"Space—the final frontier." This preamble to a well-known television series captures the challenge encountered not only in space travel adventures, but also in the field of porous materials, which aims to control the size, shape and uniformity of the porous space and the atoms and molecules that define it. The past decade has seen significant advances in the ability to fabricate new porous solids with ordered structures from a wide range of different materials. This has resulted in materials with unusual properties and broadened their application range beyond the traditional use as catalysts and adsorbents. In fact, porous materials now seem set to contribute to developments in areas ranging from microelectronics to medical diagnosis.

Ordered porous materials for emerging applications

In this review, the progress made in the last ten years concerning the synthesis of porous carbon materials is summarized. Porous carbon materials with various pore sizes and pore structures have been synthesized using several different routes. Microporous activated carbons have been synthesized through the activation process. Ordered microporous carbon materials have been synthesized using zeolites as templates. Mesoporous carbons with a disordered pore structure have been synthesized using various methods, including catalytic activation using metal species, carbonization of polymer/polymer blends, carbonization of organic aerogels, and template synthesis using silica nanoparticles. Ordered mesoporous carbons with various pore structures have been synthesized using mesoporous silica materials such as MCM-48, HMS, SBA-15, MCF, and MSU-X as templates. Ordered mesoporous carbons with graphitic pore walls have been synthesized using soft-carbon sources that can be converted to highly ordered graphite at high temperature. Hierarchically ordered mesoporous carbon materials have been synthesized using various designed silica templates. Some of these mesoporous carbon materials have successfully been used as adsorbents for bulky pollutants, as electrodes for supercapacitors and fuel cells, and as hosts for enzyme immobilization. Ordered macroporous carbon materials have been synthesized using colloidal crystals as templates. One-dimensional carbon nanostructured materials have been fabricated using anodic aluminum oxide (AAO) as a template.

Recent Progress in the Synthesis of Porous Carbon Materials

From the Book:
“Clean code that works” is Ron Jeffries’ pithy phrase. The goal is clean code that works, and for a whole bunch of reasons:
Clean code that works is a predictable way to develop. You know when you are finished, without having to worry about a long bug trail.Clean code that works gives you a chance to learn all the lessons that the code has to teach you. If you only ever slap together the first thing you think of, you never have time to think of a second, better, thing. Clean code that works improves the lives of users of our software.Clean code that works lets your teammates count on you, and you on them.Writing clean code that works feels good.But how do you get to clean code that works? Many forces drive you away from clean code, and even code that works. Without taking too much counsel of our fears, here’s what we do—drive development with automated tests, a style of development called “Test-Driven Development” (TDD for short). 
In Test-Driven Development, you:
Write new code only if you first have a failing automated test.Eliminate duplication.

Two simple rules, but they generate complex individual and group behavior. Some of the technical implications are:You must design organically, with running code providing feedback between decisionsYou must write your own tests, since you can’t wait twenty times a day for someone else to write a testYour development environment must provide rapid response to small changesYour designs must consist of many highly cohesive, loosely coupled components, just to make testing easy

The two rules imply an order to the tasks ofprogramming:
1. Red—write a little test that doesn’t work, perhaps doesn’t even compile at first
2. Green—make the test work quickly, committing whatever sins necessary in the process
3. Refactor—eliminate all the duplication created in just getting the test to work


Red/green/refactor. The TDD’s mantra.

Assuming for the moment that such a style is possible, it might be possible to dramatically reduce the defect density of code and make the subject of work crystal clear to all involved. If so, writing only code demanded by failing tests also has social implications:
If the defect density can be reduced enough, QA can shift from reactive to pro-active workIf the number of nasty surprises can be reduced enough, project managers can estimate accurately enough to involve real customers in daily developmentIf the topics of technical conversations can be made clear enough, programmers can work in minute-by-minute collaboration instead of daily or weekly collaborationAgain, if the defect density can be reduced enough, we can have shippable software with new functionality every day, leading to new business relationships with customers


So, the concept is simple, but what’s my motivation? Why would a programmer take on the additional work of writing automated tests? Why would a programmer work in tiny little steps when their mind is capable of great soaring swoops of design? Courage.
Courage
Test-driven development is a way of managing fear during programming. I don’t mean fear in a bad way, pow widdle prwogwammew needs a pacifiew, but fear in the legitimate, this-is-a-hard-problem-and-I-can’t-see-the-end-from-the-beginning sense. If pain is nature’s way of saying “Stop!”, fear is nature’s way of saying “Be careful.” Being careful is good, but fear has a host of other effects:
Makes you tentativeMakes you want to communicate lessMakes you shy from feedbackMakes you grumpy

None of these effects are helpful when programming, especially when programming something hard. So, how can you face a difficult situation and:
Instead of being tentative, begin learning concretely as quickly as possible.Instead of clamming up, communicate more clearly.Instead of avoiding feedback, search out helpful, concrete feedback.(You’ll have to work on grumpiness on your own.) 

Imagine programming as turning a crank to pull a bucket of water from a well. When the bucket is small, a free-spinning crank is fine. When the bucket is big and full of water, you’re going to get tired before the bucket is all the way up. You need a ratchet mechanism to enable you to rest between bouts of cranking. The heavier the bucket, the closer the teeth need to be on the ratchet.

The tests in test-driven development are the teeth of the ratchet. Once you get one test working, you know it is working, now and forever. You are one step closer to having everything working than you were when the test was broken. Now get the next one working, and the next, and the next. By analogy, the tougher the programming problem, the less ground should be covered by each test.

Readers of Extreme Programming Explained will notice a difference in tone between XP and TDD. TDD isn’t an absolute like Extreme Programming. XP says, “Here are things you must be able to do to be prepared to evolve further.” TDD is a little fuzzier. TDD is an awareness of the gap between decision and feedback during programming, and techniques to control that gap. “What if I do a paper design for a week, then test-drive the code? Is that TDD?” Sure, it’s TDD. You were aware of the gap between decision and feedback and you controlled the gap deliberately.

That said, most people who learn TDD find their programming practice changed for good. “Test Infected” is the phrase Erich Gamma coined to describe this shift. You might find yourself writing more tests earlier, and working in smaller steps than you ever dreamed would be sensible. On the other hand, some programmers learn TDD and go back to their earlier practices, reserving TDD for special occasions when ordinary programming isn’t making progress.

There are certainly programming tasks that can’t be driven solely by tests (or at least, not yet). Security software and concurrency, for example, are two topics where TDD is not sufficient to mechanically demonstrate that the goals of the software have been met. Security relies on essentially defect-free code, true, but also on human judgement about the methods used to secure the software. Subtle concurrency problems can’t be reliably duplicated by running the code.

Once you are finished reading this book, you should be ready to:
Start simplyWrite automated testsRefactor to add design decisions one at a time

This book is organized into three sections.
An example of writing typical model code using TDD. The example is one I got from Ward Cunningham years ago, and have used many times since, multi-currency arithmetic. In it you will learn to write tests before code and grow a design organically.An example of testing more complicated logic, including reflection and exceptions, by developing a framework for automated testing. This example also serves to introduce you to the xUnit architecture that is at the heart of many programmer-oriented testing tools. In the second example you will learn to work in even smaller steps than in the first example, including the kind of self-referential hooha beloved of computer scientists.Patterns for TDD. Included are patterns for the deciding what tests to write, how to write tests using xUnit, and a greatest hits selection of the design patterns and refactorings used in the examples.

I wrote the examples imagining a pair programming session. If you like looking at the map before wandering around, you may want to go straight to the patterns in Section 3 and use the examples as illustrations. If you prefer just wandering around and then looking at the map to see where you’ve been, try reading the examples through and refering to the patterns when you want more detail about a technique, then using the patterns as a reference.

Several reviewers have commented they got the most out of the examples when they started up a programming environment and entered the code and ran the tests as they read.

A note about the examples. Both examples, multi-currency calculation and a testing framework, appear simple. There are (and I have seen) complicated, ugly, messy ways of solving the same problems. I could have chosen one of those complicated, ugly, messy solutions to give the book an air of “reality.” However, my goal, and I hope your goal, is to write clean code that works. Before teeing off on the examples as being too simple, spend 15 seconds imagining a programming world in which all code was this clear and direct, where there were no complicated solutions, only apparently complicated problems begging for careful thought. TDD is a practice that can help you lead yourself to exactly that careful thought.

Test Driven Development: By Example

Porous carbon materials are of interest in many applications because of their high surface area and physicochemical properties. Conventional syntheses can only produce randomly porous materials, with little control over the pore-size distributions, let alone mesostructures. Recent breakthroughs in the preparation of other porous materials have resulted in the development of methods for the preparation of mesoporous carbon materials with extremely high surface areas and ordered mesostructures, with potential applications as catalysts, separation media, and advanced electronic materials in many scientific disciplines. Current syntheses can be categorized as either hard-template or soft-template methods. Both are examined in this Review along with procedures for surface functionalization of the carbon materials obtained.

Mesoporous Carbon Materials: Synthesis and Modification

Mixed matrix membranes (mmms) comprising organic polymers with dispersed inorganic fillers for gas separation

http://www.rsc.org/suppdata/CC/b5/b501259g/b501259g.pdf

Synthesis of ordered mesoporous carbons with channel structure from an organic–organic nanocomposite

Crystals of SAPO-34 molecular sieves were synthesized under hydrothermal conditions by using tetraethylammonium hydroxide (TEAOH), morpholine (Mor), N,N,N’,N’-tetraethylethane-1,2-diamine (TEEDA), or a mixture of TEAOH and Mor as structure-directing agents (SDA). The crystal growth of SAPO-34 was studied by X-ray diffraction and by scanning electron microscopy and field-emission scanning electron microscopy. The crystal size of SAPO-34 could be controlled between 1.5 and 7 μm by hydrothermal synthesis using a mixture of TEAOH and Mor as the SDA. Small SAPO-34 crystals (800 nm in size) were formed when TEAOH was used as the SDA. The smaller SAPO-34 crystals showed a longer catalyst lifetime in the methanol-to-olefins reactions. The amount of coke deposited on deactivated SAPO-34 catalyst increased with decreasing crystal size, indicating that the effectiveness of the catalyst could be improved by reducing the crystal size of SAPO-34.

Korekazu Ueyama

Papers

Synthesis of ordered mesoporous carbons with channel structure from an organic–organic nanocomposite

Size control of SAPO-34 crystals and their catalyst lifetime in the methanol-to-olefin reaction

Selective formation of para-xylene over H-ZSM-5 coated with polycrystalline silicalite crystals

Synthesis of defect-free zeolite-alumina composite membranes by a vapor-phase transport method

Single Crystals of ZSM‐5/Silicalite Composites