<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_05_29_130259</id>
	<title>Acoustic "Superlens" Could Make Subs Invisible</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1243602240000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/" rel="nofollow">Al</a> writes <i>"Nicholas Fang and colleagues at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign have <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/22710/">created the first acoustic superlens</a>, which could be used to create high-resolution ultrasound images, and perhaps ultimately make subs and ships invisible to sonar. Researchers have previously developed materials that bend light in ways that appear to violate the laws of physics, creating so-called optical superlenses. The acoustic superlens consists of an aluminum array of narrow-necked resonant cavities filed with water &mdash; the dimensions of the cavities are tuned to interact with ultrasound waves. When ultrasound waves move through the array, the cavities resonate and the sound is refocused."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Al writes " Nicholas Fang and colleagues at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign have created the first acoustic superlens , which could be used to create high-resolution ultrasound images , and perhaps ultimately make subs and ships invisible to sonar .
Researchers have previously developed materials that bend light in ways that appear to violate the laws of physics , creating so-called optical superlenses .
The acoustic superlens consists of an aluminum array of narrow-necked resonant cavities filed with water    the dimensions of the cavities are tuned to interact with ultrasound waves .
When ultrasound waves move through the array , the cavities resonate and the sound is refocused .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Al writes "Nicholas Fang and colleagues at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign have created the first acoustic superlens, which could be used to create high-resolution ultrasound images, and perhaps ultimately make subs and ships invisible to sonar.
Researchers have previously developed materials that bend light in ways that appear to violate the laws of physics, creating so-called optical superlenses.
The acoustic superlens consists of an aluminum array of narrow-necked resonant cavities filed with water — the dimensions of the cavities are tuned to interact with ultrasound waves.
When ultrasound waves move through the array, the cavities resonate and the sound is refocused.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138245</id>
	<title>Re:Invisicrash</title>
	<author>metacell</author>
	<datestamp>1243609140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Ground-breaking"? You crack me up<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Ground-breaking " ?
You crack me up ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Ground-breaking"?
You crack me up ;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138753</id>
	<title>Re:Invisibility works both ways.</title>
	<author>thelamecamel</author>
	<datestamp>1243611480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could intentionally let a little bit of light/sound in and out at your favourite frequency.  Or you could choose not to be entirely invisible, designing the cloaking device to warp your submarine into, say, the shape of a shark.  All the sound that would have hit the shark will be spread across your submarine's surface (or if you design the cloak REALLY cleverly it could be focussed on your receiver).  So with this kind of cloak, the enemy COULD see your submarine and receiver, but it would just be disguised like a shark.  Since they can see you, you can see them.  And you know your cloak's design, so you can use clever computer stuff to unwarp the pictures you get of the outside world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could intentionally let a little bit of light/sound in and out at your favourite frequency .
Or you could choose not to be entirely invisible , designing the cloaking device to warp your submarine into , say , the shape of a shark .
All the sound that would have hit the shark will be spread across your submarine 's surface ( or if you design the cloak REALLY cleverly it could be focussed on your receiver ) .
So with this kind of cloak , the enemy COULD see your submarine and receiver , but it would just be disguised like a shark .
Since they can see you , you can see them .
And you know your cloak 's design , so you can use clever computer stuff to unwarp the pictures you get of the outside world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could intentionally let a little bit of light/sound in and out at your favourite frequency.
Or you could choose not to be entirely invisible, designing the cloaking device to warp your submarine into, say, the shape of a shark.
All the sound that would have hit the shark will be spread across your submarine's surface (or if you design the cloak REALLY cleverly it could be focussed on your receiver).
So with this kind of cloak, the enemy COULD see your submarine and receiver, but it would just be disguised like a shark.
Since they can see you, you can see them.
And you know your cloak's design, so you can use clever computer stuff to unwarp the pictures you get of the outside world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28141249</id>
	<title>Re:noise cancelation?</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1243623960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For one thing, noise canceling headphones have it easy because they're right before the ear, there's little difference in phase/delay between it it hears and what the ear hears. Besides, they only reduce things by something like 25 dB, and that's by taking into account the passive stuff, not just the cancelling.</p><p>Further more it's complicated in something like a submarine because you're trying to cancel from the source, but there's not just one tiny source, the whole thing is making noise, and it's not like you can put a big ass loudspeaker right in the middle of an engine anyways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For one thing , noise canceling headphones have it easy because they 're right before the ear , there 's little difference in phase/delay between it it hears and what the ear hears .
Besides , they only reduce things by something like 25 dB , and that 's by taking into account the passive stuff , not just the cancelling.Further more it 's complicated in something like a submarine because you 're trying to cancel from the source , but there 's not just one tiny source , the whole thing is making noise , and it 's not like you can put a big ass loudspeaker right in the middle of an engine anyways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For one thing, noise canceling headphones have it easy because they're right before the ear, there's little difference in phase/delay between it it hears and what the ear hears.
Besides, they only reduce things by something like 25 dB, and that's by taking into account the passive stuff, not just the cancelling.Further more it's complicated in something like a submarine because you're trying to cancel from the source, but there's not just one tiny source, the whole thing is making noise, and it's not like you can put a big ass loudspeaker right in the middle of an engine anyways.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138713</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138665</id>
	<title>Re:Ideas....</title>
	<author>thelamecamel</author>
	<datestamp>1243611060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep, this particular design will work over a very narrow range of frequencies, because it uses resonant cavities, which are inherently narrowband.  If they could build a design without the need for resonant effects, then in principle the acoustic cloak could work over a very large range of frequencies.</p><p>The idea behind the acoustic cloak is essentially the same as the optical cloaks that have already been demonstrated: 'squash' space around the object to open up a hole in the universe, as seen by light/sound sees.  This uses the fact that light/sound travels faster in some materials than others - essentially a block of glass is a bit like a TARDIS, squashing space, in the sense that a ray of light circling the object from inside can 'travel further' (i.e. accumulate more phase) than a ray of light circling the object from the outside.  The refractive index can be thought of as related to General Relativity's metric, i.e. a measure of how space has been 'squashed'.</p><p>So if you're clever you can warp space to create a no-go region for light, essentially choosing a point in space and opening it up to a circle.  All parts of that circle have to be the same distance from each other, so light/sound has to be able to travel around that part of the circle instantly, i.e. for light the refractive index at the circle has got to be zero.</p><p>Getting a zero refractive index (or acoustic impedance - i'm not an acoustics person so i might have this wrong) is hard, and at the moment we can only do that using resonant materials (in optics, they're micro-ring resonators or fishnet structures - metamaterials).  However, if you don't want to make the sub invisible, if you're happy to be able to just shrink it (or even distort it into the shape of a shark), then you don't need an impedance of zero, you just need a material in which sound travels faster than in water, the surrounding medium.  The faster light travels in it, the smaller you can make your cloak.</p><p>Obviously this is an easier problem for sound than for light, since we usually want to cloak things surrounded by air, and there ain't too many natural media in which light travels faster than c.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , this particular design will work over a very narrow range of frequencies , because it uses resonant cavities , which are inherently narrowband .
If they could build a design without the need for resonant effects , then in principle the acoustic cloak could work over a very large range of frequencies.The idea behind the acoustic cloak is essentially the same as the optical cloaks that have already been demonstrated : 'squash ' space around the object to open up a hole in the universe , as seen by light/sound sees .
This uses the fact that light/sound travels faster in some materials than others - essentially a block of glass is a bit like a TARDIS , squashing space , in the sense that a ray of light circling the object from inside can 'travel further ' ( i.e .
accumulate more phase ) than a ray of light circling the object from the outside .
The refractive index can be thought of as related to General Relativity 's metric , i.e .
a measure of how space has been 'squashed'.So if you 're clever you can warp space to create a no-go region for light , essentially choosing a point in space and opening it up to a circle .
All parts of that circle have to be the same distance from each other , so light/sound has to be able to travel around that part of the circle instantly , i.e .
for light the refractive index at the circle has got to be zero.Getting a zero refractive index ( or acoustic impedance - i 'm not an acoustics person so i might have this wrong ) is hard , and at the moment we can only do that using resonant materials ( in optics , they 're micro-ring resonators or fishnet structures - metamaterials ) .
However , if you do n't want to make the sub invisible , if you 're happy to be able to just shrink it ( or even distort it into the shape of a shark ) , then you do n't need an impedance of zero , you just need a material in which sound travels faster than in water , the surrounding medium .
The faster light travels in it , the smaller you can make your cloak.Obviously this is an easier problem for sound than for light , since we usually want to cloak things surrounded by air , and there ai n't too many natural media in which light travels faster than c .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, this particular design will work over a very narrow range of frequencies, because it uses resonant cavities, which are inherently narrowband.
If they could build a design without the need for resonant effects, then in principle the acoustic cloak could work over a very large range of frequencies.The idea behind the acoustic cloak is essentially the same as the optical cloaks that have already been demonstrated: 'squash' space around the object to open up a hole in the universe, as seen by light/sound sees.
This uses the fact that light/sound travels faster in some materials than others - essentially a block of glass is a bit like a TARDIS, squashing space, in the sense that a ray of light circling the object from inside can 'travel further' (i.e.
accumulate more phase) than a ray of light circling the object from the outside.
The refractive index can be thought of as related to General Relativity's metric, i.e.
a measure of how space has been 'squashed'.So if you're clever you can warp space to create a no-go region for light, essentially choosing a point in space and opening it up to a circle.
All parts of that circle have to be the same distance from each other, so light/sound has to be able to travel around that part of the circle instantly, i.e.
for light the refractive index at the circle has got to be zero.Getting a zero refractive index (or acoustic impedance - i'm not an acoustics person so i might have this wrong) is hard, and at the moment we can only do that using resonant materials (in optics, they're micro-ring resonators or fishnet structures - metamaterials).
However, if you don't want to make the sub invisible, if you're happy to be able to just shrink it (or even distort it into the shape of a shark), then you don't need an impedance of zero, you just need a material in which sound travels faster than in water, the surrounding medium.
The faster light travels in it, the smaller you can make your cloak.Obviously this is an easier problem for sound than for light, since we usually want to cloak things surrounded by air, and there ain't too many natural media in which light travels faster than c.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139331</id>
	<title>Re:Violate the laws of physics?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243614480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;New observations may modify your existing understanding of how things work.</p><p>That was probably implied by the statement. That's why they used "appear to", don't you think? There's no need to be so pompous, everyone here understands what the statement means.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; New observations may modify your existing understanding of how things work.That was probably implied by the statement .
That 's why they used " appear to " , do n't you think ?
There 's no need to be so pompous , everyone here understands what the statement means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;New observations may modify your existing understanding of how things work.That was probably implied by the statement.
That's why they used "appear to", don't you think?
There's no need to be so pompous, everyone here understands what the statement means.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137643</id>
	<title>Invisicrash</title>
	<author>MadLad</author>
	<datestamp>1243606380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks to this ground-breaking scientific research, submarines will be even better equipped to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS\_Vanguard\_and\_Triomphant\_submarine\_collision" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">collide with each other</a> [wikipedia.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks to this ground-breaking scientific research , submarines will be even better equipped to collide with each other [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks to this ground-breaking scientific research, submarines will be even better equipped to collide with each other [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137739</id>
	<title>Redeeculous</title>
	<author>Ancient\_Hacker</author>
	<datestamp>1243606920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The claim of "invisibility" sounds like exactly what one would write in a grant proposal to the Naval Research Lab.</p><p>Never mind it's very very unlikely.</p><p>Any practical cloaking device is almost certainly going to work in only one linear direction and at one temperature and frequency.<br>
&nbsp; And imperfectly at best.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; And probably be larger than what it's trying to cloak.</p><p>But sonar pulses are spread in frequency and can arrive from any direction, making such a cloaking device useless.</p><p>This just sounds like the perfect phrase to put in a grant proposal to get some Admiral to sign off on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The claim of " invisibility " sounds like exactly what one would write in a grant proposal to the Naval Research Lab.Never mind it 's very very unlikely.Any practical cloaking device is almost certainly going to work in only one linear direction and at one temperature and frequency .
  And imperfectly at best .
        And probably be larger than what it 's trying to cloak.But sonar pulses are spread in frequency and can arrive from any direction , making such a cloaking device useless.This just sounds like the perfect phrase to put in a grant proposal to get some Admiral to sign off on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The claim of "invisibility" sounds like exactly what one would write in a grant proposal to the Naval Research Lab.Never mind it's very very unlikely.Any practical cloaking device is almost certainly going to work in only one linear direction and at one temperature and frequency.
  And imperfectly at best.
        And probably be larger than what it's trying to cloak.But sonar pulses are spread in frequency and can arrive from any direction, making such a cloaking device useless.This just sounds like the perfect phrase to put in a grant proposal to get some Admiral to sign off on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137657</id>
	<title>Re:invisible != inaudible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243606500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. They may still be audible, but ultrasound will appear to go through them as if they were water.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
They may still be audible , but ultrasound will appear to go through them as if they were water .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
They may still be audible, but ultrasound will appear to go through them as if they were water.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137633</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139321</id>
	<title>Re:Ideas....</title>
	<author>tnk1</author>
	<datestamp>1243614420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well most submarines these days use passive sonar, which means listening for sound, rather than pinging things with active sonar.  If you ping something, you'll easily get a target solution on it, but you'll also be painting a big fat target on yourself.  If you are lucky, the contact didn't know you were there and you take them by surprise and take them out.  If you are unlucky, they either suspected you were around or they are fast enough that they could send a torp of their own right at you as soon as you turned on the glowing neon I'M OVER HERE sign on your boat.</p><p>Happily, passive sonar, especially on US boats, is more than enough to get a full solution and identification on the targets.  A boat skipper who actually uses his active sonar in a fight is likely a very desperate one (or a very dumb one).</p><p>What that means is that having a variable pitch sonar really doesn't help much if the sound that is being listened for is that is being masked.  You can listen any way you like, but if the majority of the sounds that identify the contact as a sub, let alone an enemy sub, are being masked out, you're screwed.</p><p>On the other hand, if this is only useful against active sonar, it is true that surface ships are so noisy that they usually just turn on their active sonar and leave it on.  Being able to hide from a surface ship's active sonar would definitely be useful, and so a variable active sonar might be useful for them and their ASW helos with their dipping sonar and sonobouys.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well most submarines these days use passive sonar , which means listening for sound , rather than pinging things with active sonar .
If you ping something , you 'll easily get a target solution on it , but you 'll also be painting a big fat target on yourself .
If you are lucky , the contact did n't know you were there and you take them by surprise and take them out .
If you are unlucky , they either suspected you were around or they are fast enough that they could send a torp of their own right at you as soon as you turned on the glowing neon I 'M OVER HERE sign on your boat.Happily , passive sonar , especially on US boats , is more than enough to get a full solution and identification on the targets .
A boat skipper who actually uses his active sonar in a fight is likely a very desperate one ( or a very dumb one ) .What that means is that having a variable pitch sonar really does n't help much if the sound that is being listened for is that is being masked .
You can listen any way you like , but if the majority of the sounds that identify the contact as a sub , let alone an enemy sub , are being masked out , you 're screwed.On the other hand , if this is only useful against active sonar , it is true that surface ships are so noisy that they usually just turn on their active sonar and leave it on .
Being able to hide from a surface ship 's active sonar would definitely be useful , and so a variable active sonar might be useful for them and their ASW helos with their dipping sonar and sonobouys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well most submarines these days use passive sonar, which means listening for sound, rather than pinging things with active sonar.
If you ping something, you'll easily get a target solution on it, but you'll also be painting a big fat target on yourself.
If you are lucky, the contact didn't know you were there and you take them by surprise and take them out.
If you are unlucky, they either suspected you were around or they are fast enough that they could send a torp of their own right at you as soon as you turned on the glowing neon I'M OVER HERE sign on your boat.Happily, passive sonar, especially on US boats, is more than enough to get a full solution and identification on the targets.
A boat skipper who actually uses his active sonar in a fight is likely a very desperate one (or a very dumb one).What that means is that having a variable pitch sonar really doesn't help much if the sound that is being listened for is that is being masked.
You can listen any way you like, but if the majority of the sounds that identify the contact as a sub, let alone an enemy sub, are being masked out, you're screwed.On the other hand, if this is only useful against active sonar, it is true that surface ships are so noisy that they usually just turn on their active sonar and leave it on.
Being able to hide from a surface ship's active sonar would definitely be useful, and so a variable active sonar might be useful for them and their ASW helos with their dipping sonar and sonobouys.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28140555</id>
	<title>Re:HoHum</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243620780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What, I hardly saw this one!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What , I hardly saw this one !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What, I hardly saw this one!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138061</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137633</id>
	<title>invisible != inaudible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243606380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Title should be "Acoustic superlens could make subs inaudible".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Title should be " Acoustic superlens could make subs inaudible " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Title should be "Acoustic superlens could make subs inaudible".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138333</id>
	<title>Kidney stones</title>
	<author>dvoecks</author>
	<datestamp>1243609560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>My first thought (aside from "invisible" submarines) is what this could do for kidney stones... Somebody with more knowledge on the subject may want to check my reasoning (the best part of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.), but I would think that better-focused ultrasound could really cut down on "collateral damage" from breaking up kidney stones, possibly allowing the technique to be used more effectively on a wider variety of cases.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My first thought ( aside from " invisible " submarines ) is what this could do for kidney stones... Somebody with more knowledge on the subject may want to check my reasoning ( the best part of / .
) , but I would think that better-focused ultrasound could really cut down on " collateral damage " from breaking up kidney stones , possibly allowing the technique to be used more effectively on a wider variety of cases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My first thought (aside from "invisible" submarines) is what this could do for kidney stones... Somebody with more knowledge on the subject may want to check my reasoning (the best part of /.
), but I would think that better-focused ultrasound could really cut down on "collateral damage" from breaking up kidney stones, possibly allowing the technique to be used more effectively on a wider variety of cases.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28150185</id>
	<title>Evil schemes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243705380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Batman is not gonna like it, that's for sure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Batman is not gon na like it , that 's for sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Batman is not gonna like it, that's for sure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139739</id>
	<title>Not really needed</title>
	<author>whitroth</author>
	<datestamp>1243616580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have it on good authority - I know someone who, in the early eighties, was in the "Hunt for Red October" command (COMOCEANSYSLANT) - who tells me that all a sub needs to do is drop below a cold current in the ocean, and they're invisible.</p><p>What's more important is silence on the sub - she also told me about them finding a Soviet sub because of a noisy coffeepot (for real).</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; mark</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have it on good authority - I know someone who , in the early eighties , was in the " Hunt for Red October " command ( COMOCEANSYSLANT ) - who tells me that all a sub needs to do is drop below a cold current in the ocean , and they 're invisible.What 's more important is silence on the sub - she also told me about them finding a Soviet sub because of a noisy coffeepot ( for real ) .
                      mark</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have it on good authority - I know someone who, in the early eighties, was in the "Hunt for Red October" command (COMOCEANSYSLANT) - who tells me that all a sub needs to do is drop below a cold current in the ocean, and they're invisible.What's more important is silence on the sub - she also told me about them finding a Soviet sub because of a noisy coffeepot (for real).
                      mark</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28143203</id>
	<title>Submarine Picard Maneuver?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243588740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine letting em see you, then quickly tuning the lens, moving in closer, then firing a torpedo just as they see the whites of your eyes? Classic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine letting em see you , then quickly tuning the lens , moving in closer , then firing a torpedo just as they see the whites of your eyes ?
Classic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine letting em see you, then quickly tuning the lens, moving in closer, then firing a torpedo just as they see the whites of your eyes?
Classic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139493</id>
	<title>Re:invisible != inaudible</title>
	<author>ae1294</author>
	<datestamp>1243615260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Article translation....</p><p>1974 VW van muffler converted for military use for only 700 trillion dollars.<br>(Military leaders say in between snorting lines of coke that "they really really needed this to stop the red menace uhhh I mean terrorists...")</p><p>News at 11.... am...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Article translation....1974 VW van muffler converted for military use for only 700 trillion dollars .
( Military leaders say in between snorting lines of coke that " they really really needed this to stop the red menace uhhh I mean terrorists... " ) News at 11.... am.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Article translation....1974 VW van muffler converted for military use for only 700 trillion dollars.
(Military leaders say in between snorting lines of coke that "they really really needed this to stop the red menace uhhh I mean terrorists...")News at 11.... am...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137633</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139019</id>
	<title>Re:Violate the laws of physics?</title>
	<author>MozeeToby</author>
	<datestamp>1243612860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The key word here is 'appear'.  Meta-materials (which is what this is, just on a large scale) appear to violate the laws of physics but if you look more closely they don't.  The point is that if you showed it to a college undergrad with decent physics knowledge they would say it violates the laws of physics, that doesn't mean the college kid is right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The key word here is 'appear' .
Meta-materials ( which is what this is , just on a large scale ) appear to violate the laws of physics but if you look more closely they do n't .
The point is that if you showed it to a college undergrad with decent physics knowledge they would say it violates the laws of physics , that does n't mean the college kid is right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The key word here is 'appear'.
Meta-materials (which is what this is, just on a large scale) appear to violate the laws of physics but if you look more closely they don't.
The point is that if you showed it to a college undergrad with decent physics knowledge they would say it violates the laws of physics, that doesn't mean the college kid is right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138061</id>
	<title>HoHum</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243608420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Another day, anther Slashdot cloaking device story.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another day , anther Slashdot cloaking device story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another day, anther Slashdot cloaking device story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138687</id>
	<title>Re:Ideas....</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1243611120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The same techniques that are used in radar will be used in sonar;</p><p>- Frequency agility will become the norm.</p><p>- The cavities will be tuned at first mechanically.  It wasn't so long ago that radar was tuned with physical cavities.  I haven't kept up on very high powered sets, but I suspect they do it all electronically now.  Magnetrons are pretty much declass&#233;.</p><p>- I would be surprised that pulse shaping and various AGC techniques are not already in use.</p><p>- Backscatter sonar will be developed. This is just an exercise in computing power, and we got that nailed.</p><p>- More useful than stealth or masking would be using superlenses for decoys.  Nothing makes your sub commander's day like having 6 or 7 targets and KNOWING that only 1 or 2 are genuine.  Torps are largely ineffective against decoys, and expose your position.  In a robust countermeasures environment, whoever shoots first usually loses.  They are dead from the bogey they didn't see, or prioritized wrong, shooting the decoy first.  Whatever they shot at may or may not be real.</p><p>I wonder if we have many lone attack subs out there.  Teamwork solves a lot of problems.  Using another sub's pings is the simplest of tactics.  Backscattering off of your teammate is somewhat more interesting.  Using an array to listen to your teammate's pings and map the hole is even more fun.</p><p>Crap, I miss countermeasures.  Wonder if the Air force is still hiring...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The same techniques that are used in radar will be used in sonar ; - Frequency agility will become the norm.- The cavities will be tuned at first mechanically .
It was n't so long ago that radar was tuned with physical cavities .
I have n't kept up on very high powered sets , but I suspect they do it all electronically now .
Magnetrons are pretty much declass   .- I would be surprised that pulse shaping and various AGC techniques are not already in use.- Backscatter sonar will be developed .
This is just an exercise in computing power , and we got that nailed.- More useful than stealth or masking would be using superlenses for decoys .
Nothing makes your sub commander 's day like having 6 or 7 targets and KNOWING that only 1 or 2 are genuine .
Torps are largely ineffective against decoys , and expose your position .
In a robust countermeasures environment , whoever shoots first usually loses .
They are dead from the bogey they did n't see , or prioritized wrong , shooting the decoy first .
Whatever they shot at may or may not be real.I wonder if we have many lone attack subs out there .
Teamwork solves a lot of problems .
Using another sub 's pings is the simplest of tactics .
Backscattering off of your teammate is somewhat more interesting .
Using an array to listen to your teammate 's pings and map the hole is even more fun.Crap , I miss countermeasures .
Wonder if the Air force is still hiring.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same techniques that are used in radar will be used in sonar;- Frequency agility will become the norm.- The cavities will be tuned at first mechanically.
It wasn't so long ago that radar was tuned with physical cavities.
I haven't kept up on very high powered sets, but I suspect they do it all electronically now.
Magnetrons are pretty much declassé.- I would be surprised that pulse shaping and various AGC techniques are not already in use.- Backscatter sonar will be developed.
This is just an exercise in computing power, and we got that nailed.- More useful than stealth or masking would be using superlenses for decoys.
Nothing makes your sub commander's day like having 6 or 7 targets and KNOWING that only 1 or 2 are genuine.
Torps are largely ineffective against decoys, and expose your position.
In a robust countermeasures environment, whoever shoots first usually loses.
They are dead from the bogey they didn't see, or prioritized wrong, shooting the decoy first.
Whatever they shot at may or may not be real.I wonder if we have many lone attack subs out there.
Teamwork solves a lot of problems.
Using another sub's pings is the simplest of tactics.
Backscattering off of your teammate is somewhat more interesting.
Using an array to listen to your teammate's pings and map the hole is even more fun.Crap, I miss countermeasures.
Wonder if the Air force is still hiring...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137679</id>
	<title>Crap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243606680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>When I saw "subs invisible" I thought "Cool, I can get rid of those 2 huge black boxes hooked up to the receiver" but no...</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I saw " subs invisible " I thought " Cool , I can get rid of those 2 huge black boxes hooked up to the receiver " but no.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I saw "subs invisible" I thought "Cool, I can get rid of those 2 huge black boxes hooked up to the receiver" but no...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138617</id>
	<title>Just One Problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243610760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>They will still have to de-cloak to fire their torpedoes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>They will still have to de-cloak to fire their torpedoes .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They will still have to de-cloak to fire their torpedoes ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137691</id>
	<title>Backwards refraction?</title>
	<author>Critical Facilities</author>
	<datestamp>1243606740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Theorists have been working on materials that bend sound waves backward for several years.</p></div><p>So you mean,  if this technology moves forward,  and ends up getting incorporated into conventional home/portable audio systems,  we may be able to settle once and for all whether or not Paul is dead?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Theorists have been working on materials that bend sound waves backward for several years.So you mean , if this technology moves forward , and ends up getting incorporated into conventional home/portable audio systems , we may be able to settle once and for all whether or not Paul is dead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Theorists have been working on materials that bend sound waves backward for several years.So you mean,  if this technology moves forward,  and ends up getting incorporated into conventional home/portable audio systems,  we may be able to settle once and for all whether or not Paul is dead?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139567</id>
	<title>Re:This brings up an important point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243615620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The trivial solution would be a cavity filled with water same shape and size as the submarine, at the same position as the submarine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The trivial solution would be a cavity filled with water same shape and size as the submarine , at the same position as the submarine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The trivial solution would be a cavity filled with water same shape and size as the submarine, at the same position as the submarine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137595</id>
	<title>With Jews You Lose</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243606080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't let the Jews create a refugee camp in your back yard.</p><p>They want your land and money.</p><p>With Jews you lose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't let the Jews create a refugee camp in your back yard.They want your land and money.With Jews you lose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't let the Jews create a refugee camp in your back yard.They want your land and money.With Jews you lose.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138695</id>
	<title>Re:Ideas....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243611180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the cavities have to be tuned to match the sound, then what happens if somebody comes up with a sonar that uses variable pitch?</p></div><p>You're describing <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirp" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Chirp</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the cavities have to be tuned to match the sound , then what happens if somebody comes up with a sonar that uses variable pitch ? You 're describing Chirp [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the cavities have to be tuned to match the sound, then what happens if somebody comes up with a sonar that uses variable pitch?You're describing Chirp [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138773</id>
	<title>Re:Ideas....</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1243611540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Harder to do than it sounds (pardon the pun).<br>
&nbsp; <br>High power emitters (AFAIK/IIRC) pretty much work on only one frequency, which means (currently) that you have to carry two sets.  Also, the transmitter arrays are pretty good sized, and there is only so much room available in a submarines nose or a ship's sonar dome.  So while it's doable, there is going to be some pretty big impacts on design.<br>
&nbsp; <br>But, as posted elsewhere, passive sonar still works and is actually the preferred method for tracking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Harder to do than it sounds ( pardon the pun ) .
  High power emitters ( AFAIK/IIRC ) pretty much work on only one frequency , which means ( currently ) that you have to carry two sets .
Also , the transmitter arrays are pretty good sized , and there is only so much room available in a submarines nose or a ship 's sonar dome .
So while it 's doable , there is going to be some pretty big impacts on design .
  But , as posted elsewhere , passive sonar still works and is actually the preferred method for tracking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Harder to do than it sounds (pardon the pun).
  High power emitters (AFAIK/IIRC) pretty much work on only one frequency, which means (currently) that you have to carry two sets.
Also, the transmitter arrays are pretty good sized, and there is only so much room available in a submarines nose or a ship's sonar dome.
So while it's doable, there is going to be some pretty big impacts on design.
  But, as posted elsewhere, passive sonar still works and is actually the preferred method for tracking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138713</id>
	<title>noise cancelation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243611300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>its just waves. if they can create antiwaves in noise canceling headphones on the fly, surely they can create antiwaves in water near the "tailpipe", especially since the noise source is probably relatively unchanging and well characterized</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>its just waves .
if they can create antiwaves in noise canceling headphones on the fly , surely they can create antiwaves in water near the " tailpipe " , especially since the noise source is probably relatively unchanging and well characterized</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its just waves.
if they can create antiwaves in noise canceling headphones on the fly, surely they can create antiwaves in water near the "tailpipe", especially since the noise source is probably relatively unchanging and well characterized</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138461</id>
	<title>Subs are already hidden from us...</title>
	<author>owlstead</author>
	<datestamp>1243610100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They've already managed to vanish the subs from the original article it seems. Must be the refracted light and sound that completely goes around it. Or have they dived? I think I saw a periscope!</p><p>Maybe they are just hiding from the sharks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've already managed to vanish the subs from the original article it seems .
Must be the refracted light and sound that completely goes around it .
Or have they dived ?
I think I saw a periscope ! Maybe they are just hiding from the sharks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've already managed to vanish the subs from the original article it seems.
Must be the refracted light and sound that completely goes around it.
Or have they dived?
I think I saw a periscope!Maybe they are just hiding from the sharks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138861</id>
	<title>How does this help thwart passive listeners?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243612020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's pretty rare that submarines are identified through active pinging, because, once you ping, everyone knows where you are.  Instead you try and listen for other people,  and that means machinery and cavitation.  I could see using this technology to dampen expected sounds from internal machinery, but that would only work so long as the machinery actually makes predictable sound and one has to wonder if this technology would actually be better at damping than other technology.  In any case, its certainly not going to hide that propeller!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's pretty rare that submarines are identified through active pinging , because , once you ping , everyone knows where you are .
Instead you try and listen for other people , and that means machinery and cavitation .
I could see using this technology to dampen expected sounds from internal machinery , but that would only work so long as the machinery actually makes predictable sound and one has to wonder if this technology would actually be better at damping than other technology .
In any case , its certainly not going to hide that propeller !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's pretty rare that submarines are identified through active pinging, because, once you ping, everyone knows where you are.
Instead you try and listen for other people,  and that means machinery and cavitation.
I could see using this technology to dampen expected sounds from internal machinery, but that would only work so long as the machinery actually makes predictable sound and one has to wonder if this technology would actually be better at damping than other technology.
In any case, its certainly not going to hide that propeller!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138483</id>
	<title>Re:Invisibility works both ways.</title>
	<author>stjobe</author>
	<datestamp>1243610220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ostrich philosophy?! OSTRICH?!?</p><p>Hand in your geek card immediately, son!</p><p>It's the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Races\_and\_species\_in\_The\_Hitchhiker's\_Guide\_to\_the\_Galaxy#Ravenous\_Bugblatter\_Beast\_of\_Traal" title="wikipedia.org">Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal</a> [wikipedia.org] philosophy!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ostrich philosophy ? !
OSTRICH ? ! ? Hand in your geek card immediately , son ! It 's the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal [ wikipedia.org ] philosophy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ostrich philosophy?!
OSTRICH?!?Hand in your geek card immediately, son!It's the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal [wikipedia.org] philosophy!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137979</id>
	<title>Re:invisible != inaudible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243608120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah I can see it now.........<br>

Capt. Bart Mancuso: All back full. <br>

Lt. Cmdr. Thompson: Captain... <br>

Capt. Bart Mancuso: I said, all back full! <br>

Lt. Cmdr. Thompson: Back full, aye. <br>

[the Dallas reverses, churning the water] <br>

Seaman Jones: Captain, we're cavitating, he can hear us! <br>

Capt. Bart Mancuso: No he can't we have that new super lense thingy that makes us inaudible!<br>

Lt. Cmdr. Thompson: No Captain, you don't understand it doesn't make us inaudible to people only to sonar!!<br>

Capt. Bar Mancuso: Oh Crap!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah I can see it now........ . Capt. Bart Mancuso : All back full .
Lt. Cmdr .
Thompson : Captain.. . Capt. Bart Mancuso : I said , all back full !
Lt. Cmdr .
Thompson : Back full , aye .
[ the Dallas reverses , churning the water ] Seaman Jones : Captain , we 're cavitating , he can hear us !
Capt. Bart Mancuso : No he ca n't we have that new super lense thingy that makes us inaudible !
Lt. Cmdr .
Thompson : No Captain , you do n't understand it does n't make us inaudible to people only to sonar ! !
Capt. Bar Mancuso : Oh Crap !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah I can see it now.........

Capt. Bart Mancuso: All back full.
Lt. Cmdr.
Thompson: Captain... 

Capt. Bart Mancuso: I said, all back full!
Lt. Cmdr.
Thompson: Back full, aye.
[the Dallas reverses, churning the water] 

Seaman Jones: Captain, we're cavitating, he can hear us!
Capt. Bart Mancuso: No he can't we have that new super lense thingy that makes us inaudible!
Lt. Cmdr.
Thompson: No Captain, you don't understand it doesn't make us inaudible to people only to sonar!!
Capt. Bar Mancuso: Oh Crap!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139619</id>
	<title>Re:This brings up an important point</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1243615860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While true that it's useless for submarine detection - torpedo ranging and homing sonars use higher frequencies.  Making yourself less visible or invisible in these frequencies is a Big Win.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While true that it 's useless for submarine detection - torpedo ranging and homing sonars use higher frequencies .
Making yourself less visible or invisible in these frequencies is a Big Win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While true that it's useless for submarine detection - torpedo ranging and homing sonars use higher frequencies.
Making yourself less visible or invisible in these frequencies is a Big Win.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138441</id>
	<title>Re:Redeeculous</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1243610040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>This just sounds like the perfect phrase to put in a grant proposal to get some Admiral to sign off on it.</i> <br>
Admirals are not the ones signing off on this. It would be gates and congress or DARPA. In both cases, Gates controls them WRT DOD budget.  And IMHO, with the exception of the ABL, I think that he is doing a damn good job.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This just sounds like the perfect phrase to put in a grant proposal to get some Admiral to sign off on it .
Admirals are not the ones signing off on this .
It would be gates and congress or DARPA .
In both cases , Gates controls them WRT DOD budget .
And IMHO , with the exception of the ABL , I think that he is doing a damn good job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This just sounds like the perfect phrase to put in a grant proposal to get some Admiral to sign off on it.
Admirals are not the ones signing off on this.
It would be gates and congress or DARPA.
In both cases, Gates controls them WRT DOD budget.
And IMHO, with the exception of the ABL, I think that he is doing a damn good job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137739</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139477</id>
	<title>Re:invisible != inaudible</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1243615200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; They may still be audible, but ultrasound will appear to go through them as if they were water.<br><br>Yeah, theoretically.<br><br>Thing is, "invisible to sonar" is not the same thing as "undetectable and untrackable".  Ships would just have to start using more than traditional sonar.  Given how *long* sonar has been in use essentially unchanged, I'm not sure this is really a big deal.  An upgrade to the sonar room was probably overdue anyway.<br><br>Being invisible to traditional bounce-back-to-the-source sonar is one thing, but what happens if there are several sound emitters pinging at you from different angles and several listeners analyzing how each of those sound sources is deflected?  Military ships don't usually travel alone these days, so networked multi-source multi-listener sonar grids ought to be very practical, if the sonar room equipment were designed to support it.<br><br>Also, besides sound, shouldn't they also be monitoring EM radiation (radio and infrared and such) at the very least?</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; They may still be audible , but ultrasound will appear to go through them as if they were water.Yeah , theoretically.Thing is , " invisible to sonar " is not the same thing as " undetectable and untrackable " .
Ships would just have to start using more than traditional sonar .
Given how * long * sonar has been in use essentially unchanged , I 'm not sure this is really a big deal .
An upgrade to the sonar room was probably overdue anyway.Being invisible to traditional bounce-back-to-the-source sonar is one thing , but what happens if there are several sound emitters pinging at you from different angles and several listeners analyzing how each of those sound sources is deflected ?
Military ships do n't usually travel alone these days , so networked multi-source multi-listener sonar grids ought to be very practical , if the sonar room equipment were designed to support it.Also , besides sound , should n't they also be monitoring EM radiation ( radio and infrared and such ) at the very least ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; They may still be audible, but ultrasound will appear to go through them as if they were water.Yeah, theoretically.Thing is, "invisible to sonar" is not the same thing as "undetectable and untrackable".
Ships would just have to start using more than traditional sonar.
Given how *long* sonar has been in use essentially unchanged, I'm not sure this is really a big deal.
An upgrade to the sonar room was probably overdue anyway.Being invisible to traditional bounce-back-to-the-source sonar is one thing, but what happens if there are several sound emitters pinging at you from different angles and several listeners analyzing how each of those sound sources is deflected?
Military ships don't usually travel alone these days, so networked multi-source multi-listener sonar grids ought to be very practical, if the sonar room equipment were designed to support it.Also, besides sound, shouldn't they also be monitoring EM radiation (radio and infrared and such) at the very least?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138091</id>
	<title>Invisibility works both ways.</title>
	<author>gr8\_phk</author>
	<datestamp>1243608540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's the ostrich philosophy - if you can't see it, it can't see you. If all incoming waves (light or sound) are diverted around the object, then it can't "see" anything. If it absorbs some, then it will appear dark against it's background. Granted, it doesn't take much light to feed a camera, but how do you make an exception for a little bit of it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the ostrich philosophy - if you ca n't see it , it ca n't see you .
If all incoming waves ( light or sound ) are diverted around the object , then it ca n't " see " anything .
If it absorbs some , then it will appear dark against it 's background .
Granted , it does n't take much light to feed a camera , but how do you make an exception for a little bit of it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the ostrich philosophy - if you can't see it, it can't see you.
If all incoming waves (light or sound) are diverted around the object, then it can't "see" anything.
If it absorbs some, then it will appear dark against it's background.
Granted, it doesn't take much light to feed a camera, but how do you make an exception for a little bit of it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138521</id>
	<title>Tro7L</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243610340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the facts a8d And executes a</htmltext>
<tokenext>the facts a8d And executes a</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the facts a8d And executes a</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138811</id>
	<title>Am I the only one</title>
	<author>Theoboley</author>
	<datestamp>1243611720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>who thought this was about Speakers for car stereos?<br><br>Thank god its friday... my thought process is shot.<br><br>Oh and I didn't bother to RTFS</htmltext>
<tokenext>who thought this was about Speakers for car stereos ? Thank god its friday... my thought process is shot.Oh and I did n't bother to RTFS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who thought this was about Speakers for car stereos?Thank god its friday... my thought process is shot.Oh and I didn't bother to RTFS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28143335</id>
	<title>Re:This brings up an important point</title>
	<author>burtosis</author>
	<datestamp>1243589400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The trivial solution would be a cavity filled with water same shape and size as the submarine, at the same position as the submarine.</p></div><p>Sure, as long as you assume the chicken is speherical and in a vaccuum - it could work!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The trivial solution would be a cavity filled with water same shape and size as the submarine , at the same position as the submarine.Sure , as long as you assume the chicken is speherical and in a vaccuum - it could work !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The trivial solution would be a cavity filled with water same shape and size as the submarine, at the same position as the submarine.Sure, as long as you assume the chicken is speherical and in a vaccuum - it could work!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137685</id>
	<title>detectible with rotating frequency or gamma burst</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243606740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>thank you star trek<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>thank you star trek : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thank you star trek :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138501</id>
	<title>I misread the title...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243610280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Disappointed after reading this that my home theater subwoofer is still going to be visible; I thought I would be able to sneak a much larger one past my wife...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disappointed after reading this that my home theater subwoofer is still going to be visible ; I thought I would be able to sneak a much larger one past my wife... : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disappointed after reading this that my home theater subwoofer is still going to be visible; I thought I would be able to sneak a much larger one past my wife... :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138905</id>
	<title>Re:Ideas....</title>
	<author>Maximum Prophet</author>
	<datestamp>1243612260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Already been done.  There are radar systems that essentially use a burst of microwave noise.  Bats and dolphins use multiple frequencies.  It's unlikely this system in it's present state would fool a dolphin.
<br> <br>
Now, if you designed the system with electrically variable cavities, you'd be able to adjust it on the fly.  The first few waves of a ping would bounce back, then you would disappear...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Already been done .
There are radar systems that essentially use a burst of microwave noise .
Bats and dolphins use multiple frequencies .
It 's unlikely this system in it 's present state would fool a dolphin .
Now , if you designed the system with electrically variable cavities , you 'd be able to adjust it on the fly .
The first few waves of a ping would bounce back , then you would disappear.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Already been done.
There are radar systems that essentially use a burst of microwave noise.
Bats and dolphins use multiple frequencies.
It's unlikely this system in it's present state would fool a dolphin.
Now, if you designed the system with electrically variable cavities, you'd be able to adjust it on the fly.
The first few waves of a ping would bounce back, then you would disappear...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137779</id>
	<title>Invisible to *active* sonar, maybe.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243607100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Passive sonar, on the other hand, still works fine.</p><p>After all, the thing's got to have a tailpipe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Passive sonar , on the other hand , still works fine.After all , the thing 's got to have a tailpipe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Passive sonar, on the other hand, still works fine.After all, the thing's got to have a tailpipe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139461</id>
	<title>Now, one more thing...</title>
	<author>MrWin2kMan</author>
	<datestamp>1243615140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds great!

Now, can we make sure we don't have any spies in the Navy or the Military Industrial Complex who will sell the technology to the Israelis, the Iranians, the North Koreans, the Chinese, the Russians or anyone connected to Toshiba?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds great !
Now , can we make sure we do n't have any spies in the Navy or the Military Industrial Complex who will sell the technology to the Israelis , the Iranians , the North Koreans , the Chinese , the Russians or anyone connected to Toshiba ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds great!
Now, can we make sure we don't have any spies in the Navy or the Military Industrial Complex who will sell the technology to the Israelis, the Iranians, the North Koreans, the Chinese, the Russians or anyone connected to Toshiba?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28148269</id>
	<title>Re:This brings up an important point</title>
	<author>instarx</author>
	<datestamp>1243682100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I smell baloney.  First, where did you get the idea that ultrasound would be used?  I read nothing of the sort. So your statement that ultrasound only travels a few meters in water may be true, but has no bearing on the topic and certainly doesn't prove that anyone was wrong or that the technique would not work.</p><p>Second, you are apparently confused about the need for huge "resonant cavities".  What resonant cavities? We are not talking about sizing antennae to detect EM radiation, but about simple propagation of pressure waves.  Since there is no need to size antenna to be some multiple of the wavelength to detect sounds I see no technical reason the lenses could not be reaonably sized. After all, human ears can detect sound in the 30 to 20,000 Hz range without being meters across, so your insistence that huge impossible receivers would be needed makes no sense. The researchers' technique uses the differences in the speed of sound in various media to focus the sound. It does not "receive" the sound and then amplify it. So there is no need to size components to be multiples of wavelengths.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I smell baloney .
First , where did you get the idea that ultrasound would be used ?
I read nothing of the sort .
So your statement that ultrasound only travels a few meters in water may be true , but has no bearing on the topic and certainly does n't prove that anyone was wrong or that the technique would not work.Second , you are apparently confused about the need for huge " resonant cavities " .
What resonant cavities ?
We are not talking about sizing antennae to detect EM radiation , but about simple propagation of pressure waves .
Since there is no need to size antenna to be some multiple of the wavelength to detect sounds I see no technical reason the lenses could not be reaonably sized .
After all , human ears can detect sound in the 30 to 20,000 Hz range without being meters across , so your insistence that huge impossible receivers would be needed makes no sense .
The researchers ' technique uses the differences in the speed of sound in various media to focus the sound .
It does not " receive " the sound and then amplify it .
So there is no need to size components to be multiples of wavelengths .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I smell baloney.
First, where did you get the idea that ultrasound would be used?
I read nothing of the sort.
So your statement that ultrasound only travels a few meters in water may be true, but has no bearing on the topic and certainly doesn't prove that anyone was wrong or that the technique would not work.Second, you are apparently confused about the need for huge "resonant cavities".
What resonant cavities?
We are not talking about sizing antennae to detect EM radiation, but about simple propagation of pressure waves.
Since there is no need to size antenna to be some multiple of the wavelength to detect sounds I see no technical reason the lenses could not be reaonably sized.
After all, human ears can detect sound in the 30 to 20,000 Hz range without being meters across, so your insistence that huge impossible receivers would be needed makes no sense.
The researchers' technique uses the differences in the speed of sound in various media to focus the sound.
It does not "receive" the sound and then amplify it.
So there is no need to size components to be multiples of wavelengths.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137723</id>
	<title>Save the whales!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243606800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't navy sonar already <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2008/08/04/submarine-sonar-is-confusing-whales-british-military-says/" title="discovermagazine.com" rel="nofollow">killing the whales?</a> [discovermagazine.com] </p><p>I can't believe this is going to help things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't navy sonar already killing the whales ?
[ discovermagazine.com ] I ca n't believe this is going to help things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't navy sonar already killing the whales?
[discovermagazine.com] I can't believe this is going to help things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138707</id>
	<title>Re:Invisible to *active* sonar, maybe.</title>
	<author>thelamecamel</author>
	<datestamp>1243611240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not so sure.  Sound reflects at an abrupt change of medium/impedance.  If these acoustic cloaks are like the optical cloaks, then the innermost part of the cloaking device has an impedance of zero, which reflects all sound.  So it could get noisy inside the cloak if there's no damping...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not so sure .
Sound reflects at an abrupt change of medium/impedance .
If these acoustic cloaks are like the optical cloaks , then the innermost part of the cloaking device has an impedance of zero , which reflects all sound .
So it could get noisy inside the cloak if there 's no damping.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not so sure.
Sound reflects at an abrupt change of medium/impedance.
If these acoustic cloaks are like the optical cloaks, then the innermost part of the cloaking device has an impedance of zero, which reflects all sound.
So it could get noisy inside the cloak if there's no damping...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138103</id>
	<title>Violate the laws of physics?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243608600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Researchers have previously developed materials that bend light in ways that appear to violate the laws of physics.</p></div></blockquote><p>If they have developed materials that bend light in ways that appear to violate the laws of physics, then it means the laws of physics need to be redefined. That's what science is. Formulas made from observations. New observations may modify your existing understanding of how things work.</p><p>And if you can't accept that, you shouldn't call yourself a scientist.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Researchers have previously developed materials that bend light in ways that appear to violate the laws of physics.If they have developed materials that bend light in ways that appear to violate the laws of physics , then it means the laws of physics need to be redefined .
That 's what science is .
Formulas made from observations .
New observations may modify your existing understanding of how things work.And if you ca n't accept that , you should n't call yourself a scientist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Researchers have previously developed materials that bend light in ways that appear to violate the laws of physics.If they have developed materials that bend light in ways that appear to violate the laws of physics, then it means the laws of physics need to be redefined.
That's what science is.
Formulas made from observations.
New observations may modify your existing understanding of how things work.And if you can't accept that, you shouldn't call yourself a scientist.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138679</id>
	<title>Re:invisible != inaudible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243611120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In addition, the summary currently describes it as "an aluminum array of narrow-necked resonant cavities filed with water". Maybe someone has managed to create a cunning way of using water to smooth off rough surfaces, but I think it's more likely that the summary is missing a letter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In addition , the summary currently describes it as " an aluminum array of narrow-necked resonant cavities filed with water " .
Maybe someone has managed to create a cunning way of using water to smooth off rough surfaces , but I think it 's more likely that the summary is missing a letter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In addition, the summary currently describes it as "an aluminum array of narrow-necked resonant cavities filed with water".
Maybe someone has managed to create a cunning way of using water to smooth off rough surfaces, but I think it's more likely that the summary is missing a letter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137633</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28146477</id>
	<title>Re:Can I use this to shield my house from boom car</title>
	<author>digsbo</author>
	<datestamp>1243610340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks...Noise canceling headsets don't work for that variety of sound. I have found that earplugs (like those used in industrial settings) work very well. Of course, earplugs or noise-canceling headphones make it more difficult to carry on a conversation with your wife during dinner...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks...Noise canceling headsets do n't work for that variety of sound .
I have found that earplugs ( like those used in industrial settings ) work very well .
Of course , earplugs or noise-canceling headphones make it more difficult to carry on a conversation with your wife during dinner.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks...Noise canceling headsets don't work for that variety of sound.
I have found that earplugs (like those used in industrial settings) work very well.
Of course, earplugs or noise-canceling headphones make it more difficult to carry on a conversation with your wife during dinner...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28143015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138891</id>
	<title>Tailpipe?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243612200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Submarines use electric motors.  Non-atomic subs use diesel generators when they are near the surface.  They only use the generators when they aren't worried about being detected by sonar.  The loudest noise they make is the swishing of their propellers through the water.  A diesel-electric sub is nearly inaudible.  The Soviet subs on the other hand;  everybody in the Atlantic knew the moment those subs left port.</p><p>A wily submariner is already an expert at being invisible by hiding below abrupt changes in the water's density (caused by temperature or salt concentration).</p><p>BTW.  The reason we use mostly passive sonar is that if you are pinging, everybody knows exactly where you are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Submarines use electric motors .
Non-atomic subs use diesel generators when they are near the surface .
They only use the generators when they are n't worried about being detected by sonar .
The loudest noise they make is the swishing of their propellers through the water .
A diesel-electric sub is nearly inaudible .
The Soviet subs on the other hand ; everybody in the Atlantic knew the moment those subs left port.A wily submariner is already an expert at being invisible by hiding below abrupt changes in the water 's density ( caused by temperature or salt concentration ) .BTW .
The reason we use mostly passive sonar is that if you are pinging , everybody knows exactly where you are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Submarines use electric motors.
Non-atomic subs use diesel generators when they are near the surface.
They only use the generators when they aren't worried about being detected by sonar.
The loudest noise they make is the swishing of their propellers through the water.
A diesel-electric sub is nearly inaudible.
The Soviet subs on the other hand;  everybody in the Atlantic knew the moment those subs left port.A wily submariner is already an expert at being invisible by hiding below abrupt changes in the water's density (caused by temperature or salt concentration).BTW.
The reason we use mostly passive sonar is that if you are pinging, everybody knows exactly where you are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28140071</id>
	<title>Re:This brings up an important point</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1243618320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are higher but still well below the ultrasonic range. You would still have some pretty big resonate chambers to deal with. And anechoic coating will probably work better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are higher but still well below the ultrasonic range .
You would still have some pretty big resonate chambers to deal with .
And anechoic coating will probably work better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are higher but still well below the ultrasonic range.
You would still have some pretty big resonate chambers to deal with.
And anechoic coating will probably work better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138649</id>
	<title>Re:Ideas....</title>
	<author>Muad'Dave</author>
	<datestamp>1243611000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They <a href="http://www.tritech.co.uk/products/chirp.htm" title="tritech.co.uk">already do</a> [tritech.co.uk]. It's called chirp sonar, and provides enhanced resolution and target separation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They already do [ tritech.co.uk ] .
It 's called chirp sonar , and provides enhanced resolution and target separation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They already do [tritech.co.uk].
It's called chirp sonar, and provides enhanced resolution and target separation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138121</id>
	<title>Just a little problem</title>
	<author>Aceticon</author>
	<datestamp>1243608660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Their acoustic meta-material uses resonant cavities. The problem with it is that resonance works perfectly for a specific frequency and not at all for different frequencies.</p><p>A sonar cloak made of this material would be the equivalent of an invisibility cloak for people that are only capable of seing in a very narrow spectrum of Red: worthless if your enemy can "see" in more than one frequency.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Their acoustic meta-material uses resonant cavities .
The problem with it is that resonance works perfectly for a specific frequency and not at all for different frequencies.A sonar cloak made of this material would be the equivalent of an invisibility cloak for people that are only capable of seing in a very narrow spectrum of Red : worthless if your enemy can " see " in more than one frequency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their acoustic meta-material uses resonant cavities.
The problem with it is that resonance works perfectly for a specific frequency and not at all for different frequencies.A sonar cloak made of this material would be the equivalent of an invisibility cloak for people that are only capable of seing in a very narrow spectrum of Red: worthless if your enemy can "see" in more than one frequency.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138037</id>
	<title>Re:invisible != inaudible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243608300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny, it sounds like someone describing how human hearing works, although bat and fish hearing also make use of fluid filled canals, except we use bone and tissue. A stethoscope is how old? (a super lens of sort).</p><p>Relative to a powerful transmitter, a crystal radio, with a tuned antenna, sucks electricity out the air, and a Mr Tesla poked about a bit on this old theory. Gee thats how a magnetron may also work.</p><p>Physics have also gone out the window. Water is a excellent sound transmitter - ask any whale or dolphin. Subs already have a wind out loudspeaker on a rope making 'submarine' noises, and or noise canceling out of phase.</p><p>Nothing new here - move along.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny , it sounds like someone describing how human hearing works , although bat and fish hearing also make use of fluid filled canals , except we use bone and tissue .
A stethoscope is how old ?
( a super lens of sort ) .Relative to a powerful transmitter , a crystal radio , with a tuned antenna , sucks electricity out the air , and a Mr Tesla poked about a bit on this old theory .
Gee thats how a magnetron may also work.Physics have also gone out the window .
Water is a excellent sound transmitter - ask any whale or dolphin .
Subs already have a wind out loudspeaker on a rope making 'submarine ' noises , and or noise canceling out of phase.Nothing new here - move along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny, it sounds like someone describing how human hearing works, although bat and fish hearing also make use of fluid filled canals, except we use bone and tissue.
A stethoscope is how old?
(a super lens of sort).Relative to a powerful transmitter, a crystal radio, with a tuned antenna, sucks electricity out the air, and a Mr Tesla poked about a bit on this old theory.
Gee thats how a magnetron may also work.Physics have also gone out the window.
Water is a excellent sound transmitter - ask any whale or dolphin.
Subs already have a wind out loudspeaker on a rope making 'submarine' noises, and or noise canceling out of phase.Nothing new here - move along.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137633</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139207</id>
	<title>Re:invisible != inaudible</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1243613820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which will not matter at all.<br>Search sonar uses low to medium frequencies not ultrasonic ones.<br>Also a large amount of the searching involves using passive sonar. Going active is kind of like using a spot light. Yea you can see but everybody can see you from an even greater distance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which will not matter at all.Search sonar uses low to medium frequencies not ultrasonic ones.Also a large amount of the searching involves using passive sonar .
Going active is kind of like using a spot light .
Yea you can see but everybody can see you from an even greater distance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which will not matter at all.Search sonar uses low to medium frequencies not ultrasonic ones.Also a large amount of the searching involves using passive sonar.
Going active is kind of like using a spot light.
Yea you can see but everybody can see you from an even greater distance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139385</id>
	<title>What if...</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1243614780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>then what happens if somebody comes up with a sonar that uses variable pitch?</p></div></blockquote><p>Someone's already come up with it - the AN/SQS-53. No link, as for obvious reasons the Navy is not keen on talking about the operating frequencies of its gear, but it's well known that it uses multiple frequencies around 3.5 KHz for active sonar, and it's got a passive sonar capability to detect between very low and rather high frequencies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>then what happens if somebody comes up with a sonar that uses variable pitch ? Someone 's already come up with it - the AN/SQS-53 .
No link , as for obvious reasons the Navy is not keen on talking about the operating frequencies of its gear , but it 's well known that it uses multiple frequencies around 3.5 KHz for active sonar , and it 's got a passive sonar capability to detect between very low and rather high frequencies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>then what happens if somebody comes up with a sonar that uses variable pitch?Someone's already come up with it - the AN/SQS-53.
No link, as for obvious reasons the Navy is not keen on talking about the operating frequencies of its gear, but it's well known that it uses multiple frequencies around 3.5 KHz for active sonar, and it's got a passive sonar capability to detect between very low and rather high frequencies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137669</id>
	<title>Ideas....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243606620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I haven't RTFA, big surprise, but just a thought...</p><p>If the cavities have to be tuned to match the sound, then what happens if somebody comes up with a sonar that uses variable pitch?</p><p>Or even just two separate sonar systems on a ship/sub/whatever, that use two different frequencies, with no matching harmonics.<br>If something shows up on one, and not the other, then somebody's trying to hide.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't RTFA , big surprise , but just a thought...If the cavities have to be tuned to match the sound , then what happens if somebody comes up with a sonar that uses variable pitch ? Or even just two separate sonar systems on a ship/sub/whatever , that use two different frequencies , with no matching harmonics.If something shows up on one , and not the other , then somebody 's trying to hide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't RTFA, big surprise, but just a thought...If the cavities have to be tuned to match the sound, then what happens if somebody comes up with a sonar that uses variable pitch?Or even just two separate sonar systems on a ship/sub/whatever, that use two different frequencies, with no matching harmonics.If something shows up on one, and not the other, then somebody's trying to hide.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138363</id>
	<title>Re:Ideas....</title>
	<author>still cynical</author>
	<datestamp>1243609680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You just have to modify the deflector array to rotate the shield harmonics.  Problem solved, but you'll have to do it again every few episodes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You just have to modify the deflector array to rotate the shield harmonics .
Problem solved , but you 'll have to do it again every few episodes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You just have to modify the deflector array to rotate the shield harmonics.
Problem solved, but you'll have to do it again every few episodes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138167</id>
	<title>Re:Save the whales!</title>
	<author>tech\_fixer</author>
	<datestamp>1243608840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They should make the subs sound like whales... Imagine the face on sailors of Japanese whaling ships when they fish out a nuclear sub. Woot!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should make the subs sound like whales... Imagine the face on sailors of Japanese whaling ships when they fish out a nuclear sub .
Woot !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should make the subs sound like whales... Imagine the face on sailors of Japanese whaling ships when they fish out a nuclear sub.
Woot!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139323</id>
	<title>This brings up an important point</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1243614420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Ultrasound" (generally understood as meaning sound of a frequency too high to hear... i.e. more than 20khz) is pretty well useless in submarine detection, as high frequency sound has a very, very short propagation range in water. If they get to the point where they can do this with some frequency range that can go more than a few meters without being attenuated, then color me interested. But I'm guessing that would require an apparatus so huge that you wouldn't be able to deploy it anyway - the resonant cavities have to have a size of the same order of magnitude (maybe 1/4 wavelength?) of the sound wavelength... and for frequencies with any hope of propagating far (you're typically talking from 60 Hz to a few Khz), the wavelengths are HUGE - around 25 meters for 60 Hz. Bear in mind that you apparently need an array of these cavities, so you're talking about a rather enormous system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Ultrasound " ( generally understood as meaning sound of a frequency too high to hear... i.e. more than 20khz ) is pretty well useless in submarine detection , as high frequency sound has a very , very short propagation range in water .
If they get to the point where they can do this with some frequency range that can go more than a few meters without being attenuated , then color me interested .
But I 'm guessing that would require an apparatus so huge that you would n't be able to deploy it anyway - the resonant cavities have to have a size of the same order of magnitude ( maybe 1/4 wavelength ?
) of the sound wavelength... and for frequencies with any hope of propagating far ( you 're typically talking from 60 Hz to a few Khz ) , the wavelengths are HUGE - around 25 meters for 60 Hz .
Bear in mind that you apparently need an array of these cavities , so you 're talking about a rather enormous system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Ultrasound" (generally understood as meaning sound of a frequency too high to hear... i.e. more than 20khz) is pretty well useless in submarine detection, as high frequency sound has a very, very short propagation range in water.
If they get to the point where they can do this with some frequency range that can go more than a few meters without being attenuated, then color me interested.
But I'm guessing that would require an apparatus so huge that you wouldn't be able to deploy it anyway - the resonant cavities have to have a size of the same order of magnitude (maybe 1/4 wavelength?
) of the sound wavelength... and for frequencies with any hope of propagating far (you're typically talking from 60 Hz to a few Khz), the wavelengths are HUGE - around 25 meters for 60 Hz.
Bear in mind that you apparently need an array of these cavities, so you're talking about a rather enormous system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28143015</id>
	<title>Re:Can I use this to shield my house from boom car</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243587840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There already is technology that can help you there.  Its called Active Noise Cancellation:  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active\_noise\_control" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active\_noise\_control</a> [wikipedia.org]  <br> <br>
They already have the ability to do that for your house, I have no idea how much it would cost or what it would involve, though.  You could try to get yourself a noise cancelling headset.  That might work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There already is technology that can help you there .
Its called Active Noise Cancellation : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active \ _noise \ _control [ wikipedia.org ] They already have the ability to do that for your house , I have no idea how much it would cost or what it would involve , though .
You could try to get yourself a noise cancelling headset .
That might work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There already is technology that can help you there.
Its called Active Noise Cancellation:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active\_noise\_control [wikipedia.org]   
They already have the ability to do that for your house, I have no idea how much it would cost or what it would involve, though.
You could try to get yourself a noise cancelling headset.
That might work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138279</id>
	<title>Re:Invisible to *active* sonar, maybe.</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1243609260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even so, reducing or eliminating the vessels visibility to active sonar is still a pretty big deal - active sonar is sometimes used for range confirmation prior to firing, and damn near all torpedoes use active sonar for ranging and homing.<br>
&nbsp; <br>(Former submariner.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even so , reducing or eliminating the vessels visibility to active sonar is still a pretty big deal - active sonar is sometimes used for range confirmation prior to firing , and damn near all torpedoes use active sonar for ranging and homing .
  ( Former submariner .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even so, reducing or eliminating the vessels visibility to active sonar is still a pretty big deal - active sonar is sometimes used for range confirmation prior to firing, and damn near all torpedoes use active sonar for ranging and homing.
  (Former submariner.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28148077</id>
	<title>Re:HoHum</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1243677540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Another day, anther Slashdot cloaking device story.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>We'll know when they finally work by the absence of Slashdot stories on them (except for the delayed dupes).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another day , anther Slashdot cloaking device story .
We 'll know when they finally work by the absence of Slashdot stories on them ( except for the delayed dupes ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another day, anther Slashdot cloaking device story.
We'll know when they finally work by the absence of Slashdot stories on them (except for the delayed dupes).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138061</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139837</id>
	<title>Can I use this to shield my house from boom cars?</title>
	<author>digsbo</author>
	<datestamp>1243617120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I could do something to make loud subwoofers on the street inaudible from my house, I'd pay probably $15K to install it on my property.  Should operate on the same principle, though I imagine the wavelength could be a problem due to the targeted frequency band.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I could do something to make loud subwoofers on the street inaudible from my house , I 'd pay probably $ 15K to install it on my property .
Should operate on the same principle , though I imagine the wavelength could be a problem due to the targeted frequency band .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I could do something to make loud subwoofers on the street inaudible from my house, I'd pay probably $15K to install it on my property.
Should operate on the same principle, though I imagine the wavelength could be a problem due to the targeted frequency band.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28141505</id>
	<title>Re:invisible != inaudible Thwart this easily...</title>
	<author>davidsyes</author>
	<datestamp>1243625040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you suspect a threat is on a given axis, you fire a shot (or war shot) down that bearing. The target (if real) will either sit there or move, or return fire and move under the cover of noise of the real and decoy torpedoes.</p><p>However, if you suspect a threat is in your baffles, release SAND. Not just sand spray, but sand dispersed from trailing  tubes to CLOG UP THEIR TUBES. This might only work if the threat is within the dispersal cone of the tubes.</p><p>Fire noise makers operating on various wavelengths/frequencies. Either the personnel will be affected to the point of being pissed of enough to move quickly , or someone will make some costly mistake.</p><p>Release oil (if the threat is on the same plane or slightly above (assuming your own sub has no detection gear atop the sail/mast) to clog up those acoustic-reshaping tubes.</p><p>Periodically release "sentries" that are tethered to and powered by trailing wires, and which will detonate if multiple nodes (operating on different sets of search parameters so as to not be deceived in multiple, simultaneously) detect a penetration of the boundary. These, obviously, will create a security "bubble" around the boat and offer such protection as detection and exposure, or detection and damaging. If said charges are properly "tuned" they then will damaging the otherwise advantageous "tuning pipes" of any sneaky-ass boats getting within range that the wire-trailing sub's government can afford to deploy. Such damage inflicted on the enemy sub need not sink it initially - just make the fucker WHISTLE at evasive speeds so as to make the fucker back of and go home, or start a war by aggressive/annoying posture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you suspect a threat is on a given axis , you fire a shot ( or war shot ) down that bearing .
The target ( if real ) will either sit there or move , or return fire and move under the cover of noise of the real and decoy torpedoes.However , if you suspect a threat is in your baffles , release SAND .
Not just sand spray , but sand dispersed from trailing tubes to CLOG UP THEIR TUBES .
This might only work if the threat is within the dispersal cone of the tubes.Fire noise makers operating on various wavelengths/frequencies .
Either the personnel will be affected to the point of being pissed of enough to move quickly , or someone will make some costly mistake.Release oil ( if the threat is on the same plane or slightly above ( assuming your own sub has no detection gear atop the sail/mast ) to clog up those acoustic-reshaping tubes.Periodically release " sentries " that are tethered to and powered by trailing wires , and which will detonate if multiple nodes ( operating on different sets of search parameters so as to not be deceived in multiple , simultaneously ) detect a penetration of the boundary .
These , obviously , will create a security " bubble " around the boat and offer such protection as detection and exposure , or detection and damaging .
If said charges are properly " tuned " they then will damaging the otherwise advantageous " tuning pipes " of any sneaky-ass boats getting within range that the wire-trailing sub 's government can afford to deploy .
Such damage inflicted on the enemy sub need not sink it initially - just make the fucker WHISTLE at evasive speeds so as to make the fucker back of and go home , or start a war by aggressive/annoying posture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you suspect a threat is on a given axis, you fire a shot (or war shot) down that bearing.
The target (if real) will either sit there or move, or return fire and move under the cover of noise of the real and decoy torpedoes.However, if you suspect a threat is in your baffles, release SAND.
Not just sand spray, but sand dispersed from trailing  tubes to CLOG UP THEIR TUBES.
This might only work if the threat is within the dispersal cone of the tubes.Fire noise makers operating on various wavelengths/frequencies.
Either the personnel will be affected to the point of being pissed of enough to move quickly , or someone will make some costly mistake.Release oil (if the threat is on the same plane or slightly above (assuming your own sub has no detection gear atop the sail/mast) to clog up those acoustic-reshaping tubes.Periodically release "sentries" that are tethered to and powered by trailing wires, and which will detonate if multiple nodes (operating on different sets of search parameters so as to not be deceived in multiple, simultaneously) detect a penetration of the boundary.
These, obviously, will create a security "bubble" around the boat and offer such protection as detection and exposure, or detection and damaging.
If said charges are properly "tuned" they then will damaging the otherwise advantageous "tuning pipes" of any sneaky-ass boats getting within range that the wire-trailing sub's government can afford to deploy.
Such damage inflicted on the enemy sub need not sink it initially - just make the fucker WHISTLE at evasive speeds so as to make the fucker back of and go home, or start a war by aggressive/annoying posture.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28143605</id>
	<title>Re:This brings up an important point</title>
	<author>Pigeon451</author>
	<datestamp>1243590540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually water is a good propagator of sound, with a low attenuation compared to air or other materials. But over the length scales required for submarine detection, high frequencies would attenuated quickly compared to low frequencies (which is probably what you meant). It depends on what you define as "high frequency".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually water is a good propagator of sound , with a low attenuation compared to air or other materials .
But over the length scales required for submarine detection , high frequencies would attenuated quickly compared to low frequencies ( which is probably what you meant ) .
It depends on what you define as " high frequency " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually water is a good propagator of sound, with a low attenuation compared to air or other materials.
But over the length scales required for submarine detection, high frequencies would attenuated quickly compared to low frequencies (which is probably what you meant).
It depends on what you define as "high frequency".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139323</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_130259_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_130259_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28140071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_130259_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_130259_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_130259_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_130259_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28148269
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_130259_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_130259_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_130259_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28148077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138061
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_130259_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_130259_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_130259_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_130259_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28143605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_130259_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28143335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_130259_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137779
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_130259_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139019
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138103
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_130259_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28140555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138061
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_130259_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137779
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_130259_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_130259_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137779
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_130259_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_130259_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_130259_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_130259_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28146477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28143015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_130259_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138695
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_130259_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28141505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_130259_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137739
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_130259_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_130259_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_130259_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_130259_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_130259_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_130259_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138103
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_130259_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28141249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137779
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_130259.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138333
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_130259.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137723
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138167
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_130259.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137779
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138279
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138707
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138713
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28141249
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_130259.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137633
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138679
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137657
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139323
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28148269
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139567
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28143335
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28143605
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139619
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28140071
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139207
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137979
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28141505
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139477
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139493
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138037
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_130259.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138861
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_130259.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137739
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138441
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_130259.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139739
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_130259.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137669
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138695
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139385
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138649
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138773
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138665
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138363
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139321
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138905
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_130259.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138103
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139019
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139331
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_130259.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138121
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_130259.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137643
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138245
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_130259.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138617
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_130259.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138091
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138483
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138753
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_130259.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28139837
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28143015
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28146477
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_130259.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28137679
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_130259.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28138061
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28140555
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_130259.28148077
</commentlist>
</conversation>
