anti-Th3P4 structure type (I-43d no. 220), were synthesized via high-temperature reaction. Structural and chemical characterization were performed by x-ray diffraction and electronic microscopy with energy-dispersive x-ray analysis. Pucks were densified by spark plasma sintering. Transport property measurements showed that these compounds are n-type with low Seebeck coefficients, except for Yb4Sb3, which shows semimetallic behavior with hole conduction above 523 K. By partially substituting Yb by a trivalent rare earth we successfully improved the thermoelectric figure of merit of Yb4Sb3 up to 0.7 at 1273 K

Participacija in vsebina nizozemskih strankarskih razpravljalskih skupin na Internetu

Članek obravnava dve politični razpravljalski skupini, povezani z nizozemskimastrankama D66 in GroenLinks, in njun prispevek k demokraciji. Razpravljanje naj bi bilo v demokraciji posvetovalno: temeljilo naj bi na racionalni argumentaciji, naj bi ne bilo podvrženo monopolu posameznikov, povezano naj bi bilo z javnimi zadevami. Članek proučuje posvetovalnost političnega razpravljanja na internetu, tako da meri prispevek posameznega udeleženca. Rezultati kažejo, da sta imeli obe listi le majhen delež zelo pogostih udeležencev. Prispevki razpravljavcev so bili usmerjeni k drugim razpravljavcem v skupini. Mnenja so bila običajno izražena brez argumentov, čepa so bili argumenti že izraženi, so bili zdravorazumski ali pa so izhajali iz časopisov ali teleteksta. Razpravljalna foruma nista upravičila pričakovanjglede pospeševanja demokracije. Lahko pa zapolnjujeta prostor med institucionaliziranim javnim razpravljanjem, ki poteka v strankarskih elitah, in neinstitucionaliziranim, neformalnim javnim razpravljanjem, ki izvira iz drugih javnih in zasebnih sfer.This study examines two political discussion lists affiliated with the Dutch political parties D66 and GroenLinks, and the possible contribution of these lists to democracy. Discussion in a democracy, it is argued, should be deliberative: based on rational argumentation, not monopolised by any particular individuals, and related to public affairs. The aim of this study is to assess the deliberativeness of political discussion lists on the Internet. To this end, the degree of contribution from participants to the lists is measured. The findings from this study suggest that, whereas the discussions on the lists as a whole were not monopolised by any individual, both lists had only a small number of very frequent participants. The contributions of members of this in-group were oriented towards one another. Opinions were mainly expressed without argumentation, and when argumentation was given it was predominantly based on common sense or on external sources such as newspapers or teletext. These two discussion lists do not live up to the expectations of furthering democracy. They may, however, eventually serve to fill the gap between the institutionalised public discussion that exists within the party elite and the uninstitutionalised, informal public discussion that transpires in other public and private domains