<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_17_2119252</id>
	<title>EU Fusion Experiment's Financial Woes Get More Concrete</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1245231120000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>fiannaFailMan writes <i>"An international plan to build a nuclear fusion reactor is being threatened by rising costs, delays and technical challenges. 'Emails leaked to the BBC indicate that <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8103557.stm">construction costs for the experimental fusion project called Iter have more than doubled</a>. Some scientists also believe that the technical hurdles to fusion have become more difficult to overcome and that the development of fusion as a commercial power source is still at least 100 years away. At a meeting in Japan on Wednesday, members of the governing <a href="http://www.iter.org/default.aspx">Iter</a> council will review the plans and may agree to scale back the project.' Iter will be a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak">Tokamak</a> device, a successor to the <a href="http://www.jet.efda.org/index.html">Joint European Torus</a> (JET) in England.  Meanwhile, an <a href="http://www.inhabitat.com/2009/06/01/worlds-largest-laser-to-attempt-nuclear-fusion/">experiment in fusion by laser</a> doesn't seem to be running into the same high profile funding problems just yet." <br> </i></htmltext>
<tokenext>fiannaFailMan writes " An international plan to build a nuclear fusion reactor is being threatened by rising costs , delays and technical challenges .
'Emails leaked to the BBC indicate that construction costs for the experimental fusion project called Iter have more than doubled .
Some scientists also believe that the technical hurdles to fusion have become more difficult to overcome and that the development of fusion as a commercial power source is still at least 100 years away .
At a meeting in Japan on Wednesday , members of the governing Iter council will review the plans and may agree to scale back the project .
' Iter will be a Tokamak device , a successor to the Joint European Torus ( JET ) in England .
Meanwhile , an experiment in fusion by laser does n't seem to be running into the same high profile funding problems just yet .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fiannaFailMan writes "An international plan to build a nuclear fusion reactor is being threatened by rising costs, delays and technical challenges.
'Emails leaked to the BBC indicate that construction costs for the experimental fusion project called Iter have more than doubled.
Some scientists also believe that the technical hurdles to fusion have become more difficult to overcome and that the development of fusion as a commercial power source is still at least 100 years away.
At a meeting in Japan on Wednesday, members of the governing Iter council will review the plans and may agree to scale back the project.
' Iter will be a Tokamak device, a successor to the Joint European Torus (JET) in England.
Meanwhile, an experiment in fusion by laser doesn't seem to be running into the same high profile funding problems just yet.
"  </sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28372235</id>
	<title>Failure is the only option</title>
	<author>Drakkenmensch</author>
	<datestamp>1245330840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"The walls of the box, which need to be leak tight, are bombarded by these neutrons which can make stainless steel boil. Some people say it is just a question of inventing a stainless steel which is porous to let these particles through; personally I would have started by inventing this material."</p> </div><p>Maybe, just maybe, they should have checked if the technology was even developped before they started allocating funds and setting deadlines? Then again, I've always been pragmatic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The walls of the box , which need to be leak tight , are bombarded by these neutrons which can make stainless steel boil .
Some people say it is just a question of inventing a stainless steel which is porous to let these particles through ; personally I would have started by inventing this material .
" Maybe , just maybe , they should have checked if the technology was even developped before they started allocating funds and setting deadlines ?
Then again , I 've always been pragmatic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The walls of the box, which need to be leak tight, are bombarded by these neutrons which can make stainless steel boil.
Some people say it is just a question of inventing a stainless steel which is porous to let these particles through; personally I would have started by inventing this material.
" Maybe, just maybe, they should have checked if the technology was even developped before they started allocating funds and setting deadlines?
Then again, I've always been pragmatic.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366717</id>
	<title>How do you know until you succeed?</title>
	<author>clarkn0va</author>
	<datestamp>1245235320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the technical hurdles to fusion have become more difficult to overcome</p></div><p>Really? Have they really become more difficult? Like jumping off the high board becomes more difficult after you've climbed up there? Or truly more difficult, like trying to sell tickets to the hockey pool after the playoffs have ended?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the technical hurdles to fusion have become more difficult to overcomeReally ?
Have they really become more difficult ?
Like jumping off the high board becomes more difficult after you 've climbed up there ?
Or truly more difficult , like trying to sell tickets to the hockey pool after the playoffs have ended ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the technical hurdles to fusion have become more difficult to overcomeReally?
Have they really become more difficult?
Like jumping off the high board becomes more difficult after you've climbed up there?
Or truly more difficult, like trying to sell tickets to the hockey pool after the playoffs have ended?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367747</id>
	<title>ITERation?</title>
	<author>maroberts</author>
	<datestamp>1245241740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was under the impression that ITER was effectively the prelude to full scale fusion, and it was effectively just a scale up from previous designs to see if sustainable fusion was possible. This article makes it look as though fundamental problems remain unresolved; hardly reassuring when you're building a full scale unit with such major issues like what you're going to build the damn thing out of.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was under the impression that ITER was effectively the prelude to full scale fusion , and it was effectively just a scale up from previous designs to see if sustainable fusion was possible .
This article makes it look as though fundamental problems remain unresolved ; hardly reassuring when you 're building a full scale unit with such major issues like what you 're going to build the damn thing out of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was under the impression that ITER was effectively the prelude to full scale fusion, and it was effectively just a scale up from previous designs to see if sustainable fusion was possible.
This article makes it look as though fundamental problems remain unresolved; hardly reassuring when you're building a full scale unit with such major issues like what you're going to build the damn thing out of.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28380915</id>
	<title>ITER is not EU</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245320640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ITER project <a href="http://www.iter.org/" title="iter.org" rel="nofollow">www.iter.org</a> [iter.org] is not and EU project, but an International project. The USA, Japan, China, India, Russia and Korea (South presumably!) are all involved! The last time I checked, the USA was not in the EU.  Could be wrong there.... However, the ITER "machine" does happen to be in France.  France is in the EU.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ITER project www.iter.org [ iter.org ] is not and EU project , but an International project .
The USA , Japan , China , India , Russia and Korea ( South presumably !
) are all involved !
The last time I checked , the USA was not in the EU .
Could be wrong there.... However , the ITER " machine " does happen to be in France .
France is in the EU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ITER project www.iter.org [iter.org] is not and EU project, but an International project.
The USA, Japan, China, India, Russia and Korea (South presumably!
) are all involved!
The last time I checked, the USA was not in the EU.
Could be wrong there.... However, the ITER "machine" does happen to be in France.
France is in the EU.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367037</id>
	<title>ITER Implementation Plan - Current Estimates</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245236820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ITER Implementation Plan - Current Estimates</p><p>June 2009</p><p>Audience: Forward Estimates Committee - ITER</p><p>Plan dates and schedules have moved this month in line with indicators discussed earlier. Please note that current estimates (based upon this month's economic data and technical risk assessment) indicate a 2-fold increase in time available prior to go-live.</p><p>The technical team and political working-group are please to announce the largest single increase experienced during the life of the project to-date. Expectations have been exceeded and regional vendors have re-affirmed their commitment to the project in light of this positive result.</p><p>Whist further increases can be expected in the next quarter, the chief project manager will amortise the recent time increase with those projected over the next 400 quarters, resulting in a rolling-averaged, smoothed expenditure curve that will provide additional contributor value by offering schedulable valuation events that may be timed to mesh with the various contributors&#226;(TM) disparate election timetables.</p><p>P.S. Send cash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ITER Implementation Plan - Current EstimatesJune 2009Audience : Forward Estimates Committee - ITERPlan dates and schedules have moved this month in line with indicators discussed earlier .
Please note that current estimates ( based upon this month 's economic data and technical risk assessment ) indicate a 2-fold increase in time available prior to go-live.The technical team and political working-group are please to announce the largest single increase experienced during the life of the project to-date .
Expectations have been exceeded and regional vendors have re-affirmed their commitment to the project in light of this positive result.Whist further increases can be expected in the next quarter , the chief project manager will amortise the recent time increase with those projected over the next 400 quarters , resulting in a rolling-averaged , smoothed expenditure curve that will provide additional contributor value by offering schedulable valuation events that may be timed to mesh with the various contributors   ( TM ) disparate election timetables.P.S .
Send cash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ITER Implementation Plan - Current EstimatesJune 2009Audience: Forward Estimates Committee - ITERPlan dates and schedules have moved this month in line with indicators discussed earlier.
Please note that current estimates (based upon this month's economic data and technical risk assessment) indicate a 2-fold increase in time available prior to go-live.The technical team and political working-group are please to announce the largest single increase experienced during the life of the project to-date.
Expectations have been exceeded and regional vendors have re-affirmed their commitment to the project in light of this positive result.Whist further increases can be expected in the next quarter, the chief project manager will amortise the recent time increase with those projected over the next 400 quarters, resulting in a rolling-averaged, smoothed expenditure curve that will provide additional contributor value by offering schedulable valuation events that may be timed to mesh with the various contributorsâ(TM) disparate election timetables.P.S.
Send cash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367547</id>
	<title>Re:To heck with Fusion.</title>
	<author>superdave80</author>
	<datestamp>1245240120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is Anti-mater like an evil mirror universe version of Tow-mater from "Cars"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is Anti-mater like an evil mirror universe version of Tow-mater from " Cars " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is Anti-mater like an evil mirror universe version of Tow-mater from "Cars"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366629</id>
	<title>To heck with Fusion.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245234840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I want Anti-Mater power.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want Anti-Mater power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want Anti-Mater power.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28368357</id>
	<title>Re:100 Years?</title>
	<author>The\_mad\_linguist</author>
	<datestamp>1245246960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Estimates for polywell put mass production at 20 years, assuming the test results keep coming in the way they are now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Estimates for polywell put mass production at 20 years , assuming the test results keep coming in the way they are now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Estimates for polywell put mass production at 20 years, assuming the test results keep coming in the way they are now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367153</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366959</id>
	<title>One Hundred Whats???</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1245236400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>that the development of fusion as a commercial power source is still at least 100 years away.</p></div></blockquote><p>
That's like saying it's never going to happen at all. If we can't solve it in far less time than that, I don't think we'll ever solve it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>that the development of fusion as a commercial power source is still at least 100 years away .
That 's like saying it 's never going to happen at all .
If we ca n't solve it in far less time than that , I do n't think we 'll ever solve it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that the development of fusion as a commercial power source is still at least 100 years away.
That's like saying it's never going to happen at all.
If we can't solve it in far less time than that, I don't think we'll ever solve it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28368133</id>
	<title>Re:How to make simple fusion reactor</title>
	<author>tobiah</author>
	<datestamp>1245244740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Or we could just start making better use of the monster fusion reactor that is already in the neighborhood.</p></div><p>Totally, the energy source is already there, and being exploited rather efficiently by many organisms.  I feel like we've hit a limit of the centralized power source model, and the practical future of energy is in collecting on the small scale and exploiting local sources.  For example, here in San Diego I know several people who produce a net surplus of electricity from their solar panels, without any real effort at conserving use.

Big, dirty power supplies with massive infrastructure issues are so very dated. The future is small, local and clean.  Not because it's ethical, but because it's practical.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or we could just start making better use of the monster fusion reactor that is already in the neighborhood.Totally , the energy source is already there , and being exploited rather efficiently by many organisms .
I feel like we 've hit a limit of the centralized power source model , and the practical future of energy is in collecting on the small scale and exploiting local sources .
For example , here in San Diego I know several people who produce a net surplus of electricity from their solar panels , without any real effort at conserving use .
Big , dirty power supplies with massive infrastructure issues are so very dated .
The future is small , local and clean .
Not because it 's ethical , but because it 's practical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Or we could just start making better use of the monster fusion reactor that is already in the neighborhood.Totally, the energy source is already there, and being exploited rather efficiently by many organisms.
I feel like we've hit a limit of the centralized power source model, and the practical future of energy is in collecting on the small scale and exploiting local sources.
For example, here in San Diego I know several people who produce a net surplus of electricity from their solar panels, without any real effort at conserving use.
Big, dirty power supplies with massive infrastructure issues are so very dated.
The future is small, local and clean.
Not because it's ethical, but because it's practical.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366671</id>
	<title>I am impressed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245235080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The saying has always been that "fusion is still 50 years away", for fifty years ago and recent.<br>Now EU has managed to make it 100 years away - it's an impressive achievement: they have managed to double the time we have to wait. Great use of money. Since fusion was only "50 years away" when we started we where actually better off before we started to build that reactor (or the scientists where to optimistic, but whats the fun in that?).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The saying has always been that " fusion is still 50 years away " , for fifty years ago and recent.Now EU has managed to make it 100 years away - it 's an impressive achievement : they have managed to double the time we have to wait .
Great use of money .
Since fusion was only " 50 years away " when we started we where actually better off before we started to build that reactor ( or the scientists where to optimistic , but whats the fun in that ?
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The saying has always been that "fusion is still 50 years away", for fifty years ago and recent.Now EU has managed to make it 100 years away - it's an impressive achievement: they have managed to double the time we have to wait.
Great use of money.
Since fusion was only "50 years away" when we started we where actually better off before we started to build that reactor (or the scientists where to optimistic, but whats the fun in that?
).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367233</id>
	<title>Some perspective please...</title>
	<author>johannesg</author>
	<datestamp>1245237960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The EU spends way more than that on agricultural subsidies every single year. I'm probably a cultural barbarian, but I happen to think that developing fusion, even if it will take a while, is more important than subsidising French wine.</p><p>As for all those "fusion will always be 50 years away" remarks: that's what happens if you never start. ITER could have started a decade ago, if everyone hadn't been fighting over where to build it. Fusion would be ten years closer if we had somehow managed to select a piece of ground somewhere in a reasonable amount of time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The EU spends way more than that on agricultural subsidies every single year .
I 'm probably a cultural barbarian , but I happen to think that developing fusion , even if it will take a while , is more important than subsidising French wine.As for all those " fusion will always be 50 years away " remarks : that 's what happens if you never start .
ITER could have started a decade ago , if everyone had n't been fighting over where to build it .
Fusion would be ten years closer if we had somehow managed to select a piece of ground somewhere in a reasonable amount of time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The EU spends way more than that on agricultural subsidies every single year.
I'm probably a cultural barbarian, but I happen to think that developing fusion, even if it will take a while, is more important than subsidising French wine.As for all those "fusion will always be 50 years away" remarks: that's what happens if you never start.
ITER could have started a decade ago, if everyone hadn't been fighting over where to build it.
Fusion would be ten years closer if we had somehow managed to select a piece of ground somewhere in a reasonable amount of time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28372565</id>
	<title>Re:Bussard</title>
	<author>CraftyJack</author>
	<datestamp>1245333300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The grant suggests that the military saw something it liked in the interesting, but questionable data from Bussard's last experiments.</p></div><p>In "Sun in a Bottle", Charles Seife claims that the interest lies in keeping scientists and engineers sharp on the subject matter without violating any test bans.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The grant suggests that the military saw something it liked in the interesting , but questionable data from Bussard 's last experiments.In " Sun in a Bottle " , Charles Seife claims that the interest lies in keeping scientists and engineers sharp on the subject matter without violating any test bans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The grant suggests that the military saw something it liked in the interesting, but questionable data from Bussard's last experiments.In "Sun in a Bottle", Charles Seife claims that the interest lies in keeping scientists and engineers sharp on the subject matter without violating any test bans.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28371119</id>
	<title>Re:Some perspective please...</title>
	<author>mtremsal</author>
	<datestamp>1245318900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wine is the real fuel of French research.</p><p>No wine no fusion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wine is the real fuel of French research.No wine no fusion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wine is the real fuel of French research.No wine no fusion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28372019</id>
	<title>News story template #115</title>
	<author>Zoxed</author>
	<datestamp>1245328980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Plan to build a &lt; insert any large, hi-tech project &gt; is being threatened by rising costs, delays and technical challenges.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Plan to build a is being threatened by rising costs , delays and technical challenges .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plan to build a  is being threatened by rising costs, delays and technical challenges.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367597</id>
	<title>Re:I am impressed</title>
	<author>ThePlague</author>
	<datestamp>1245240420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They did better than that.  When I was in physics grad school in the late 80's, early 90's, commercial fusion was "20 years away" and had been that way for over 40 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They did better than that .
When I was in physics grad school in the late 80 's , early 90 's , commercial fusion was " 20 years away " and had been that way for over 40 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They did better than that.
When I was in physics grad school in the late 80's, early 90's, commercial fusion was "20 years away" and had been that way for over 40 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28369739</id>
	<title>Re:To heck with Fusion.</title>
	<author>MaskedSlacker</author>
	<datestamp>1245260700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You hate your mother that much?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You hate your mother that much ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You hate your mother that much?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28370951</id>
	<title>Re:I am impressed</title>
	<author>Marcika</author>
	<datestamp>1245317400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The saying has always been that "fusion is still 50 years away", for fifty years ago and recent.
Now EU has managed to make it 100 years away</p> </div><p>You make the mistake of believing the summaries of Slashdot editors. ITER is not an "EU" experiment, but as international as can be (the seven parties participating in the ITER program: the EU, India, Japan, PR China, Russia, South Korea, USA).</p><p>(And of course fusion is not 50 years away, it was already achieved 50 years ago in Operation Ivy... Commercially viable fusion - now that's an engineering problem<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)  )</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The saying has always been that " fusion is still 50 years away " , for fifty years ago and recent .
Now EU has managed to make it 100 years away You make the mistake of believing the summaries of Slashdot editors .
ITER is not an " EU " experiment , but as international as can be ( the seven parties participating in the ITER program : the EU , India , Japan , PR China , Russia , South Korea , USA ) .
( And of course fusion is not 50 years away , it was already achieved 50 years ago in Operation Ivy... Commercially viable fusion - now that 's an engineering problem ; - ) )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The saying has always been that "fusion is still 50 years away", for fifty years ago and recent.
Now EU has managed to make it 100 years away You make the mistake of believing the summaries of Slashdot editors.
ITER is not an "EU" experiment, but as international as can be (the seven parties participating in the ITER program: the EU, India, Japan, PR China, Russia, South Korea, USA).
(And of course fusion is not 50 years away, it was already achieved 50 years ago in Operation Ivy... Commercially viable fusion - now that's an engineering problem ;-)  )
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28368117</id>
	<title>Fusion Power is always 20 years away</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245244740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somehow, fusion power is always 20 years away.  It's been that way the last 50 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somehow , fusion power is always 20 years away .
It 's been that way the last 50 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somehow, fusion power is always 20 years away.
It's been that way the last 50 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366817</id>
	<title>They need to bring in more talent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245235800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's impressive research on Tokamak style reactors being done by the scientists over at Stark Industries. The bigwigs complained about the damn research being done to placate the hippies... If only they could miniaturize it using off the shelf missile parts and third world engineering tools!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's impressive research on Tokamak style reactors being done by the scientists over at Stark Industries .
The bigwigs complained about the damn research being done to placate the hippies... If only they could miniaturize it using off the shelf missile parts and third world engineering tools !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's impressive research on Tokamak style reactors being done by the scientists over at Stark Industries.
The bigwigs complained about the damn research being done to placate the hippies... If only they could miniaturize it using off the shelf missile parts and third world engineering tools!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367089</id>
	<title>Re:Pure Fusion power generation is a pipe dream</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245237060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;We have two working examples of fusion generation, the Hydrogen Bomb that uses a fission device to jump start it and the Sun which is hugely radioactive.<br><br>Uhh, what?  It's actually pretty damn easy to create fusion reactions in the labratory merely using ions and electric fields.  Of course they are hugely energy negative but it's not like these are our only two examples of fusion.  Also the response about the sun indicates a complete lack of understanding about the different types of radioactivity and the relation between this and fission.<br><br>It's not like we don't have a detailed understanding of how fusion works.  We know there is no fundamental law barring fusion power, the issue is all about practical generation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; We have two working examples of fusion generation , the Hydrogen Bomb that uses a fission device to jump start it and the Sun which is hugely radioactive.Uhh , what ?
It 's actually pretty damn easy to create fusion reactions in the labratory merely using ions and electric fields .
Of course they are hugely energy negative but it 's not like these are our only two examples of fusion .
Also the response about the sun indicates a complete lack of understanding about the different types of radioactivity and the relation between this and fission.It 's not like we do n't have a detailed understanding of how fusion works .
We know there is no fundamental law barring fusion power , the issue is all about practical generation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;We have two working examples of fusion generation, the Hydrogen Bomb that uses a fission device to jump start it and the Sun which is hugely radioactive.Uhh, what?
It's actually pretty damn easy to create fusion reactions in the labratory merely using ions and electric fields.
Of course they are hugely energy negative but it's not like these are our only two examples of fusion.
Also the response about the sun indicates a complete lack of understanding about the different types of radioactivity and the relation between this and fission.It's not like we don't have a detailed understanding of how fusion works.
We know there is no fundamental law barring fusion power, the issue is all about practical generation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367275</id>
	<title>The Tokamak is a jobs program...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245238200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For physicists at this point, that should be apparent.</p><p>And in the interest of continuing scientific progress in fusion, funding for it should be scaled back considerably and instead the money that would have gone into it should go into the Polywell device, which has a much higher probability of success.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For physicists at this point , that should be apparent.And in the interest of continuing scientific progress in fusion , funding for it should be scaled back considerably and instead the money that would have gone into it should go into the Polywell device , which has a much higher probability of success .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For physicists at this point, that should be apparent.And in the interest of continuing scientific progress in fusion, funding for it should be scaled back considerably and instead the money that would have gone into it should go into the Polywell device, which has a much higher probability of success.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366957</id>
	<title>Tokamak</title>
	<author>HTH NE1</author>
	<datestamp>1245236400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Iter will be a Tokamak device</p></div><p>Good choice, since attempts with Zat'nik'tel and Tacuchnatagamuntoron devices failed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Iter will be a Tokamak deviceGood choice , since attempts with Zat'nik'tel and Tacuchnatagamuntoron devices failed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Iter will be a Tokamak deviceGood choice, since attempts with Zat'nik'tel and Tacuchnatagamuntoron devices failed.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367613</id>
	<title>How to make simple fusion reactor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245240540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>A back of the envelope calculation says that a paraffin sphere with a 200m radius can absorb the energy of a 2 megaton hydrogen bomb by melting.  So we build ourselves a nice strong containment vessel out of a granite mountain, fill the hole with paraffin and set off a bomb, melt paraffin, boil water for a couple of months and then repeat.  There is probably a better material than paraffin, but the basic idea is the same.  Just a few minor engineering issues to work out and we could have one of these suckers in production in a couple of years.  Or we could just start making better use of the monster fusion reactor that is already in the neighborhood.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A back of the envelope calculation says that a paraffin sphere with a 200m radius can absorb the energy of a 2 megaton hydrogen bomb by melting .
So we build ourselves a nice strong containment vessel out of a granite mountain , fill the hole with paraffin and set off a bomb , melt paraffin , boil water for a couple of months and then repeat .
There is probably a better material than paraffin , but the basic idea is the same .
Just a few minor engineering issues to work out and we could have one of these suckers in production in a couple of years .
Or we could just start making better use of the monster fusion reactor that is already in the neighborhood .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A back of the envelope calculation says that a paraffin sphere with a 200m radius can absorb the energy of a 2 megaton hydrogen bomb by melting.
So we build ourselves a nice strong containment vessel out of a granite mountain, fill the hole with paraffin and set off a bomb, melt paraffin, boil water for a couple of months and then repeat.
There is probably a better material than paraffin, but the basic idea is the same.
Just a few minor engineering issues to work out and we could have one of these suckers in production in a couple of years.
Or we could just start making better use of the monster fusion reactor that is already in the neighborhood.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28371305</id>
	<title>More expensive to cut back?</title>
	<author>Jeppe Salvesen</author>
	<datestamp>1245320700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The longer it takes us to find a clean, abundant, relatively inexpensive power source, the more expensive combating climate change becomes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The longer it takes us to find a clean , abundant , relatively inexpensive power source , the more expensive combating climate change becomes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The longer it takes us to find a clean, abundant, relatively inexpensive power source, the more expensive combating climate change becomes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28369941</id>
	<title>Re:NIF cost overruns</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245262920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Science at this level is neither easy nor cheap.</p></div><p>That "huge" $4,000,000,000 budget is what the United States spends in Iraq every 10 days.  Could it be that the relatively insignificant cost of the project saved it from cancellation?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Science at this level is neither easy nor cheap.That " huge " $ 4,000,000,000 budget is what the United States spends in Iraq every 10 days .
Could it be that the relatively insignificant cost of the project saved it from cancellation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science at this level is neither easy nor cheap.That "huge" $4,000,000,000 budget is what the United States spends in Iraq every 10 days.
Could it be that the relatively insignificant cost of the project saved it from cancellation?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28401657</id>
	<title>Re:How to make simple fusion reactor</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1245511560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That sounds a bit like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PACER\_(fusion)" title="wikipedia.org">PACER</a> [wikipedia.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>That sounds a bit like PACER [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That sounds a bit like PACER [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28377559</id>
	<title>Re:Some perspective please...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245353520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If fusion is fifty years away they can stop the research right now, as far as I'm concerned. I won't be alive to reap the benefits so I really don't see why I should have to pay for it.
<br> <br>
Stop all subsidies right now. If something isn't economically viable it shouldn't be part of the economy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If fusion is fifty years away they can stop the research right now , as far as I 'm concerned .
I wo n't be alive to reap the benefits so I really do n't see why I should have to pay for it .
Stop all subsidies right now .
If something is n't economically viable it should n't be part of the economy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If fusion is fifty years away they can stop the research right now, as far as I'm concerned.
I won't be alive to reap the benefits so I really don't see why I should have to pay for it.
Stop all subsidies right now.
If something isn't economically viable it shouldn't be part of the economy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28368121</id>
	<title>Re:How to make simple fusion reactor</title>
	<author>RsG</author>
	<datestamp>1245244740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Believe it or not, that's been suggested, perhaps unsurprisingly in the USSR during the cold war.</p><p>It isn't all that practical a power source.  There's no benefit to it over a conventional fission reactor, and several drawbacks.  Notably, bombs are more expensive and challenging to make than fuel pellets, the security risk is much greater if somebody hijacks your fuel, radioactive material released in this manner has an annoying tendency to find it's way into the atmosphere or water table, and finally, whatever you build the blast chamber under is going to get hammered every time you light it up.  Your granite mountain might become an irradiated gravel heap, given enough time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Believe it or not , that 's been suggested , perhaps unsurprisingly in the USSR during the cold war.It is n't all that practical a power source .
There 's no benefit to it over a conventional fission reactor , and several drawbacks .
Notably , bombs are more expensive and challenging to make than fuel pellets , the security risk is much greater if somebody hijacks your fuel , radioactive material released in this manner has an annoying tendency to find it 's way into the atmosphere or water table , and finally , whatever you build the blast chamber under is going to get hammered every time you light it up .
Your granite mountain might become an irradiated gravel heap , given enough time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Believe it or not, that's been suggested, perhaps unsurprisingly in the USSR during the cold war.It isn't all that practical a power source.
There's no benefit to it over a conventional fission reactor, and several drawbacks.
Notably, bombs are more expensive and challenging to make than fuel pellets, the security risk is much greater if somebody hijacks your fuel, radioactive material released in this manner has an annoying tendency to find it's way into the atmosphere or water table, and finally, whatever you build the blast chamber under is going to get hammered every time you light it up.
Your granite mountain might become an irradiated gravel heap, given enough time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366859</id>
	<title>What ever happened to this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245236040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;oi=video\_result&amp;ct=res&amp;cd=4&amp;url=http\%3A\%2F\%2Fvideo.google.com\%2Fvideoplay\%3Fdocid\%3D1996321846673788606&amp;ei=hGU5SrOhH42xtwel5PXRDA&amp;usg=AFQjCNHxORbZINinrkOGLTycnqp8UYyu7w&amp;sig2=0kkUrYOGzN-4EA2DIqMdcA" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">nuclear google</a> [google.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>nuclear google [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nuclear google [google.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366799</id>
	<title>Inflation</title>
	<author>Lars T.</author>
	<datestamp>1245235680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The number of Slashdot stories on this has also just doubled. <a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/29/0511233" title="slashdot.org">http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/29/0511233</a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The number of Slashdot stories on this has also just doubled .
http : //hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/05/29/0511233 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The number of Slashdot stories on this has also just doubled.
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/29/0511233 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366999</id>
	<title>Re:I am impressed-Proof Of Time Travel Finally</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245236640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Since fusion was only "50 years away" when we started we where actually better off before we started to build that reactor</p></div></blockquote><p>
Congratulations, you have just proven that time travelers coming back from the future are clearly meddling in our affairs in an ongoing basis. I can only hope that it's a better future than Skynet - unless it's full of those hot Terminator babes!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since fusion was only " 50 years away " when we started we where actually better off before we started to build that reactor Congratulations , you have just proven that time travelers coming back from the future are clearly meddling in our affairs in an ongoing basis .
I can only hope that it 's a better future than Skynet - unless it 's full of those hot Terminator babes !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since fusion was only "50 years away" when we started we where actually better off before we started to build that reactor
Congratulations, you have just proven that time travelers coming back from the future are clearly meddling in our affairs in an ongoing basis.
I can only hope that it's a better future than Skynet - unless it's full of those hot Terminator babes!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366625</id>
	<title>Posting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245234780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>posting to undo accidental mod</htmltext>
<tokenext>posting to undo accidental mod</tokentext>
<sentencetext>posting to undo accidental mod</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28371887</id>
	<title>Where's the money?</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1245327600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We're supposed to have Mr. Fusion by 2015</p></div><p>That won't happen as long as the EU gives the experimenters more concrete instead of financing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're supposed to have Mr. Fusion by 2015That wo n't happen as long as the EU gives the experimenters more concrete instead of financing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're supposed to have Mr. Fusion by 2015That won't happen as long as the EU gives the experimenters more concrete instead of financing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366789</id>
	<title>NIF cost overruns</title>
	<author>Super\_Z</author>
	<datestamp>1245235620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> Meanwhile, an experiment in fusion by laser doesn't seem to be running into the same high profile funding problems just yet."</p></div>
</blockquote><p>According to <a href="http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displayStory.cfm?story\_id=13726730" title="economist.com">this article</a> [economist.com], NIF has cost $4 billion so far - almost <b>four</b> times the original estimate. What saved the NIF from cancellation was that its backers persuaded politicians that it was vital for Americas nuclear programme.
</p><p>Science at this level is neither easy nor cheap.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Meanwhile , an experiment in fusion by laser does n't seem to be running into the same high profile funding problems just yet .
" According to this article [ economist.com ] , NIF has cost $ 4 billion so far - almost four times the original estimate .
What saved the NIF from cancellation was that its backers persuaded politicians that it was vital for Americas nuclear programme .
Science at this level is neither easy nor cheap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Meanwhile, an experiment in fusion by laser doesn't seem to be running into the same high profile funding problems just yet.
"
According to this article [economist.com], NIF has cost $4 billion so far - almost four times the original estimate.
What saved the NIF from cancellation was that its backers persuaded politicians that it was vital for Americas nuclear programme.
Science at this level is neither easy nor cheap.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28368509</id>
	<title>Re:Pure Fusion power generation is a pipe dream</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245248580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Hydrogen Bomb that uses a fission device to jump start it" does not imply "the future of fusion generation would be a component of fission generation".</p><p>The reason that hydrogen bombs have fission bombs around them is because fusion requires compression and heat.  Fission, on the other hand, requires a chain reaction--so the two use completely different mechanisms.</p><p>When the fission bombs go off, they provide they compression and heat for the fusion to start.  All you would need is sometime to replicate that compression and heat, and there are several ways to do that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Hydrogen Bomb that uses a fission device to jump start it " does not imply " the future of fusion generation would be a component of fission generation " .The reason that hydrogen bombs have fission bombs around them is because fusion requires compression and heat .
Fission , on the other hand , requires a chain reaction--so the two use completely different mechanisms.When the fission bombs go off , they provide they compression and heat for the fusion to start .
All you would need is sometime to replicate that compression and heat , and there are several ways to do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Hydrogen Bomb that uses a fission device to jump start it" does not imply "the future of fusion generation would be a component of fission generation".The reason that hydrogen bombs have fission bombs around them is because fusion requires compression and heat.
Fission, on the other hand, requires a chain reaction--so the two use completely different mechanisms.When the fission bombs go off, they provide they compression and heat for the fusion to start.
All you would need is sometime to replicate that compression and heat, and there are several ways to do that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367533</id>
	<title>Re:Bussard</title>
	<author>khellendros1984</author>
	<datestamp>1245240060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about his collectors? How are those coming? I think we need them by 2151 or so...</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about his collectors ?
How are those coming ?
I think we need them by 2151 or so.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about his collectors?
How are those coming?
I think we need them by 2151 or so...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28368803</id>
	<title>More wasted money</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245251520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can drill a stupid hole in the ground, about 1 Km deep, use conventional (20 year old technology) directional drilling technology to make it a circle 1 Km in diameter, and then drill a second hole back up to the surface.  You can then pump water (regular, every day ordinary garden-variety water) into the ground, and have it come up hot (steam).  This can then be used to turn a turbine, and the water sent back down to do it all again.  Such a system can be used to generate between 10MW-100MW.  Repeat.  100 of these can be built for the cost of 1 tokamak.  The difference is that 100 of these can produce between 1000MW-10000MW, whereas a tokamak produces 0MW.  At least the scientists are not yelping 'oh, just 15 more years' anymore.  I think research is really wonderful, but it had better be something tangible.  They have said "only 15 years out" for about 60 years now.  Except now they are saying 100 years.  Between now and 100 years from now, we need something.  A tokamak reactor won't.  Geothermal will.  Oh, and while we're at it, build about 2 or 3 dozen new nuclear plants.   Create a mine about 10560 feet down (2 miles deep), and store waste down there.  Use concrete and steel for support, and store at least 1000 tons of high-level waste down there, then seal it all up.  Make sure there is no possible way it can get to the surface, and put a geothermal station above it with cooling lines 1 mile deep.  If it starts to react and give off a lot of heat, you just let it react and get real hot.  Siphon off all the heat, and remember to turn it into electricity.  If you don't think 2 miles is deep enough, go 3 miles.  This isn't that hard, is it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can drill a stupid hole in the ground , about 1 Km deep , use conventional ( 20 year old technology ) directional drilling technology to make it a circle 1 Km in diameter , and then drill a second hole back up to the surface .
You can then pump water ( regular , every day ordinary garden-variety water ) into the ground , and have it come up hot ( steam ) .
This can then be used to turn a turbine , and the water sent back down to do it all again .
Such a system can be used to generate between 10MW-100MW .
Repeat. 100 of these can be built for the cost of 1 tokamak .
The difference is that 100 of these can produce between 1000MW-10000MW , whereas a tokamak produces 0MW .
At least the scientists are not yelping 'oh , just 15 more years ' anymore .
I think research is really wonderful , but it had better be something tangible .
They have said " only 15 years out " for about 60 years now .
Except now they are saying 100 years .
Between now and 100 years from now , we need something .
A tokamak reactor wo n't .
Geothermal will .
Oh , and while we 're at it , build about 2 or 3 dozen new nuclear plants .
Create a mine about 10560 feet down ( 2 miles deep ) , and store waste down there .
Use concrete and steel for support , and store at least 1000 tons of high-level waste down there , then seal it all up .
Make sure there is no possible way it can get to the surface , and put a geothermal station above it with cooling lines 1 mile deep .
If it starts to react and give off a lot of heat , you just let it react and get real hot .
Siphon off all the heat , and remember to turn it into electricity .
If you do n't think 2 miles is deep enough , go 3 miles .
This is n't that hard , is it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can drill a stupid hole in the ground, about 1 Km deep, use conventional (20 year old technology) directional drilling technology to make it a circle 1 Km in diameter, and then drill a second hole back up to the surface.
You can then pump water (regular, every day ordinary garden-variety water) into the ground, and have it come up hot (steam).
This can then be used to turn a turbine, and the water sent back down to do it all again.
Such a system can be used to generate between 10MW-100MW.
Repeat.  100 of these can be built for the cost of 1 tokamak.
The difference is that 100 of these can produce between 1000MW-10000MW, whereas a tokamak produces 0MW.
At least the scientists are not yelping 'oh, just 15 more years' anymore.
I think research is really wonderful, but it had better be something tangible.
They have said "only 15 years out" for about 60 years now.
Except now they are saying 100 years.
Between now and 100 years from now, we need something.
A tokamak reactor won't.
Geothermal will.
Oh, and while we're at it, build about 2 or 3 dozen new nuclear plants.
Create a mine about 10560 feet down (2 miles deep), and store waste down there.
Use concrete and steel for support, and store at least 1000 tons of high-level waste down there, then seal it all up.
Make sure there is no possible way it can get to the surface, and put a geothermal station above it with cooling lines 1 mile deep.
If it starts to react and give off a lot of heat, you just let it react and get real hot.
Siphon off all the heat, and remember to turn it into electricity.
If you don't think 2 miles is deep enough, go 3 miles.
This isn't that hard, is it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28375253</id>
	<title>Re:NIF cost overruns</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245345000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly. The laser fusion is vital in modeling fusion implosion devices. This is one area that is not well known. ITER, on the other hand, has no significant military applications.</p><p>This is actually very, very sad. If anything, ITER should receive more funding because of the science (material, plasma, etc.) that needs to be learned to make it work. Laser fusion, on the other hand, is just there so the Dept. of Energy can make better simulation of nukes in their supercomputers.</p><p>I hope the world doesn't need another episode of Dark Ages before people realize that funding science is more important than immediate gratification.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
The laser fusion is vital in modeling fusion implosion devices .
This is one area that is not well known .
ITER , on the other hand , has no significant military applications.This is actually very , very sad .
If anything , ITER should receive more funding because of the science ( material , plasma , etc .
) that needs to be learned to make it work .
Laser fusion , on the other hand , is just there so the Dept .
of Energy can make better simulation of nukes in their supercomputers.I hope the world does n't need another episode of Dark Ages before people realize that funding science is more important than immediate gratification .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
The laser fusion is vital in modeling fusion implosion devices.
This is one area that is not well known.
ITER, on the other hand, has no significant military applications.This is actually very, very sad.
If anything, ITER should receive more funding because of the science (material, plasma, etc.
) that needs to be learned to make it work.
Laser fusion, on the other hand, is just there so the Dept.
of Energy can make better simulation of nukes in their supercomputers.I hope the world doesn't need another episode of Dark Ages before people realize that funding science is more important than immediate gratification.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366765</id>
	<title>100 years?</title>
	<author>Sybert42</author>
	<datestamp>1245235500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That hits into Singularity timelines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That hits into Singularity timelines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That hits into Singularity timelines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28368625</id>
	<title>Is that what they really want?</title>
	<author>shish</author>
	<datestamp>1245249780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>EU Fusion Experiment's Financial Woes Get More Concrete</p></div><p>From the sounds of things, what they want is more <i>money</i>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>EU Fusion Experiment 's Financial Woes Get More ConcreteFrom the sounds of things , what they want is more money.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>EU Fusion Experiment's Financial Woes Get More ConcreteFrom the sounds of things, what they want is more money...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366955</id>
	<title>The real problem is....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245236400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once they get it working the funding will cease.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once they get it working the funding will cease .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once they get it working the funding will cease.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28371371</id>
	<title>Re:Materials, materials, materials</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1245321420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For a commercial reactor, we don't have an ideal first wall material yet.</p></div><p>There are some really good ideas in fact. However we do not have the ability to test these ideas.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> These cost overruns and delays over the history of the ITER program have been ridiculous</p></div><p>They have been ridiculous, and are 100\% political, not scientific. The science of fusion has improved dramatically, confinement has improve many orders of magnitude. And ITER is a logical next step. But its not the only step. We could do smaller experiment on ELM or upgrade JET yet again, or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....
<br> <br>
We don't seem to be very good at "organizing" science at this kind of size, so smaller seems better with more specific R&amp;D goals.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For a commercial reactor , we do n't have an ideal first wall material yet.There are some really good ideas in fact .
However we do not have the ability to test these ideas .
These cost overruns and delays over the history of the ITER program have been ridiculousThey have been ridiculous , and are 100 \ % political , not scientific .
The science of fusion has improved dramatically , confinement has improve many orders of magnitude .
And ITER is a logical next step .
But its not the only step .
We could do smaller experiment on ELM or upgrade JET yet again , or ... . We do n't seem to be very good at " organizing " science at this kind of size , so smaller seems better with more specific R&amp;D goals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a commercial reactor, we don't have an ideal first wall material yet.There are some really good ideas in fact.
However we do not have the ability to test these ideas.
These cost overruns and delays over the history of the ITER program have been ridiculousThey have been ridiculous, and are 100\% political, not scientific.
The science of fusion has improved dramatically, confinement has improve many orders of magnitude.
And ITER is a logical next step.
But its not the only step.
We could do smaller experiment on ELM or upgrade JET yet again, or ....
 
We don't seem to be very good at "organizing" science at this kind of size, so smaller seems better with more specific R&amp;D goals.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28368159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28368391</id>
	<title>Re:How to make simple fusion reactor</title>
	<author>NP-Incomplete</author>
	<datestamp>1245247260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I believe this has been suggested using existing salt mines.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe this has been suggested using existing salt mines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe this has been suggested using existing salt mines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28368755</id>
	<title>Cold Fusion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245251100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cold fusion has already been proven and the method is called deuterium loading. Look it up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cold fusion has already been proven and the method is called deuterium loading .
Look it up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cold fusion has already been proven and the method is called deuterium loading.
Look it up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28369127</id>
	<title>Re:I am impressed</title>
	<author>adavies42</author>
	<datestamp>1245254460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now EU has managed to make it 100 years away - it's an impressive achievement</p></div><p>they must be trying to <a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/news/nasa\_embarks\_on\_epic\_delay" title="theonion.com">one-up nasa</a> [theonion.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now EU has managed to make it 100 years away - it 's an impressive achievementthey must be trying to one-up nasa [ theonion.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now EU has managed to make it 100 years away - it's an impressive achievementthey must be trying to one-up nasa [theonion.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28368137</id>
	<title>Re:Pure Fusion power generation is a pipe dream</title>
	<author>The Archon V2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1245244800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We have two working examples of fusion generation, the Hydrogen Bomb that uses a fission device to jump start it and the Sun which is hugely radioactive.</p><p>So our two working examples of fusion generation require fission.</p></div><p>It is with great dishonor that I present you with the "you fail physics forever" diploma. I wish you the best of luck on your new career as a Hollywood action and sci-fi movie writer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We have two working examples of fusion generation , the Hydrogen Bomb that uses a fission device to jump start it and the Sun which is hugely radioactive.So our two working examples of fusion generation require fission.It is with great dishonor that I present you with the " you fail physics forever " diploma .
I wish you the best of luck on your new career as a Hollywood action and sci-fi movie writer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have two working examples of fusion generation, the Hydrogen Bomb that uses a fission device to jump start it and the Sun which is hugely radioactive.So our two working examples of fusion generation require fission.It is with great dishonor that I present you with the "you fail physics forever" diploma.
I wish you the best of luck on your new career as a Hollywood action and sci-fi movie writer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367541</id>
	<title>Re:Bussard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245240120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IIRC as far as time frame and cost goes, the EMC2 team (Bussard's team) expects that an energy positive full scale system will take 6 years and somewhere in the $100 - 200 million range.  The team is mostly funded by the Navy which is interested in the research as a future power source for ships.</p><p>For those that don't know, the Polywell design is a rethinking of the old "Fusor" design which has been successfully performing fusion for decades, even in garage settings, but at an energy loss.  The Polywell design works on the idea that instead of trying to crush atoms together with magnets like a tokomak (hard to do) you confine electrons with magnets (easy to do) and release ionized atoms into the device which are accelerated towards the confined electrons and smack into each other.</p><p>Typical "Fusors" and the current prototype Polywell devices use Deuterium and Tritium, which when fused result in Helium plus an extra neutron.  The extra neutron can stick to components inside the device causing them to become radioactive over time (much of the radioactive waste associated with existing nuclear power is caused by equipment being bombarded with neutrons).  The ultimate goal of the EMC2 group is to perform Hydrogen/Boron-11reactions instead, which only result in Helium, however this reaction requires significantly stronger magnetic fields, higher currents, and a larger area.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IIRC as far as time frame and cost goes , the EMC2 team ( Bussard 's team ) expects that an energy positive full scale system will take 6 years and somewhere in the $ 100 - 200 million range .
The team is mostly funded by the Navy which is interested in the research as a future power source for ships.For those that do n't know , the Polywell design is a rethinking of the old " Fusor " design which has been successfully performing fusion for decades , even in garage settings , but at an energy loss .
The Polywell design works on the idea that instead of trying to crush atoms together with magnets like a tokomak ( hard to do ) you confine electrons with magnets ( easy to do ) and release ionized atoms into the device which are accelerated towards the confined electrons and smack into each other.Typical " Fusors " and the current prototype Polywell devices use Deuterium and Tritium , which when fused result in Helium plus an extra neutron .
The extra neutron can stick to components inside the device causing them to become radioactive over time ( much of the radioactive waste associated with existing nuclear power is caused by equipment being bombarded with neutrons ) .
The ultimate goal of the EMC2 group is to perform Hydrogen/Boron-11reactions instead , which only result in Helium , however this reaction requires significantly stronger magnetic fields , higher currents , and a larger area .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IIRC as far as time frame and cost goes, the EMC2 team (Bussard's team) expects that an energy positive full scale system will take 6 years and somewhere in the $100 - 200 million range.
The team is mostly funded by the Navy which is interested in the research as a future power source for ships.For those that don't know, the Polywell design is a rethinking of the old "Fusor" design which has been successfully performing fusion for decades, even in garage settings, but at an energy loss.
The Polywell design works on the idea that instead of trying to crush atoms together with magnets like a tokomak (hard to do) you confine electrons with magnets (easy to do) and release ionized atoms into the device which are accelerated towards the confined electrons and smack into each other.Typical "Fusors" and the current prototype Polywell devices use Deuterium and Tritium, which when fused result in Helium plus an extra neutron.
The extra neutron can stick to components inside the device causing them to become radioactive over time (much of the radioactive waste associated with existing nuclear power is caused by equipment being bombarded with neutrons).
The ultimate goal of the EMC2 group is to perform Hydrogen/Boron-11reactions instead, which only result in Helium, however this reaction requires significantly stronger magnetic fields, higher currents, and a larger area.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366773</id>
	<title>Europe + Fusion</title>
	<author>swanzilla</author>
	<datestamp>1245235500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>= the plot of The Saint.  Be on the lookout for horrible accents.</htmltext>
<tokenext>= the plot of The Saint .
Be on the lookout for horrible accents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>= the plot of The Saint.
Be on the lookout for horrible accents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28371141</id>
	<title>China built East fusion reactor for $37 mil</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245319080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How come China can build a prototype fusion reactor for $37 million (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EAST)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How come China can build a prototype fusion reactor for $ 37 million ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EAST ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How come China can build a prototype fusion reactor for $37 million (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EAST)?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28386223</id>
	<title>Re:100 Years, My Ass</title>
	<author>Cedric Tsui</author>
	<datestamp>1245441600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey. I'm doing my doctorate in the field. (thus the late comment)<br> <br>

As for the computers solving the diffeqs. You may be right and you may be wrong.<br>
The sad thing is, we do not have a set of differential equations that can accurately predict how plasmas will behave across strong magnetic fields. You may have heard that when fluid models are used in turbulent situations, they spit out 'correct' solutions which do not even closely resemble what's actually observed and until recently, the best fluid models predicted that lady bugs should be incapable of flight. (anecdotal stuff I know. I don't have a citation.)<br> <br>

Sadly, things are even more complicated for plasmas. Tokamak plasmas are turbulent. There are multiple species involved. Particles interact by collisions (short range) and by electromagnetic fields (long range). They radiate, they conduct, and currents make magnetic field pertubations that mess with the magnetic field you're using to hold them still in the first place. What's more. The temperature and pressure gradients we are working with are not seen anywhere else that I know of. That is ofcourse how you get a core plasma of 100 million degrees a few meters away from a solid wall that isn't evaporating.<br> <br>

Currently, every plasma model used in fusion is semi-empirical and very limited in application. Even with unlimited computing power, there aren't enough assumptions we can waive to make the ideal model.<br> <br> <br>


However. The problems ITER faces are not so much in plasma physics as they are in engineering. They're struggling to maintain a balance between confinement and stability (the harder you squeeze a balloon, the harder it tries to bulge out between your fingers). They're trying to select their wall materials. One candidate (carbon reinforced composites) can take the heat fluxes, but tends to soak up tritium like a sponge. Tungsten should (hopefully) soak up less tritium, but can poison the plasma if too much of it gets vaporized. What happens to your superconducting magnets when they get bombarded by neutrons? How do you watercool such a large hot surface without risking a steam explosion? <br> <br>

I am saddened by these cost overruns. Sometimes I can't blame people for not wanting to fund it. That doesn't mean the fringe scientists are doing any better of a job.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey .
I 'm doing my doctorate in the field .
( thus the late comment ) As for the computers solving the diffeqs .
You may be right and you may be wrong .
The sad thing is , we do not have a set of differential equations that can accurately predict how plasmas will behave across strong magnetic fields .
You may have heard that when fluid models are used in turbulent situations , they spit out 'correct ' solutions which do not even closely resemble what 's actually observed and until recently , the best fluid models predicted that lady bugs should be incapable of flight .
( anecdotal stuff I know .
I do n't have a citation .
) Sadly , things are even more complicated for plasmas .
Tokamak plasmas are turbulent .
There are multiple species involved .
Particles interact by collisions ( short range ) and by electromagnetic fields ( long range ) .
They radiate , they conduct , and currents make magnetic field pertubations that mess with the magnetic field you 're using to hold them still in the first place .
What 's more .
The temperature and pressure gradients we are working with are not seen anywhere else that I know of .
That is ofcourse how you get a core plasma of 100 million degrees a few meters away from a solid wall that is n't evaporating .
Currently , every plasma model used in fusion is semi-empirical and very limited in application .
Even with unlimited computing power , there are n't enough assumptions we can waive to make the ideal model .
However. The problems ITER faces are not so much in plasma physics as they are in engineering .
They 're struggling to maintain a balance between confinement and stability ( the harder you squeeze a balloon , the harder it tries to bulge out between your fingers ) .
They 're trying to select their wall materials .
One candidate ( carbon reinforced composites ) can take the heat fluxes , but tends to soak up tritium like a sponge .
Tungsten should ( hopefully ) soak up less tritium , but can poison the plasma if too much of it gets vaporized .
What happens to your superconducting magnets when they get bombarded by neutrons ?
How do you watercool such a large hot surface without risking a steam explosion ?
I am saddened by these cost overruns .
Sometimes I ca n't blame people for not wanting to fund it .
That does n't mean the fringe scientists are doing any better of a job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey.
I'm doing my doctorate in the field.
(thus the late comment) 

As for the computers solving the diffeqs.
You may be right and you may be wrong.
The sad thing is, we do not have a set of differential equations that can accurately predict how plasmas will behave across strong magnetic fields.
You may have heard that when fluid models are used in turbulent situations, they spit out 'correct' solutions which do not even closely resemble what's actually observed and until recently, the best fluid models predicted that lady bugs should be incapable of flight.
(anecdotal stuff I know.
I don't have a citation.
) 

Sadly, things are even more complicated for plasmas.
Tokamak plasmas are turbulent.
There are multiple species involved.
Particles interact by collisions (short range) and by electromagnetic fields (long range).
They radiate, they conduct, and currents make magnetic field pertubations that mess with the magnetic field you're using to hold them still in the first place.
What's more.
The temperature and pressure gradients we are working with are not seen anywhere else that I know of.
That is ofcourse how you get a core plasma of 100 million degrees a few meters away from a solid wall that isn't evaporating.
Currently, every plasma model used in fusion is semi-empirical and very limited in application.
Even with unlimited computing power, there aren't enough assumptions we can waive to make the ideal model.
However. The problems ITER faces are not so much in plasma physics as they are in engineering.
They're struggling to maintain a balance between confinement and stability (the harder you squeeze a balloon, the harder it tries to bulge out between your fingers).
They're trying to select their wall materials.
One candidate (carbon reinforced composites) can take the heat fluxes, but tends to soak up tritium like a sponge.
Tungsten should (hopefully) soak up less tritium, but can poison the plasma if too much of it gets vaporized.
What happens to your superconducting magnets when they get bombarded by neutrons?
How do you watercool such a large hot surface without risking a steam explosion?
I am saddened by these cost overruns.
Sometimes I can't blame people for not wanting to fund it.
That doesn't mean the fringe scientists are doing any better of a job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28372995</id>
	<title>Re:Better get cracking!</title>
	<author>Sausage Nibblets</author>
	<datestamp>1245335520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We're supposed to have <a href="http://bttf.wikia.com/wiki/Mr.\_Fusion" title="wikia.com" rel="nofollow">Mr. Fusion</a> [wikia.com] by 2015, you know,... Of course, we were supposed to have flying cars 9 years ago, too,...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div><p>According to TFA you linked to: </p><p><div class="quote"><p>vehicles seen in Back to the Future Part II don't have a Mr. Fusion, and the Texaco service station in 2015 is still in operation.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're supposed to have Mr. Fusion [ wikia.com ] by 2015 , you know,... Of course , we were supposed to have flying cars 9 years ago , too,... ; - ) According to TFA you linked to : vehicles seen in Back to the Future Part II do n't have a Mr. Fusion , and the Texaco service station in 2015 is still in operation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're supposed to have Mr. Fusion [wikia.com] by 2015, you know,... Of course, we were supposed to have flying cars 9 years ago, too,... ;-)According to TFA you linked to: vehicles seen in Back to the Future Part II don't have a Mr. Fusion, and the Texaco service station in 2015 is still in operation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28369369</id>
	<title>Not making it any easier...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245257100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment.</p><p>Morons, idiots, fucktards, pick any name and it applies to luddite son-of-bitches like these.</p><p>J.Hansen wants to prosecute GW "Deniers". He should first go after brainless shit-for-brains like these people who, along with more mainstream leftists KILLED NUCLEAR POWER and made us MORE RELIANT ON FOSSIL FUELS.</p><p>Fucking assholes, the lot of them. Fucking environmentalists got us into this mess with their scare mongering...Bitch Fonda, are you listening? Global Warming is YOUR FAULT along with all the other dumb as a sack of brick enviro-whackos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment.Morons , idiots , fucktards , pick any name and it applies to luddite son-of-bitches like these.J.Hansen wants to prosecute GW " Deniers " .
He should first go after brainless shit-for-brains like these people who , along with more mainstream leftists KILLED NUCLEAR POWER and made us MORE RELIANT ON FOSSIL FUELS.Fucking assholes , the lot of them .
Fucking environmentalists got us into this mess with their scare mongering...Bitch Fonda , are you listening ?
Global Warming is YOUR FAULT along with all the other dumb as a sack of brick enviro-whackos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment.Morons, idiots, fucktards, pick any name and it applies to luddite son-of-bitches like these.J.Hansen wants to prosecute GW "Deniers".
He should first go after brainless shit-for-brains like these people who, along with more mainstream leftists KILLED NUCLEAR POWER and made us MORE RELIANT ON FOSSIL FUELS.Fucking assholes, the lot of them.
Fucking environmentalists got us into this mess with their scare mongering...Bitch Fonda, are you listening?
Global Warming is YOUR FAULT along with all the other dumb as a sack of brick enviro-whackos.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366967</id>
	<title>Re:Bussard</title>
	<author>Jerf</author>
	<datestamp>1245236460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2009/06/the\_boys\_at\_tal.html" title="classicalvalues.com">The latest Bussard fusion news, from yesterday</a> [classicalvalues.com]. Fairly encouraging; it's hard to estimate exactly how successful the tests were but we can rule out total failure, I think.</p><p>I would currently place Bussard's success probability as <i>much</i> higher than ITER's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The latest Bussard fusion news , from yesterday [ classicalvalues.com ] .
Fairly encouraging ; it 's hard to estimate exactly how successful the tests were but we can rule out total failure , I think.I would currently place Bussard 's success probability as much higher than ITER 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The latest Bussard fusion news, from yesterday [classicalvalues.com].
Fairly encouraging; it's hard to estimate exactly how successful the tests were but we can rule out total failure, I think.I would currently place Bussard's success probability as much higher than ITER's.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28369545</id>
	<title>More Concrete?</title>
	<author>JuzzFunky</author>
	<datestamp>1245259140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm confused.  What does <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">concrete</a> [wikipedia.org] have to do with financial woes?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm confused .
What does concrete [ wikipedia.org ] have to do with financial woes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm confused.
What does concrete [wikipedia.org] have to do with financial woes?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366665</id>
	<title>Better get cracking!</title>
	<author>cashman73</author>
	<datestamp>1245235020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>We're supposed to have <a href="http://bttf.wikia.com/wiki/Mr.\_Fusion" title="wikia.com">Mr. Fusion</a> [wikia.com] by 2015, you know,... Of course, we were supposed to have flying cars 9 years ago, too,...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're supposed to have Mr. Fusion [ wikia.com ] by 2015 , you know,... Of course , we were supposed to have flying cars 9 years ago , too,... ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're supposed to have Mr. Fusion [wikia.com] by 2015, you know,... Of course, we were supposed to have flying cars 9 years ago, too,... ;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366943</id>
	<title>100 years now</title>
	<author>Perp Atuitie</author>
	<datestamp>1245236340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the middle of the 70s, controlled fusion was just around the corner. Many times. 100 years is some corner. Far as I know there's been no progress, even in the lab, since then.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the middle of the 70s , controlled fusion was just around the corner .
Many times .
100 years is some corner .
Far as I know there 's been no progress , even in the lab , since then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the middle of the 70s, controlled fusion was just around the corner.
Many times.
100 years is some corner.
Far as I know there's been no progress, even in the lab, since then.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28368549</id>
	<title>Re:Better get cracking!</title>
	<author>Afforess</author>
	<datestamp>1245248940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, Fusion power isn't unlocked until 2050.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , Fusion power is n't unlocked until 2050 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, Fusion power isn't unlocked until 2050.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28368909</id>
	<title>This is why the IFR should be restart ASAP</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1245252480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anytime you have a large number of countries who are building something in which each is trying to gain control of it, there will be costs overrun. In addition, the IFR is capable of burning the WASTE nuke supplies. If advanced countries put these in, then the world will have but a fraction of the waste.  3rd world countries (developing nations; whatever) can put in older reactors that use simple reaction. And the argument about plutonium going to bomb making is a total fraud. As it is, we have Iran and North Korea creating bombs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anytime you have a large number of countries who are building something in which each is trying to gain control of it , there will be costs overrun .
In addition , the IFR is capable of burning the WASTE nuke supplies .
If advanced countries put these in , then the world will have but a fraction of the waste .
3rd world countries ( developing nations ; whatever ) can put in older reactors that use simple reaction .
And the argument about plutonium going to bomb making is a total fraud .
As it is , we have Iran and North Korea creating bombs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anytime you have a large number of countries who are building something in which each is trying to gain control of it, there will be costs overrun.
In addition, the IFR is capable of burning the WASTE nuke supplies.
If advanced countries put these in, then the world will have but a fraction of the waste.
3rd world countries (developing nations; whatever) can put in older reactors that use simple reaction.
And the argument about plutonium going to bomb making is a total fraud.
As it is, we have Iran and North Korea creating bombs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367177</id>
	<title>Re:I am impressed</title>
	<author>somersault</author>
	<datestamp>1245237540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Better off than when we started indeed:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Some scientists also believe that the technical hurdles to fusion have become more difficult to overcome</p></div><p>Somehow we have changed the universe to make fusion more difficult. We'd better be careful just how much research we do into it - if we do too much, the sun will stop working!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Better off than when we started indeed : Some scientists also believe that the technical hurdles to fusion have become more difficult to overcomeSomehow we have changed the universe to make fusion more difficult .
We 'd better be careful just how much research we do into it - if we do too much , the sun will stop working !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better off than when we started indeed:Some scientists also believe that the technical hurdles to fusion have become more difficult to overcomeSomehow we have changed the universe to make fusion more difficult.
We'd better be careful just how much research we do into it - if we do too much, the sun will stop working!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367153</id>
	<title>100 Years?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245237420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, in the 50's it was any day now; 70's real soon now; 90's became 50 years; now 2010 we're at 100.  That's a heck of a curve. In 100 years we'll be at only 200 years away!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , in the 50 's it was any day now ; 70 's real soon now ; 90 's became 50 years ; now 2010 we 're at 100 .
That 's a heck of a curve .
In 100 years we 'll be at only 200 years away !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, in the 50's it was any day now; 70's real soon now; 90's became 50 years; now 2010 we're at 100.
That's a heck of a curve.
In 100 years we'll be at only 200 years away!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28368297</id>
	<title>Re:Bussard</title>
	<author>NP-Incomplete</author>
	<datestamp>1245246300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have much more faith in NIF than ITER.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have much more faith in NIF than ITER .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have much more faith in NIF than ITER.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367307</id>
	<title>seriously</title>
	<author>dwarfenhoschi</author>
	<datestamp>1245238440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>They dont mean those 100 years seriously right ?

i mean look at it, 100 years ago we were happy to even have Power and just in the last 10 years much has developed.
Science these days is exponential so i expect that in 100 years we have either blown ourselves up somehow or we will have really cool stuff...fusion power will be old by then ^^</htmltext>
<tokenext>They dont mean those 100 years seriously right ?
i mean look at it , 100 years ago we were happy to even have Power and just in the last 10 years much has developed .
Science these days is exponential so i expect that in 100 years we have either blown ourselves up somehow or we will have really cool stuff...fusion power will be old by then ^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They dont mean those 100 years seriously right ?
i mean look at it, 100 years ago we were happy to even have Power and just in the last 10 years much has developed.
Science these days is exponential so i expect that in 100 years we have either blown ourselves up somehow or we will have really cool stuff...fusion power will be old by then ^^</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28370315</id>
	<title>The way it works</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245268440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just like with any cost efficient technology, it'll be 50-100 years away until one day people will realize "OMG it works", those people will be the previous energy barons when they suddenly realize their business is kaput and they don't have anything else to go to.</p><p>First solar, then fusion, then monkey batteries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like with any cost efficient technology , it 'll be 50-100 years away until one day people will realize " OMG it works " , those people will be the previous energy barons when they suddenly realize their business is kaput and they do n't have anything else to go to.First solar , then fusion , then monkey batteries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like with any cost efficient technology, it'll be 50-100 years away until one day people will realize "OMG it works", those people will be the previous energy barons when they suddenly realize their business is kaput and they don't have anything else to go to.First solar, then fusion, then monkey batteries.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28370867</id>
	<title>bailout</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245316620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>its still a fraction of the money that we just gave to the banks and car industry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>its still a fraction of the money that we just gave to the banks and car industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its still a fraction of the money that we just gave to the banks and car industry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28368499</id>
	<title>I guess they had to hit the fuse box on fusion</title>
	<author>youn</author>
	<datestamp>1245248400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They wanted to fuse... the're confused instead... some body got pissed and blew a fuse, decided it was time to hit the fuse box and stop fusion</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They wanted to fuse... the 're confused instead... some body got pissed and blew a fuse , decided it was time to hit the fuse box and stop fusion</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They wanted to fuse... the're confused instead... some body got pissed and blew a fuse, decided it was time to hit the fuse box and stop fusion</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28371391</id>
	<title>So 800 million annually on translating docs is ok</title>
	<author>Kartu</author>
	<datestamp>1245321600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>EU spends about 800 million euros annually on translating legislative docs. Yet they are reluctant to spend less than that on a fusion project that could solve looming grave energy problems. (The times, when we run out of oil aren't that far away.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>EU spends about 800 million euros annually on translating legislative docs .
Yet they are reluctant to spend less than that on a fusion project that could solve looming grave energy problems .
( The times , when we run out of oil are n't that far away .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>EU spends about 800 million euros annually on translating legislative docs.
Yet they are reluctant to spend less than that on a fusion project that could solve looming grave energy problems.
(The times, when we run out of oil aren't that far away.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28400459</id>
	<title>Problems with funding?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245495240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A couple more anti-trust suits against Microsoft should get them through the rest of the project.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A couple more anti-trust suits against Microsoft should get them through the rest of the project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A couple more anti-trust suits against Microsoft should get them through the rest of the project.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367795</id>
	<title>Re:Bussard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245242160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please, please, please tell me you're not a scientist of any sort! I really hope the late Bussard's ideas come to fruition, but the data from their previous experiments is awful (check those error bars people), and the physics dubious (the consensus is mainly on the "it's not going to work" side, but it's not clear cut). ITER on the other hand is an engineering problem; we've done plasma containment. We don't know if a full scale polywell can work, and things look bad - we know tokamak fusion systems will work (better than break even), but we've no idea if we can engineer a reactor/generator system that's provides cheaper energy than say fission, with workable maintenance (how many times a decade will we have the reactor shield/energy recovery system destroyed by the neutron flux etc).</p><p>ITER will "work", but may not be a practical mass energy source. The polywell, is pretty much a yes/no experiment that nobody has done yet. I just wish someone would throw $200 million at EMC2 to build a full scale prototype so we can see if the physics is good or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please , please , please tell me you 're not a scientist of any sort !
I really hope the late Bussard 's ideas come to fruition , but the data from their previous experiments is awful ( check those error bars people ) , and the physics dubious ( the consensus is mainly on the " it 's not going to work " side , but it 's not clear cut ) .
ITER on the other hand is an engineering problem ; we 've done plasma containment .
We do n't know if a full scale polywell can work , and things look bad - we know tokamak fusion systems will work ( better than break even ) , but we 've no idea if we can engineer a reactor/generator system that 's provides cheaper energy than say fission , with workable maintenance ( how many times a decade will we have the reactor shield/energy recovery system destroyed by the neutron flux etc ) .ITER will " work " , but may not be a practical mass energy source .
The polywell , is pretty much a yes/no experiment that nobody has done yet .
I just wish someone would throw $ 200 million at EMC2 to build a full scale prototype so we can see if the physics is good or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please, please, please tell me you're not a scientist of any sort!
I really hope the late Bussard's ideas come to fruition, but the data from their previous experiments is awful (check those error bars people), and the physics dubious (the consensus is mainly on the "it's not going to work" side, but it's not clear cut).
ITER on the other hand is an engineering problem; we've done plasma containment.
We don't know if a full scale polywell can work, and things look bad - we know tokamak fusion systems will work (better than break even), but we've no idea if we can engineer a reactor/generator system that's provides cheaper energy than say fission, with workable maintenance (how many times a decade will we have the reactor shield/energy recovery system destroyed by the neutron flux etc).ITER will "work", but may not be a practical mass energy source.
The polywell, is pretty much a yes/no experiment that nobody has done yet.
I just wish someone would throw $200 million at EMC2 to build a full scale prototype so we can see if the physics is good or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28376229</id>
	<title>Funding</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245348720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the funding isn't a problem for NIF because the conversations must go somewhat like this -<br>"Please explain this idea."<br>"We're going to shoot things with a laser until they explode."<br>"Funds granted!"</p><p>Whereas with ITER, it's a bit more complex.<br>"Please explain this idea."<br>"We need to build a bunch of superconducting magnets into a torus so that we can attempt to contain a plasma within strong magnetic fields."<br>" . . . could you draw me a picture, please?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the funding is n't a problem for NIF because the conversations must go somewhat like this - " Please explain this idea .
" " We 're going to shoot things with a laser until they explode .
" " Funds granted !
" Whereas with ITER , it 's a bit more complex .
" Please explain this idea .
" " We need to build a bunch of superconducting magnets into a torus so that we can attempt to contain a plasma within strong magnetic fields .
" " .
. .
could you draw me a picture , please ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the funding isn't a problem for NIF because the conversations must go somewhat like this -"Please explain this idea.
""We're going to shoot things with a laser until they explode.
""Funds granted!
"Whereas with ITER, it's a bit more complex.
"Please explain this idea.
""We need to build a bunch of superconducting magnets into a torus so that we can attempt to contain a plasma within strong magnetic fields.
"" .
. .
could you draw me a picture, please?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367213</id>
	<title>Have become more difficult to overcome?</title>
	<author>feepness</author>
	<datestamp>1245237840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Some scientists also believe that the technical hurdles to fusion have become more difficult to overcome...</p></div><p>I was climbing the mountain and then it became three thousand feet higher!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some scientists also believe that the technical hurdles to fusion have become more difficult to overcome...I was climbing the mountain and then it became three thousand feet higher !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some scientists also believe that the technical hurdles to fusion have become more difficult to overcome...I was climbing the mountain and then it became three thousand feet higher!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28377405</id>
	<title>Re:seriously</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245353160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Science these days is exponential so i expect that in 100 years we have either blown ourselves up somehow or we will have really cool stuff...fusion power will be old by then ^^</p></div><p>Close. Actually, hype is exponential. Science is hard to predict. Engineering is hard.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Science these days is exponential so i expect that in 100 years we have either blown ourselves up somehow or we will have really cool stuff...fusion power will be old by then ^ ^ Close .
Actually , hype is exponential .
Science is hard to predict .
Engineering is hard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science these days is exponential so i expect that in 100 years we have either blown ourselves up somehow or we will have really cool stuff...fusion power will be old by then ^^Close.
Actually, hype is exponential.
Science is hard to predict.
Engineering is hard.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28368533</id>
	<title>Re:Posting</title>
	<author>beav007</author>
	<datestamp>1245248700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>posting to undo accidental mod</p></div><p>This was very careless of you...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>posting to undo accidental modThis was very careless of you.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>posting to undo accidental modThis was very careless of you...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367227</id>
	<title>Re:I am impressed</title>
	<author>EvanED</author>
	<datestamp>1245237900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bah, I'm not impressed. SimCity 2000 taught me that fusion reactors will be available in about 2050 to 2060. If reality fails to live up to Will Wright, I will be sorely disappointed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bah , I 'm not impressed .
SimCity 2000 taught me that fusion reactors will be available in about 2050 to 2060 .
If reality fails to live up to Will Wright , I will be sorely disappointed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bah, I'm not impressed.
SimCity 2000 taught me that fusion reactors will be available in about 2050 to 2060.
If reality fails to live up to Will Wright, I will be sorely disappointed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28371907</id>
	<title>Inverse Moore's law?</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1245327720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now EU has managed to make it 100 years away</p></div><p>I propose erooM's law: the time until we have a fusion reactor doubles every 18 months.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now EU has managed to make it 100 years awayI propose erooM 's law : the time until we have a fusion reactor doubles every 18 months .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now EU has managed to make it 100 years awayI propose erooM's law: the time until we have a fusion reactor doubles every 18 months.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367015</id>
	<title>100 Years, My Ass</title>
	<author>logicnazi</author>
	<datestamp>1245236700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I mean just consider the state of technology one hundred years ago.  Advances in computational power alone should allow useful solutions of the diffeqs governing plasma containment.  One might be able to make a case for 40 years but trying to push predictions about the future past that point doesn't seem particularly useful.<br><br>Also I have to wonder how useful it is to learn that some scientists think that iter is going in the wrong direction.  Of course some scientists do, otherwise why would we build an *experimental* reactor.  The question shouldn't be whether some people are skeptical but whether ITER is the most efficient way to advance our understanding of these issues.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean just consider the state of technology one hundred years ago .
Advances in computational power alone should allow useful solutions of the diffeqs governing plasma containment .
One might be able to make a case for 40 years but trying to push predictions about the future past that point does n't seem particularly useful.Also I have to wonder how useful it is to learn that some scientists think that iter is going in the wrong direction .
Of course some scientists do , otherwise why would we build an * experimental * reactor .
The question should n't be whether some people are skeptical but whether ITER is the most efficient way to advance our understanding of these issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean just consider the state of technology one hundred years ago.
Advances in computational power alone should allow useful solutions of the diffeqs governing plasma containment.
One might be able to make a case for 40 years but trying to push predictions about the future past that point doesn't seem particularly useful.Also I have to wonder how useful it is to learn that some scientists think that iter is going in the wrong direction.
Of course some scientists do, otherwise why would we build an *experimental* reactor.
The question shouldn't be whether some people are skeptical but whether ITER is the most efficient way to advance our understanding of these issues.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366699</id>
	<title>Bussard</title>
	<author>Garrett Fox</author>
	<datestamp>1245235260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm interested in the work of Robert Bussard's research team, which continued after his death. Last I heard was sometime late last year, when the US military announced a continued grant to that team for their "Polywell" system. The grant suggests that the military saw something it liked in the interesting, but questionable data from Bussard's last experiments. Is there any new info on this?<br> <br>
Re: fusion research in general, how much of a priority do you think it should be? Is the best way to think of it, "It'll be nice if it ever works, but don't plan on it ever being closer than "40 years away"? (Or 100, now?) There is that one experiment that's been reported on lately with breathless claims that it'll achieve better than break-even energy within "a few years," right? One story <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/may/28/national-ignition-facility-fusion-energy" title="guardian.co.uk">from May</a> [guardian.co.uk] says that the new California facility will be the one to achieve net energy gain, but suggests that it might take till 2040.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm interested in the work of Robert Bussard 's research team , which continued after his death .
Last I heard was sometime late last year , when the US military announced a continued grant to that team for their " Polywell " system .
The grant suggests that the military saw something it liked in the interesting , but questionable data from Bussard 's last experiments .
Is there any new info on this ?
Re : fusion research in general , how much of a priority do you think it should be ?
Is the best way to think of it , " It 'll be nice if it ever works , but do n't plan on it ever being closer than " 40 years away " ?
( Or 100 , now ?
) There is that one experiment that 's been reported on lately with breathless claims that it 'll achieve better than break-even energy within " a few years , " right ?
One story from May [ guardian.co.uk ] says that the new California facility will be the one to achieve net energy gain , but suggests that it might take till 2040 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm interested in the work of Robert Bussard's research team, which continued after his death.
Last I heard was sometime late last year, when the US military announced a continued grant to that team for their "Polywell" system.
The grant suggests that the military saw something it liked in the interesting, but questionable data from Bussard's last experiments.
Is there any new info on this?
Re: fusion research in general, how much of a priority do you think it should be?
Is the best way to think of it, "It'll be nice if it ever works, but don't plan on it ever being closer than "40 years away"?
(Or 100, now?
) There is that one experiment that's been reported on lately with breathless claims that it'll achieve better than break-even energy within "a few years," right?
One story from May [guardian.co.uk] says that the new California facility will be the one to achieve net energy gain, but suggests that it might take till 2040.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367883</id>
	<title>Re:Pure Fusion power generation is a pipe dream</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245242820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ummm, here's one example that's pure fusion and economical: THE SUN.
<br> <br>
As one of the previous posters said, you have a remarkably poor understanding of stellar fusion. The fusion reaction within a star is triggered by the massive gravitational force exerted by the star's mass. The force is so great that the mass collapses in on itself until the tremendous pressure and heat of the collapse ignites a fusion process within the core. Once ignited, the fusion reaction's force pushes the mass outward, holding back gravitational collapse.
<br> <br>
The life of a star is this continual struggle between gravity threatening to collapse the star in on itself, and fusion, threatening the make it explode. Nova and supernova form when the star reaches an age at which it has burned off the majority of it's fuel (converting it into heavier elements in the process). This makes the fusion process less efficient, as elements above Iron on the periodic table yield a negative energy return in this scenario. As such, the gravitational force overcomes the fusion force and collapses the star further, causing the heavier elements which have formed to begin fusing, and releasing a massive amount of energy in the process, which in turn, causes the stellar shell to burst. After this, the star's death depends on the amount of mass remaining, but that's the general idea.
<br> <br>
Fission has nothing to do with it because fission requires super heavy elements, such as Uranium and Plutonium, to occur. Stars have very little of these elements during their lifecycle, and indeed, they CREATE these elements through heavy fusion at the very end of their life, which is how these elements arrived on Earth: through the heavy elemental fusion in long dead stars, and being blasted into space by the star's death.
<br> <br>
The problem for humans is not economy in this technique, but scale. We need the fusion to occur on a much smaller scale, or else it's of little use to us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ummm , here 's one example that 's pure fusion and economical : THE SUN .
As one of the previous posters said , you have a remarkably poor understanding of stellar fusion .
The fusion reaction within a star is triggered by the massive gravitational force exerted by the star 's mass .
The force is so great that the mass collapses in on itself until the tremendous pressure and heat of the collapse ignites a fusion process within the core .
Once ignited , the fusion reaction 's force pushes the mass outward , holding back gravitational collapse .
The life of a star is this continual struggle between gravity threatening to collapse the star in on itself , and fusion , threatening the make it explode .
Nova and supernova form when the star reaches an age at which it has burned off the majority of it 's fuel ( converting it into heavier elements in the process ) .
This makes the fusion process less efficient , as elements above Iron on the periodic table yield a negative energy return in this scenario .
As such , the gravitational force overcomes the fusion force and collapses the star further , causing the heavier elements which have formed to begin fusing , and releasing a massive amount of energy in the process , which in turn , causes the stellar shell to burst .
After this , the star 's death depends on the amount of mass remaining , but that 's the general idea .
Fission has nothing to do with it because fission requires super heavy elements , such as Uranium and Plutonium , to occur .
Stars have very little of these elements during their lifecycle , and indeed , they CREATE these elements through heavy fusion at the very end of their life , which is how these elements arrived on Earth : through the heavy elemental fusion in long dead stars , and being blasted into space by the star 's death .
The problem for humans is not economy in this technique , but scale .
We need the fusion to occur on a much smaller scale , or else it 's of little use to us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ummm, here's one example that's pure fusion and economical: THE SUN.
As one of the previous posters said, you have a remarkably poor understanding of stellar fusion.
The fusion reaction within a star is triggered by the massive gravitational force exerted by the star's mass.
The force is so great that the mass collapses in on itself until the tremendous pressure and heat of the collapse ignites a fusion process within the core.
Once ignited, the fusion reaction's force pushes the mass outward, holding back gravitational collapse.
The life of a star is this continual struggle between gravity threatening to collapse the star in on itself, and fusion, threatening the make it explode.
Nova and supernova form when the star reaches an age at which it has burned off the majority of it's fuel (converting it into heavier elements in the process).
This makes the fusion process less efficient, as elements above Iron on the periodic table yield a negative energy return in this scenario.
As such, the gravitational force overcomes the fusion force and collapses the star further, causing the heavier elements which have formed to begin fusing, and releasing a massive amount of energy in the process, which in turn, causes the stellar shell to burst.
After this, the star's death depends on the amount of mass remaining, but that's the general idea.
Fission has nothing to do with it because fission requires super heavy elements, such as Uranium and Plutonium, to occur.
Stars have very little of these elements during their lifecycle, and indeed, they CREATE these elements through heavy fusion at the very end of their life, which is how these elements arrived on Earth: through the heavy elemental fusion in long dead stars, and being blasted into space by the star's death.
The problem for humans is not economy in this technique, but scale.
We need the fusion to occur on a much smaller scale, or else it's of little use to us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28370147</id>
	<title>Re:Bussard</title>
	<author>im\_thatoneguy</author>
	<datestamp>1245265440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The current effort will build on what has been completed under these previous contracts as well as requirements to provide the Navy with data for potential applications of AGEE with a delivered item, wiffleball 8 (WB8) and options for a modified wiffleball 8 (WB8.1) and modified ion gun.</p> </div><p>God I hope they fail.  I don't think humanity could ever overcome the shame of having something called a wiffleball be the ultimate source of our power.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The current effort will build on what has been completed under these previous contracts as well as requirements to provide the Navy with data for potential applications of AGEE with a delivered item , wiffleball 8 ( WB8 ) and options for a modified wiffleball 8 ( WB8.1 ) and modified ion gun .
God I hope they fail .
I do n't think humanity could ever overcome the shame of having something called a wiffleball be the ultimate source of our power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The current effort will build on what has been completed under these previous contracts as well as requirements to provide the Navy with data for potential applications of AGEE with a delivered item, wiffleball 8 (WB8) and options for a modified wiffleball 8 (WB8.1) and modified ion gun.
God I hope they fail.
I don't think humanity could ever overcome the shame of having something called a wiffleball be the ultimate source of our power.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28368159</id>
	<title>Materials, materials, materials</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245244920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fusion is not 100 years away. It's already been achieved in JET, for example. What's 50-100 years away is a <b>practical commercial fusion power plant with a lifetime measured in years</b>.</p><p>In order to be practical, a fusion plant has to produce net power. ITER is expected to do that.</p><p>However, the materials issue remains. The interior of a tokamak, the "first wall", has to be able to withstand an intense neutron flux without degrading. ITER is going to be made out of stainless steel, which is fine for research; it wouldn't hold up very long in a 24x365 environment. For a commercial reactor, we don't have an ideal first wall material yet.</p><p>These cost overruns and delays over the history of the ITER program have been ridiculous. I'm not sure whether canning ITER is a good idea. Scaling it back might be, but the problem is, a new reactor needs to be significantly larger than existing ones, in order to explore a different part of the parameter space. Large = still expensive.</p><p>At this point, the most important part of the ITER program, IMO, is the International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility. We need better materials.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fusion is not 100 years away .
It 's already been achieved in JET , for example .
What 's 50-100 years away is a practical commercial fusion power plant with a lifetime measured in years.In order to be practical , a fusion plant has to produce net power .
ITER is expected to do that.However , the materials issue remains .
The interior of a tokamak , the " first wall " , has to be able to withstand an intense neutron flux without degrading .
ITER is going to be made out of stainless steel , which is fine for research ; it would n't hold up very long in a 24x365 environment .
For a commercial reactor , we do n't have an ideal first wall material yet.These cost overruns and delays over the history of the ITER program have been ridiculous .
I 'm not sure whether canning ITER is a good idea .
Scaling it back might be , but the problem is , a new reactor needs to be significantly larger than existing ones , in order to explore a different part of the parameter space .
Large = still expensive.At this point , the most important part of the ITER program , IMO , is the International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility .
We need better materials .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fusion is not 100 years away.
It's already been achieved in JET, for example.
What's 50-100 years away is a practical commercial fusion power plant with a lifetime measured in years.In order to be practical, a fusion plant has to produce net power.
ITER is expected to do that.However, the materials issue remains.
The interior of a tokamak, the "first wall", has to be able to withstand an intense neutron flux without degrading.
ITER is going to be made out of stainless steel, which is fine for research; it wouldn't hold up very long in a 24x365 environment.
For a commercial reactor, we don't have an ideal first wall material yet.These cost overruns and delays over the history of the ITER program have been ridiculous.
I'm not sure whether canning ITER is a good idea.
Scaling it back might be, but the problem is, a new reactor needs to be significantly larger than existing ones, in order to explore a different part of the parameter space.
Large = still expensive.At this point, the most important part of the ITER program, IMO, is the International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility.
We need better materials.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366793</id>
	<title>Pure Fusion power generation is a pipe dream</title>
	<author>Jeng</author>
	<datestamp>1245235680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have two working examples of fusion generation, the Hydrogen Bomb that uses a fission device to jump start it and the Sun which is hugely radioactive.</p><p>So our two working examples of fusion generation require fission.</p><p>I would think that the future of fusion generation would be a component of fission generation.</p><p>You can have fission on its own, you can have fission and fusion together, but you can't have fusion on its own in any way that's economical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have two working examples of fusion generation , the Hydrogen Bomb that uses a fission device to jump start it and the Sun which is hugely radioactive.So our two working examples of fusion generation require fission.I would think that the future of fusion generation would be a component of fission generation.You can have fission on its own , you can have fission and fusion together , but you ca n't have fusion on its own in any way that 's economical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have two working examples of fusion generation, the Hydrogen Bomb that uses a fission device to jump start it and the Sun which is hugely radioactive.So our two working examples of fusion generation require fission.I would think that the future of fusion generation would be a component of fission generation.You can have fission on its own, you can have fission and fusion together, but you can't have fusion on its own in any way that's economical.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28369595</id>
	<title>Tokamak?</title>
	<author>FungusCannon</author>
	<datestamp>1245259500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why tokamak? Why don't they try out polywell or inertial confinement (LASERS!) fusion?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why tokamak ?
Why do n't they try out polywell or inertial confinement ( LASERS !
) fusion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why tokamak?
Why don't they try out polywell or inertial confinement (LASERS!
) fusion?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28368303</id>
	<title>100 Years for fusion?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245246420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks a lot 'Smart Science Type Guys'. You couldn't fuse two pieces of bread, a slice of cheese, and a slice of ham into a sandwich -let alone two Hydrogen atoms into one Helium atom- in a hundred years. Swell.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks a lot 'Smart Science Type Guys' .
You could n't fuse two pieces of bread , a slice of cheese , and a slice of ham into a sandwich -let alone two Hydrogen atoms into one Helium atom- in a hundred years .
Swell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks a lot 'Smart Science Type Guys'.
You couldn't fuse two pieces of bread, a slice of cheese, and a slice of ham into a sandwich -let alone two Hydrogen atoms into one Helium atom- in a hundred years.
Swell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2119252_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28369127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366671
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2119252_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28370951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366671
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2119252_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2119252_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28371371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28368159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2119252_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28377559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367233
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2119252_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28368391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2119252_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28369369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2119252_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28368133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2119252_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28368297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2119252_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28371119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367233
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2119252_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366671
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2119252_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2119252_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366671
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2119252_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28371907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366671
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2119252_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2119252_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28370147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2119252_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28368137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2119252_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366671
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2119252_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28386223
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2119252_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28375253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2119252_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28368509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2119252_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367227
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366671
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2119252_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2119252_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366671
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2119252_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28369739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2119252_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28377405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2119252_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2119252_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28371887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2119252_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28369941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2119252_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28368533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2119252_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28368549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2119252_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28401657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2119252_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28372565
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2119252_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28368121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2119252_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2119252_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28368357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367153
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_2119252_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28372995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_2119252.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366717
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_2119252.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367153
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28368357
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_2119252.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367307
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28377405
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_2119252.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28380915
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_2119252.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367213
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_2119252.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366955
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_2119252.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366699
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367541
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366967
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367795
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28368297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28372565
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367533
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28370147
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_2119252.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367613
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28368133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28368121
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28401657
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28368391
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_2119252.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28368159
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28371371
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_2119252.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28368533
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_2119252.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366793
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367883
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28368509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28368137
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_2119252.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28369739
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367547
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_2119252.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366859
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_2119252.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367747
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_2119252.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28369941
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28375253
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28369369
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_2119252.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366665
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28368549
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28371887
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28372995
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_2119252.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28386223
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_2119252.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366943
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_2119252.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366671
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28370951
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28369127
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367227
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367037
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366999
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367597
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28371907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367177
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_2119252.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28367233
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28371119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28377559
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_2119252.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_2119252.28366817
</commentlist>
</conversation>
