This could be incredible useful for automobiles. In order to increase efficiency you need to drop weight (as in, stop having SUV-like weight). The problem is that that weight creates a certain amount of crash safety (for the SUV driver to some extent - not so much thought, and not at all for anyone driving a smaller car). Given that, being able to use a light-weight energy absorption system like this could solve that problem and allow cars to have weights below 1000 lbs yet still have excellent crash safety.

Remember this is in Norway. As in, a country close to the north magnetic pole of the Earth. What geometric pattern do ions follow in a magnetic field gradient like at the poles? A spiral or helix. Voila! But why two? Two different chemical species in the exhaust with two distinct masses and two distinct ionization recombination emission colors.

LOL. Classic example of "fractal wrongness".

I work in semiconductor device physics and device reliability for a living. I've been involved in the design analog circuits and ICs professionally for 30+ years.

1. Silicon devices can not operate at high temperatures and still work for long. 200C is the standard temperature we use to accelerate silicon devices to rapid failure for the purposes of determining room temperature failure times. Typical failure in such testing occurs within seconds to hours at 200C depending on the electrical bias used.
2. No LED is made from silicon. All LEDs are and always have been III-V compound semiconductor devices. wLEDs are all of the minimal geometry heterojunction variety - they are really LEDs that produce blue, indigo, violet or UV light which stimulates a phosphor either on the LED device itself or in the plastic encapsulate to produce white light through simple fluorescence (exactly the same as a CFL or ballast-fired fluorescent bubble but lower power).
3. III-V semiconductor devices are far more sensitive to heat than silicon devices. This is due to the higher mobilities combined with the tendency toward positive temperature coefficients in many. These make them more sensitive because current increases with temperature and can even have a positive feedback loop that makes them inherently unstable thermally (worst case they burn out and burn out far too quickly). It's not unusual for a laser diode (a III-V device) to have 3 terminals: one "ground", one for power bias, and one for temperature monitoring output to attempt to control the thermal runaway that tends to occur for the above reasons.
4. Temperature, voltage and current accelerate failure mechanisms in all semiconductors. In the case of III-V, the temperature sensitivity issue radically enhances the life time degradation (III-V fails quicker at the same temperature and geometry than silicon in most cases). This is due to the above thermal reasons but also because heterojunctions are far smaller and more sensitive to damage than the homojunctions used in silicon. The smaller you make anything, the shorter the life time it will have - defects have more impact when you reduce the number of atoms in the device - a very concerning feature of nanoelectronics.
5. I would never recommend any commercially sold product use just resistor biasing, for example, in a wLED product for the above failure risk. There's a story floating around about SCEdison fielding wLED street lights and having 60% failure in 6 months. I wouldn't be surprised if it were true - I'd bet resistor bias was used in said wLED modules. You are opening your company up for massive lawsuits if not failure. This is why companies like National Semi, Linear Technologies, Texas Instruments and Analog Devices all have "Switching Power Supply LED Bias ICs" - it's the only way to reliably operate any LED circuit under high power for long life. The only way.
6. The diagram of junction voltage vs. junction temperatures only show what the junction voltage is to achieve a given current or light output with temperature. It says absolutely nothing about whether you should ever operate at those junction temperatures. The short answer is you never should do so. Considering ambient temperature effects on heat dissipation combined with life time degradation due to temperature acceleration, prudent engineering design would keep the junction temperature well below 40C-50C for maximum life time. Since very little empirical data exists for wLED device reliability, a conservative design would be best. Anything else and you are lying (deluding yourself) about your products longevity with your customers. That tends to be actionable in court eventually. It should also be pointed out that claimed junction temperature typically can not be measured directly - it's usually inferred from electrical and/or optical data assuming some parametric model. The lack of predictive models is precisely why the DOE is letting a contract to finally determine what the models should be from actual devices (finally).

Actually you bring up a good point. In general, the artists are no longer the copyright holders any more and RIAA typically owns the non-performance rights. This seems like an interference or restraint of trade in a lot of ways that RIAA might decide to pursue based on their natural predilections.

This is really about the batshit crazy/unreal structure of music copyright which separates artificially the source code, the executable and the execution as three separate chargeable entities. ASCAP "owns" the execution portion. RIAA generally "owns" the source and executable portions. This could blow the current static legal arrangements out of the water because you can't clearly separate all three as well on the intertubes which is why you have the issues with file sharing. It's a stupid system.

ASCAP is the entity that threatens Brownies, Blue Birds and Girl Scouts for singing songs to little grandmothers in nursing homes.

ASCAP also often demands performance fees from clubs or venues that play music that ASCAP doesn't even have a right to claim such as indie artists who write and perform their own original works and who still hold all copyrights themselves. I'm really hoping someday they cross the wrong indie artist who throws DMCA back at ASCAP for false claimed rights. Karma's a bitch and they have bad karma on back-order.

ASCAP is as evil, unprincipled and immoral as the RIAA any day of the week. It wouldn't bother me to see them self-destruct themselves in a war with RIAA or a suicide attack on Apple. You don't go up against the dominant distributor of your own product without expecting to come away without a severe limp afterward. Didn't they learn that with the early RIAA experience in the late 1940s? Or do they imagine Apple is somehow weak right now? Mental midgets down at ASCAP.

Will they be utterly predictable or will they actually care about a real solution? I have my bets down on this already based on past DHS performance and what is typical for bureaucracies.

One answer is it get off the grid. You enable them by wanting what they offer, the value of which all an illusion in any case.

Rather it's that thousands of unmanned drones will be flying around manned planes with passengers and will do so unintelligently, with enough agility and speed, and with such a minimal observable profile such that no manned passenger plane human pilot could ever hope to evade a collision even if they actually detected the collision risk

The probability of collision will only be made more inevitable by the shear numbers resulting from radically lower cost of unmanned drones.

See comp.risks

The net result is that, sure, you live through the radiation exposure for the moment, but you've accumulated DNA damage that may or may not ever get repaired. So you set yourself up for a very nasty cancer risk later on.