<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_24_149247</id>
	<title>Steorn's "Free Energy" Jury Comes Back To Bite Them</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1245854520000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.chiark.com/" rel="nofollow">chiark</a> writes <i>"Remember <a href="http://www.steorn.com/">Steorn</a>?  Free energy for all, coming soon, and a gauntleted slap in the face to the physics establishment: '<a href="//slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/21/173253&amp;tid=99">come be our jury, and prove us right or wrong</a>.'  Well, 2 years later, <a href="http://stjury.ning.com/forum/topics/jury-announcement">the jury's verdict is in</a>, and it's not the validation Steorn was hoping for: 'Twenty-two independent scientists and engineers were selected by Steorn to form this jury. It has for the past two years examined evidence presented by the company. The unanimous verdict of the Jury is that Steorn's attempts to demonstrate the claim have not shown the production of energy. The jury is therefore ceasing work.'  Steorn had the choice to either accept this and move on, or attempt to rebut.  Guess <a href="http://www.steorn.com/news/releases/?id=1151">which approach they took</a>?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>chiark writes " Remember Steorn ?
Free energy for all , coming soon , and a gauntleted slap in the face to the physics establishment : 'come be our jury , and prove us right or wrong .
' Well , 2 years later , the jury 's verdict is in , and it 's not the validation Steorn was hoping for : 'Twenty-two independent scientists and engineers were selected by Steorn to form this jury .
It has for the past two years examined evidence presented by the company .
The unanimous verdict of the Jury is that Steorn 's attempts to demonstrate the claim have not shown the production of energy .
The jury is therefore ceasing work .
' Steorn had the choice to either accept this and move on , or attempt to rebut .
Guess which approach they took ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>chiark writes "Remember Steorn?
Free energy for all, coming soon, and a gauntleted slap in the face to the physics establishment: 'come be our jury, and prove us right or wrong.
'  Well, 2 years later, the jury's verdict is in, and it's not the validation Steorn was hoping for: 'Twenty-two independent scientists and engineers were selected by Steorn to form this jury.
It has for the past two years examined evidence presented by the company.
The unanimous verdict of the Jury is that Steorn's attempts to demonstrate the claim have not shown the production of energy.
The jury is therefore ceasing work.
'  Steorn had the choice to either accept this and move on, or attempt to rebut.
Guess which approach they took?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28454521</id>
	<title>Re:Don't bash the jury.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245866100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but the company isn't doing science in an unbiased and methodical way, with publication, peer review, and a healthy dose of self doubt, which are the hallmarks of good science.  Instead of teasing out all the details of the presumed behavior <i>before</i> trying to market a product, they've created the product and then after the fact are trying to cherry-pick an explanation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but the company is n't doing science in an unbiased and methodical way , with publication , peer review , and a healthy dose of self doubt , which are the hallmarks of good science .
Instead of teasing out all the details of the presumed behavior before trying to market a product , they 've created the product and then after the fact are trying to cherry-pick an explanation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but the company isn't doing science in an unbiased and methodical way, with publication, peer review, and a healthy dose of self doubt, which are the hallmarks of good science.
Instead of teasing out all the details of the presumed behavior before trying to market a product, they've created the product and then after the fact are trying to cherry-pick an explanation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453881</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28456679</id>
	<title>Re:Free Energy is definately for real</title>
	<author>tallvegdude</author>
	<datestamp>1245873480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, to wit, a working model.</p><p>People tend to forget that we don't harness energy states, we harness differences in energy states.<br>The difference in temperature drives a thermocouple, a difference in pressure drives a piston, a difference in voltage drives an electric circuit.<br>A chunk of iron with a temperature of X is useless if its stuck in an environment that is also at X.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof , to wit , a working model.People tend to forget that we do n't harness energy states , we harness differences in energy states.The difference in temperature drives a thermocouple , a difference in pressure drives a piston , a difference in voltage drives an electric circuit.A chunk of iron with a temperature of X is useless if its stuck in an environment that is also at X .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, to wit, a working model.People tend to forget that we don't harness energy states, we harness differences in energy states.The difference in temperature drives a thermocouple, a difference in pressure drives a piston, a difference in voltage drives an electric circuit.A chunk of iron with a temperature of X is useless if its stuck in an environment that is also at X.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28456075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452393</id>
	<title>FP</title>
	<author>CheShACat</author>
	<datestamp>1245858300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just can't believe that anyone wasted 2 fucking years of their life trying to "disprove" it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just ca n't believe that anyone wasted 2 fucking years of their life trying to " disprove " it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just can't believe that anyone wasted 2 fucking years of their life trying to "disprove" it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452855</id>
	<title>Re:I failed physics and even I know this is junk.</title>
	<author>singingjim1</author>
	<datestamp>1245860220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is no different than the family who refused chemotherapy for their kid and still claim they don't think that the chemo is really responsible for shrinking the tumor despite the fact that the tumor is MUCH smaller now after the chemo was started. Some people (really stupid and superstitious ones) INSIST that science is the real hoax. I'll never understand it, but we see it every day. This perpetual motion machine is no different than its predecessors.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is no different than the family who refused chemotherapy for their kid and still claim they do n't think that the chemo is really responsible for shrinking the tumor despite the fact that the tumor is MUCH smaller now after the chemo was started .
Some people ( really stupid and superstitious ones ) INSIST that science is the real hoax .
I 'll never understand it , but we see it every day .
This perpetual motion machine is no different than its predecessors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is no different than the family who refused chemotherapy for their kid and still claim they don't think that the chemo is really responsible for shrinking the tumor despite the fact that the tumor is MUCH smaller now after the chemo was started.
Some people (really stupid and superstitious ones) INSIST that science is the real hoax.
I'll never understand it, but we see it every day.
This perpetual motion machine is no different than its predecessors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28462411</id>
	<title>I wanted to be on the Jury actually.</title>
	<author>darqchild</author>
	<datestamp>1245860160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some people are wondering why someone would waste so much time on this.</p><p>I've always had an interest in the history of perpetual motion and i would have liked to have been on the jury.  It is interesting to see some of the crazy ideas that people have come up with I would love to see a detailed explanation as to how the Orbo was supposed to work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some people are wondering why someone would waste so much time on this.I 've always had an interest in the history of perpetual motion and i would have liked to have been on the jury .
It is interesting to see some of the crazy ideas that people have come up with I would love to see a detailed explanation as to how the Orbo was supposed to work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some people are wondering why someone would waste so much time on this.I've always had an interest in the history of perpetual motion and i would have liked to have been on the jury.
It is interesting to see some of the crazy ideas that people have come up with I would love to see a detailed explanation as to how the Orbo was supposed to work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28456365</id>
	<title>Re:FP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245872340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Never having heard of Steorn before I went to the web site and watched the video.  Part way into it I see this spinning device with what looks like two magnets and then the word "magnet" is used.</p><p>I just laughed expecting this to be an intro for the "kstar" (youtube) or some sort of april fools joke or just a publicity stunt to bring attention to the companies "real" products.</p><p>Anyone claiming to violate energy conservation or hell even charge conservation needs to be blindly laughed at regardless of the "evidence" surrounding their claims.</p><p>Produce a device that can power my car for 20 years that is not illegal to use (Siphon hoses, induction coils..etc) and does not cost more than my POS<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. and I promise I'll stop calling you a crackpot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Never having heard of Steorn before I went to the web site and watched the video .
Part way into it I see this spinning device with what looks like two magnets and then the word " magnet " is used.I just laughed expecting this to be an intro for the " kstar " ( youtube ) or some sort of april fools joke or just a publicity stunt to bring attention to the companies " real " products.Anyone claiming to violate energy conservation or hell even charge conservation needs to be blindly laughed at regardless of the " evidence " surrounding their claims.Produce a device that can power my car for 20 years that is not illegal to use ( Siphon hoses , induction coils..etc ) and does not cost more than my POS .. and I promise I 'll stop calling you a crackpot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never having heard of Steorn before I went to the web site and watched the video.
Part way into it I see this spinning device with what looks like two magnets and then the word "magnet" is used.I just laughed expecting this to be an intro for the "kstar" (youtube) or some sort of april fools joke or just a publicity stunt to bring attention to the companies "real" products.Anyone claiming to violate energy conservation or hell even charge conservation needs to be blindly laughed at regardless of the "evidence" surrounding their claims.Produce a device that can power my car for 20 years that is not illegal to use (Siphon hoses, induction coils..etc) and does not cost more than my POS .. and I promise I'll stop calling you a crackpot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452841</id>
	<title>Re:I failed physics and even I know this is junk.</title>
	<author>CohibaVancouver</author>
	<datestamp>1245860160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The fact that people take these free energy claims seriously is the prime example of how scientifically illiterate people are</i> </p><p>I'm not really that concerned about claims of 'free energy' being taken seriously.  I'm more concerned about misinformation around issues that really matter such as immunization (thank you Jenny McCarthy - Nice t!ts, now go fnck off), or in Africa the discussion around aids and HIV.  In the scheme of things, some whirly magnets are neither here nor there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that people take these free energy claims seriously is the prime example of how scientifically illiterate people are I 'm not really that concerned about claims of 'free energy ' being taken seriously .
I 'm more concerned about misinformation around issues that really matter such as immunization ( thank you Jenny McCarthy - Nice t ! ts , now go fnck off ) , or in Africa the discussion around aids and HIV .
In the scheme of things , some whirly magnets are neither here nor there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that people take these free energy claims seriously is the prime example of how scientifically illiterate people are I'm not really that concerned about claims of 'free energy' being taken seriously.
I'm more concerned about misinformation around issues that really matter such as immunization (thank you Jenny McCarthy - Nice t!ts, now go fnck off), or in Africa the discussion around aids and HIV.
In the scheme of things, some whirly magnets are neither here nor there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453881</id>
	<title>Re:Don't bash the jury.</title>
	<author>FrozenFOXX</author>
	<datestamp>1245863880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thank you very, very much, mod the parentt up.  There's been major paradigm shifts before, there will be again, and the laws of thermodynamics, physics, or other such areas may once again change with new information.  The only way to know is to continue to test, which is exactly what happened here.<br> <br>

It's dangerous to just accept "laws" as fact without further testing.  ALL science should be open to question and testing...that's part of the whole idea.  Taking it as holy writ stops it being science.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you very , very much , mod the parentt up .
There 's been major paradigm shifts before , there will be again , and the laws of thermodynamics , physics , or other such areas may once again change with new information .
The only way to know is to continue to test , which is exactly what happened here .
It 's dangerous to just accept " laws " as fact without further testing .
ALL science should be open to question and testing...that 's part of the whole idea .
Taking it as holy writ stops it being science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you very, very much, mod the parentt up.
There's been major paradigm shifts before, there will be again, and the laws of thermodynamics, physics, or other such areas may once again change with new information.
The only way to know is to continue to test, which is exactly what happened here.
It's dangerous to just accept "laws" as fact without further testing.
ALL science should be open to question and testing...that's part of the whole idea.
Taking it as holy writ stops it being science.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28456041</id>
	<title>Re:Fraud</title>
	<author>gd2shoe</author>
	<datestamp>1245871020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a rational, reasonable position.  It is worth asking the question "Does your church improve the quality of your current life?"  You would find many people answer "yes", but it is still a good question.</p><p>Of course, the real question is "Does your church teach truth?"  It is a seemingly unrelated question, but then, why should truth only benefit me when I'm dead?</p><p>(Yes, I am religious.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a rational , reasonable position .
It is worth asking the question " Does your church improve the quality of your current life ?
" You would find many people answer " yes " , but it is still a good question.Of course , the real question is " Does your church teach truth ?
" It is a seemingly unrelated question , but then , why should truth only benefit me when I 'm dead ?
( Yes , I am religious .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a rational, reasonable position.
It is worth asking the question "Does your church improve the quality of your current life?
"  You would find many people answer "yes", but it is still a good question.Of course, the real question is "Does your church teach truth?
"  It is a seemingly unrelated question, but then, why should truth only benefit me when I'm dead?
(Yes, I am religious.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28454261</id>
	<title>Re:Don't bash the jury.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245865200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if it doesn't work as advertised, isn't it worth looking at?  Maybe they accidentally discovered a brand-new way of doing something that is actually valuable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if it does n't work as advertised , is n't it worth looking at ?
Maybe they accidentally discovered a brand-new way of doing something that is actually valuable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if it doesn't work as advertised, isn't it worth looking at?
Maybe they accidentally discovered a brand-new way of doing something that is actually valuable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452593</id>
	<title>How much money have they raised from investors?</title>
	<author>Eric Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1245859200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>And will any of the investors be gullible enough to invest additional money for the company's plans to commercialize it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And will any of the investors be gullible enough to invest additional money for the company 's plans to commercialize it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And will any of the investors be gullible enough to invest additional money for the company's plans to commercialize it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452625</id>
	<title>Re:The answer is obvious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245859320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's only a matter of time...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's only a matter of time.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's only a matter of time...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28458187</id>
	<title>Re:The answer is obvious</title>
	<author>orange47</author>
	<datestamp>1245836280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>but they are 'lobbying' for it already, piles of money have been spent at LHC..</htmltext>
<tokenext>but they are 'lobbying ' for it already , piles of money have been spent at LHC. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but they are 'lobbying' for it already, piles of money have been spent at LHC..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28465073</id>
	<title>Reminds me of Kosinski</title>
	<author>DeanFox</author>
	<datestamp>1245937260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>
If they're not all careful they may find themselves \_Where Bo One Has Gone Before\_.  <a href="http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Kosinski" title="memory-alpha.org">http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Kosinski</a> [memory-alpha.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they 're not all careful they may find themselves \ _Where Bo One Has Gone Before \ _ .
http : //memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Kosinski [ memory-alpha.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
If they're not all careful they may find themselves \_Where Bo One Has Gone Before\_.
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Kosinski [memory-alpha.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453945</id>
	<title>Re:Fraud</title>
	<author>jeffasselin</author>
	<datestamp>1245864180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Religions really have the best take on this business method: claim the reward/product/proof will come after you're dead!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Religions really have the best take on this business method : claim the reward/product/proof will come after you 're dead !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Religions really have the best take on this business method: claim the reward/product/proof will come after you're dead!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453431</id>
	<title>ObSimpsons</title>
	<author>Amazing Quantum Man</author>
	<datestamp>1245862320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lisa, in this house, we obey the Laws of Thermodynamics!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lisa , in this house , we obey the Laws of Thermodynamics !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lisa, in this house, we obey the Laws of Thermodynamics!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28454117</id>
	<title>Re:Fraud</title>
	<author>Lonewolf666</author>
	<datestamp>1245864660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And any investor who still buys from them after this deserves to be ripped off.<br>Personally, I would demand a really convincing public demonstration before I take Steorn seriously again. Along the lines of<br>1) (Optically) transparent design so I can see there are no batteries hidden inside.<br>2) Permanent output of energy that is used up by an external load. Like driving a bicycle dynamo with an incandescent bulb attached. And I want to see it glowing!<br>3) the opportunity to watch it for a while, and see if it does wind down somehow over time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And any investor who still buys from them after this deserves to be ripped off.Personally , I would demand a really convincing public demonstration before I take Steorn seriously again .
Along the lines of1 ) ( Optically ) transparent design so I can see there are no batteries hidden inside.2 ) Permanent output of energy that is used up by an external load .
Like driving a bicycle dynamo with an incandescent bulb attached .
And I want to see it glowing ! 3 ) the opportunity to watch it for a while , and see if it does wind down somehow over time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And any investor who still buys from them after this deserves to be ripped off.Personally, I would demand a really convincing public demonstration before I take Steorn seriously again.
Along the lines of1) (Optically) transparent design so I can see there are no batteries hidden inside.2) Permanent output of energy that is used up by an external load.
Like driving a bicycle dynamo with an incandescent bulb attached.
And I want to see it glowing!3) the opportunity to watch it for a while, and see if it does wind down somehow over time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452703</id>
	<title>Crackpotery milestone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245859680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>the <b>company</b> had resolved the key technical problems related to the implementation of Orbo and is now focused on <b>commercial launch</b> towards the end of this year..</i>
<br> <br>Those are some hardcore ***ards. They have been told by scientists they have nothing, but they carry on. Respekt!
<br> <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/s</htmltext>
<tokenext>the company had resolved the key technical problems related to the implementation of Orbo and is now focused on commercial launch towards the end of this year. . Those are some hardcore * * * ards .
They have been told by scientists they have nothing , but they carry on .
Respekt ! /s</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the company had resolved the key technical problems related to the implementation of Orbo and is now focused on commercial launch towards the end of this year..
 Those are some hardcore ***ards.
They have been told by scientists they have nothing, but they carry on.
Respekt!
  /s</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28456471</id>
	<title>Re:Don't bash the jury.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245872760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Real Science means conducting experiments and taking measurements. The 'laws' of physics are only as good as the experiments and measurements taken.</p></div><p>Thats what I keep saying about global warming... But hay we \_know\_ thats true, cus its on TV right. Or perhaps because Al Gore told me so....
<br> <br>
So I can't be skeptic with AGFW. But I'm blinded by my institutionalism when I tell free energy guys to take a hike.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Real Science means conducting experiments and taking measurements .
The 'laws ' of physics are only as good as the experiments and measurements taken.Thats what I keep saying about global warming... But hay we \ _know \ _ thats true , cus its on TV right .
Or perhaps because Al Gore told me so... . So I ca n't be skeptic with AGFW .
But I 'm blinded by my institutionalism when I tell free energy guys to take a hike .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Real Science means conducting experiments and taking measurements.
The 'laws' of physics are only as good as the experiments and measurements taken.Thats what I keep saying about global warming... But hay we \_know\_ thats true, cus its on TV right.
Or perhaps because Al Gore told me so....
 
So I can't be skeptic with AGFW.
But I'm blinded by my institutionalism when I tell free energy guys to take a hike.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28455237</id>
	<title>Re:I failed physics and even I know this is junk.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245868440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see what you are saying, "Just as we used to believe that the sun revolved around the earth, we used to believe that free energy was possible. Now we know better. People used to believe all kinds of ridiculous, untrue things. Let's not make that mistake here. " Gotcha! Thanks for that heads up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see what you are saying , " Just as we used to believe that the sun revolved around the earth , we used to believe that free energy was possible .
Now we know better .
People used to believe all kinds of ridiculous , untrue things .
Let 's not make that mistake here .
" Gotcha !
Thanks for that heads up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see what you are saying, "Just as we used to believe that the sun revolved around the earth, we used to believe that free energy was possible.
Now we know better.
People used to believe all kinds of ridiculous, untrue things.
Let's not make that mistake here.
" Gotcha!
Thanks for that heads up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28454407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452499</id>
	<title>Thermodynamics wins again!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245858780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once again, some nut/fraudster claims the laws of thermodynamics don't apply, and they are wrong.</p><p>The fact that these people get any attention is a sad reflection of the state of scientific understanding in the general population and the media.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once again , some nut/fraudster claims the laws of thermodynamics do n't apply , and they are wrong.The fact that these people get any attention is a sad reflection of the state of scientific understanding in the general population and the media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once again, some nut/fraudster claims the laws of thermodynamics don't apply, and they are wrong.The fact that these people get any attention is a sad reflection of the state of scientific understanding in the general population and the media.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28461907</id>
	<title>Re:Fools</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245856560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>* Fools<br>* Geniuses<br>* CowboyNeal</p><p>Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* Fools * Geniuses * CowboyNealDo n't complain about lack of options .
You 've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice .
Those are the breaks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>* Fools* Geniuses* CowboyNealDon't complain about lack of options.
You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice.
Those are the breaks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453033</id>
	<title>Re:I failed physics and even I know this is junk.</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1245860880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"scientifically illiterate people are, " Not really. There are a lot of very educated people that fall for these claims, or have bought into an idea they won't let go of.</p><p>What the lack is critical thinking skills. Something that takes training, experience, and the rarest ability of all: the ability to go holy shit, I was wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" scientifically illiterate people are , " Not really .
There are a lot of very educated people that fall for these claims , or have bought into an idea they wo n't let go of.What the lack is critical thinking skills .
Something that takes training , experience , and the rarest ability of all : the ability to go holy shit , I was wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"scientifically illiterate people are, " Not really.
There are a lot of very educated people that fall for these claims, or have bought into an idea they won't let go of.What the lack is critical thinking skills.
Something that takes training, experience, and the rarest ability of all: the ability to go holy shit, I was wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452523</id>
	<title>Fraud</title>
	<author>TheMeuge</author>
	<datestamp>1245858900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>&#226;oeduring 2009 the company had resolved the key technical problems related to the implementation of Orbo and is now focused on commercial launch towards the end of this year, at which time academic and engineering validation would be released concurrent with public demonstrations&#226;</p></div></blockquote><p>Methinks that if they make a single sale, they should be charged with fraud. It's bad enough that they screw with whatever miniscule understanding of science people have left... but they're going to go ahead and sell this shit?! Fuck, they must be doing the same drugs that makers of Enzyte are taking. Btw - why am I seeing Enzyte ads on TV again? Wasn't the CEO and a bunch of execs meant to serve sentences for fraud?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>  oeduring 2009 the company had resolved the key technical problems related to the implementation of Orbo and is now focused on commercial launch towards the end of this year , at which time academic and engineering validation would be released concurrent with public demonstrations   Methinks that if they make a single sale , they should be charged with fraud .
It 's bad enough that they screw with whatever miniscule understanding of science people have left... but they 're going to go ahead and sell this shit ? !
Fuck , they must be doing the same drugs that makers of Enzyte are taking .
Btw - why am I seeing Enzyte ads on TV again ?
Was n't the CEO and a bunch of execs meant to serve sentences for fraud ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>âoeduring 2009 the company had resolved the key technical problems related to the implementation of Orbo and is now focused on commercial launch towards the end of this year, at which time academic and engineering validation would be released concurrent with public demonstrationsâMethinks that if they make a single sale, they should be charged with fraud.
It's bad enough that they screw with whatever miniscule understanding of science people have left... but they're going to go ahead and sell this shit?!
Fuck, they must be doing the same drugs that makers of Enzyte are taking.
Btw - why am I seeing Enzyte ads on TV again?
Wasn't the CEO and a bunch of execs meant to serve sentences for fraud?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452451</id>
	<title>Ok, one more discredited....</title>
	<author>Seakip18</author>
	<datestamp>1245858540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, after failing to provide enough evidence, a jury decides the company cannot prove their claims. In the press release, the company claims to still move forward? Sheesh....</p><p>In other related questions, what's going on with the <a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/09/1436257" title="slashdot.org">Markus Zahn</a> [slashdot.org] guy? Everything I can pull up about him and his invention comes to an abrupt stop in the 2 months following shortly after that story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , after failing to provide enough evidence , a jury decides the company can not prove their claims .
In the press release , the company claims to still move forward ?
Sheesh....In other related questions , what 's going on with the Markus Zahn [ slashdot.org ] guy ?
Everything I can pull up about him and his invention comes to an abrupt stop in the 2 months following shortly after that story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, after failing to provide enough evidence, a jury decides the company cannot prove their claims.
In the press release, the company claims to still move forward?
Sheesh....In other related questions, what's going on with the Markus Zahn [slashdot.org] guy?
Everything I can pull up about him and his invention comes to an abrupt stop in the 2 months following shortly after that story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452465</id>
	<title>Re-butt?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245858600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're going to make asses out of themselves again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're going to make asses out of themselves again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're going to make asses out of themselves again?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28459549</id>
	<title>Re:FP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245841440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just a thought: where did all the matter and energy in the universe come from in the first place? Is the total amount of matter and energy static?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just a thought : where did all the matter and energy in the universe come from in the first place ?
Is the total amount of matter and energy static ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just a thought: where did all the matter and energy in the universe come from in the first place?
Is the total amount of matter and energy static?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28454307</id>
	<title>Re:I'm guessing</title>
	<author>harl</author>
	<datestamp>1245865320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As we know them.  We've still yet to prove that our model is correct.  Trends point to our physics model being incomplete and/or wrong.  For thousands of years we've laughed at what our ancestors knew to be true. I hope our descendants laugh at what rubes we are/were.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As we know them .
We 've still yet to prove that our model is correct .
Trends point to our physics model being incomplete and/or wrong .
For thousands of years we 've laughed at what our ancestors knew to be true .
I hope our descendants laugh at what rubes we are/were .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As we know them.
We've still yet to prove that our model is correct.
Trends point to our physics model being incomplete and/or wrong.
For thousands of years we've laughed at what our ancestors knew to be true.
I hope our descendants laugh at what rubes we are/were.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453217</id>
	<title>Re:Crackpotery milestone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245861600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't do that ** self-censoring shit.  It makes you look like a retard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't do that * * self-censoring shit .
It makes you look like a retard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't do that ** self-censoring shit.
It makes you look like a retard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28458175</id>
	<title>Re:Don't bash the jury.</title>
	<author>Dun Malg</author>
	<datestamp>1245836280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Look, I admit that their claims sound unlikely, but you can't just dismiss all claims out of hand because "they break the laws of physics". The fact is that they break the current laws of physics.</p></div><p>There seems to be this mistaken notion that the discovered "laws of nature" are periodically overthrown and rewritten based on major new discoveries. This is not actually how it has happened. Major discoveries that "violate" the previously held laws never do so in a universal sense. What happens is that there are marginal exceptions at the edges that are subtly different from the norm. For example, Einstein's theories didn't invalidate Newton, they only explained things beyond the areas Newton covered. <br> <br>
What this means is that you can safely dismiss <b>most</b> claims that seem to violate the laws of physics based on the fact that they fly in the face of core principles without introducing anything that hasn't been discovered already. A scientist who claims he can (say) produce a superconducting material using esoteric methods only recently developed might have something. A man claiming to have invented a superconductor that works by adding "magnets" or "inductors" to an otherwise normal piece of copper wire is full of shit. There is <b>nothing</b> about the nature of magnets that's not understood that could provide a large enough loophole to pull off superconductivity.
<br> <br>
Believers not understanding the difference between the cutting edge and the beaten-to-death aspects of a given scientific discipline is the problem, not some imagined lack of "open mindedness" on the part of disbelievers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , I admit that their claims sound unlikely , but you ca n't just dismiss all claims out of hand because " they break the laws of physics " .
The fact is that they break the current laws of physics.There seems to be this mistaken notion that the discovered " laws of nature " are periodically overthrown and rewritten based on major new discoveries .
This is not actually how it has happened .
Major discoveries that " violate " the previously held laws never do so in a universal sense .
What happens is that there are marginal exceptions at the edges that are subtly different from the norm .
For example , Einstein 's theories did n't invalidate Newton , they only explained things beyond the areas Newton covered .
What this means is that you can safely dismiss most claims that seem to violate the laws of physics based on the fact that they fly in the face of core principles without introducing anything that has n't been discovered already .
A scientist who claims he can ( say ) produce a superconducting material using esoteric methods only recently developed might have something .
A man claiming to have invented a superconductor that works by adding " magnets " or " inductors " to an otherwise normal piece of copper wire is full of shit .
There is nothing about the nature of magnets that 's not understood that could provide a large enough loophole to pull off superconductivity .
Believers not understanding the difference between the cutting edge and the beaten-to-death aspects of a given scientific discipline is the problem , not some imagined lack of " open mindedness " on the part of disbelievers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, I admit that their claims sound unlikely, but you can't just dismiss all claims out of hand because "they break the laws of physics".
The fact is that they break the current laws of physics.There seems to be this mistaken notion that the discovered "laws of nature" are periodically overthrown and rewritten based on major new discoveries.
This is not actually how it has happened.
Major discoveries that "violate" the previously held laws never do so in a universal sense.
What happens is that there are marginal exceptions at the edges that are subtly different from the norm.
For example, Einstein's theories didn't invalidate Newton, they only explained things beyond the areas Newton covered.
What this means is that you can safely dismiss most claims that seem to violate the laws of physics based on the fact that they fly in the face of core principles without introducing anything that hasn't been discovered already.
A scientist who claims he can (say) produce a superconducting material using esoteric methods only recently developed might have something.
A man claiming to have invented a superconductor that works by adding "magnets" or "inductors" to an otherwise normal piece of copper wire is full of shit.
There is nothing about the nature of magnets that's not understood that could provide a large enough loophole to pull off superconductivity.
Believers not understanding the difference between the cutting edge and the beaten-to-death aspects of a given scientific discipline is the problem, not some imagined lack of "open mindedness" on the part of disbelievers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453307</id>
	<title>Free energy vs. energy from nothing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245861960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd note that we get free energy all the time. We get more energy out of a gallon of gasoline than was put into making it. We get far more power from a pound of fuel in a nuclear reactor than we put into mining the uranium, refining it and turning it into nuclear fuel. Neither of those violates the first or second laws of thermodynamics. That's because those laws apply to closed systems, and we're not in a closed system. In the case of gasoline, the sun put energy into the system from outside. In the case of uranium, the supernova that created the uranium atoms put the energy into creating them. So it's entirely possible to have a source of energy that's simply tapping something outside our normal view of the system. Such a source would appear to be providing free energy.</p><p>OTOH, Steorn seems to have failed the acid test: producing results. It'd've been much more convincing if they could've just dropped a unit down on the bench and told their jury "Here it is, here's how to turn it on and off, here's where the power comes out. Have fun with it.". A working prototype trumps all theoretical arguments, and Steorn couldn't produce a working prototype. Until they can, I'm inclined to believe they're either mistaken or running a scam.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd note that we get free energy all the time .
We get more energy out of a gallon of gasoline than was put into making it .
We get far more power from a pound of fuel in a nuclear reactor than we put into mining the uranium , refining it and turning it into nuclear fuel .
Neither of those violates the first or second laws of thermodynamics .
That 's because those laws apply to closed systems , and we 're not in a closed system .
In the case of gasoline , the sun put energy into the system from outside .
In the case of uranium , the supernova that created the uranium atoms put the energy into creating them .
So it 's entirely possible to have a source of energy that 's simply tapping something outside our normal view of the system .
Such a source would appear to be providing free energy.OTOH , Steorn seems to have failed the acid test : producing results .
It 'd've been much more convincing if they could 've just dropped a unit down on the bench and told their jury " Here it is , here 's how to turn it on and off , here 's where the power comes out .
Have fun with it. " .
A working prototype trumps all theoretical arguments , and Steorn could n't produce a working prototype .
Until they can , I 'm inclined to believe they 're either mistaken or running a scam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd note that we get free energy all the time.
We get more energy out of a gallon of gasoline than was put into making it.
We get far more power from a pound of fuel in a nuclear reactor than we put into mining the uranium, refining it and turning it into nuclear fuel.
Neither of those violates the first or second laws of thermodynamics.
That's because those laws apply to closed systems, and we're not in a closed system.
In the case of gasoline, the sun put energy into the system from outside.
In the case of uranium, the supernova that created the uranium atoms put the energy into creating them.
So it's entirely possible to have a source of energy that's simply tapping something outside our normal view of the system.
Such a source would appear to be providing free energy.OTOH, Steorn seems to have failed the acid test: producing results.
It'd've been much more convincing if they could've just dropped a unit down on the bench and told their jury "Here it is, here's how to turn it on and off, here's where the power comes out.
Have fun with it.".
A working prototype trumps all theoretical arguments, and Steorn couldn't produce a working prototype.
Until they can, I'm inclined to believe they're either mistaken or running a scam.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28457155</id>
	<title>Yes, you CAN dismiss them.</title>
	<author>Petersko</author>
	<datestamp>1245875460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Look, I admit that their claims sound unlikely, but you can't just dismiss all claims out of hand because "they break the laws of physics". The fact is that they break the current laws of physics"</i> <br> <br>

If I give somebody five pieces of cedar planking, they might build a television out of them, and that would certainly break my understanding of the laws of physics. I won't, however, drive to another city to validate some guy's claim that he built a television entirely out of cedar planking. I'll just assume that he's either a fraud or a moron, and in either event I won't waste my time.<br> <br>

In the case of "free energy from magnetism" proclaimers, unless they've got an industrial complex with strong ties to major research entities, a collection of advanced physics and engineering degrees, and a boatload of the finest scientists hired away from the most successful companies, their claims CAN be safely dismissed out of hand. If we're wrong to do so, the practical implemention and marketing of it will prove us all fools. The fact is that I can't yet go out and buy myself a magnetic free energy generator.<br> <br>

Nobody is going to stumble on to a unknown hole in the laws of thermodynamics by working in their garage anymore. If such holes were that easy to find, they'd have already been found. Sure, our understanding of physics is incomplete, but we've got the basics down pretty solid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Look , I admit that their claims sound unlikely , but you ca n't just dismiss all claims out of hand because " they break the laws of physics " .
The fact is that they break the current laws of physics " If I give somebody five pieces of cedar planking , they might build a television out of them , and that would certainly break my understanding of the laws of physics .
I wo n't , however , drive to another city to validate some guy 's claim that he built a television entirely out of cedar planking .
I 'll just assume that he 's either a fraud or a moron , and in either event I wo n't waste my time .
In the case of " free energy from magnetism " proclaimers , unless they 've got an industrial complex with strong ties to major research entities , a collection of advanced physics and engineering degrees , and a boatload of the finest scientists hired away from the most successful companies , their claims CAN be safely dismissed out of hand .
If we 're wrong to do so , the practical implemention and marketing of it will prove us all fools .
The fact is that I ca n't yet go out and buy myself a magnetic free energy generator .
Nobody is going to stumble on to a unknown hole in the laws of thermodynamics by working in their garage anymore .
If such holes were that easy to find , they 'd have already been found .
Sure , our understanding of physics is incomplete , but we 've got the basics down pretty solid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Look, I admit that their claims sound unlikely, but you can't just dismiss all claims out of hand because "they break the laws of physics".
The fact is that they break the current laws of physics"  

If I give somebody five pieces of cedar planking, they might build a television out of them, and that would certainly break my understanding of the laws of physics.
I won't, however, drive to another city to validate some guy's claim that he built a television entirely out of cedar planking.
I'll just assume that he's either a fraud or a moron, and in either event I won't waste my time.
In the case of "free energy from magnetism" proclaimers, unless they've got an industrial complex with strong ties to major research entities, a collection of advanced physics and engineering degrees, and a boatload of the finest scientists hired away from the most successful companies, their claims CAN be safely dismissed out of hand.
If we're wrong to do so, the practical implemention and marketing of it will prove us all fools.
The fact is that I can't yet go out and buy myself a magnetic free energy generator.
Nobody is going to stumble on to a unknown hole in the laws of thermodynamics by working in their garage anymore.
If such holes were that easy to find, they'd have already been found.
Sure, our understanding of physics is incomplete, but we've got the basics down pretty solid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28455713</id>
	<title>Re:The answer is obvious</title>
	<author>tnk1</author>
	<datestamp>1245869880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fools, Congress doesn't have enough authority to repeal these laws.  For that you need the Supreme Court, who as we know, are the people who really make the laws around here.</p><p>I'm already preparing my case to overturn the so-called conservation of energy "law" by arguing that it violates executive privilege as well as the right to privacy.  The first one is for the right-wingers and the other one is for the liberal ones.</p><p>What? You are wondering how I could relate those?  That's why my case is pure GENIUS.  The respondent's counsel will never see it coming in a million years.  This will be right up there with the Dred Scott decision.  I'll be famous!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fools , Congress does n't have enough authority to repeal these laws .
For that you need the Supreme Court , who as we know , are the people who really make the laws around here.I 'm already preparing my case to overturn the so-called conservation of energy " law " by arguing that it violates executive privilege as well as the right to privacy .
The first one is for the right-wingers and the other one is for the liberal ones.What ?
You are wondering how I could relate those ?
That 's why my case is pure GENIUS .
The respondent 's counsel will never see it coming in a million years .
This will be right up there with the Dred Scott decision .
I 'll be famous !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fools, Congress doesn't have enough authority to repeal these laws.
For that you need the Supreme Court, who as we know, are the people who really make the laws around here.I'm already preparing my case to overturn the so-called conservation of energy "law" by arguing that it violates executive privilege as well as the right to privacy.
The first one is for the right-wingers and the other one is for the liberal ones.What?
You are wondering how I could relate those?
That's why my case is pure GENIUS.
The respondent's counsel will never see it coming in a million years.
This will be right up there with the Dred Scott decision.
I'll be famous!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452935</id>
	<title>Re:The answer is obvious</title>
	<author>Bemopolis</author>
	<datestamp>1245860580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Congress will get to it after they're done repealing evolution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Congress will get to it after they 're done repealing evolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congress will get to it after they're done repealing evolution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28454695</id>
	<title>Re:How It Works</title>
	<author>Ifni</author>
	<datestamp>1245866700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Orbo is based upon time variant magnetic interactions, i.e. magnetic interactions whose efficiency varies as a function of transaction timeframes.</p></div><p>Heh.  This is likely true, though they ignore the (likely - nay, guaranteed) possibility of interactions whose efficiency is less than 1.  However, once you select those out you are left with the free energy they are claiming.  They are implying that the variances are from a little bit of energy gain to a little bit more energy gain, where in truth it is certainly between a small energy gain and a sightly larger energy loss.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Orbo is based upon time variant magnetic interactions , i.e .
magnetic interactions whose efficiency varies as a function of transaction timeframes.Heh .
This is likely true , though they ignore the ( likely - nay , guaranteed ) possibility of interactions whose efficiency is less than 1 .
However , once you select those out you are left with the free energy they are claiming .
They are implying that the variances are from a little bit of energy gain to a little bit more energy gain , where in truth it is certainly between a small energy gain and a sightly larger energy loss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Orbo is based upon time variant magnetic interactions, i.e.
magnetic interactions whose efficiency varies as a function of transaction timeframes.Heh.
This is likely true, though they ignore the (likely - nay, guaranteed) possibility of interactions whose efficiency is less than 1.
However, once you select those out you are left with the free energy they are claiming.
They are implying that the variances are from a little bit of energy gain to a little bit more energy gain, where in truth it is certainly between a small energy gain and a sightly larger energy loss.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453251</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452701</id>
	<title>Even cartoon characters wouldn't fall for this</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1245859680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson</htmltext>
<tokenext>" In this house , we obey the laws of thermodynamics !
" -- Homer Simpson</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
" -- Homer Simpson</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453629</id>
	<title>Praise be to Orbo!</title>
	<author>Hausenwulf</author>
	<datestamp>1245862920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm wondering which bright boy will get the idea to start a new religion based on "Orbo?" This free energy must be coming from the gods, right?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm wondering which bright boy will get the idea to start a new religion based on " Orbo ?
" This free energy must be coming from the gods , right ?
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm wondering which bright boy will get the idea to start a new religion based on "Orbo?
" This free energy must be coming from the gods, right?
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452497</id>
	<title>The answer is obvious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245858780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The solution to their problem is to form a lobbying group to get Congress to reform the Laws of Physics.  Those laws have been around for centuries and are clearly woefully outdated.  Sure, at first the so-called "Laws" of Thermodynamics were a good idea, but now they're just holding us back.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The solution to their problem is to form a lobbying group to get Congress to reform the Laws of Physics .
Those laws have been around for centuries and are clearly woefully outdated .
Sure , at first the so-called " Laws " of Thermodynamics were a good idea , but now they 're just holding us back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The solution to their problem is to form a lobbying group to get Congress to reform the Laws of Physics.
Those laws have been around for centuries and are clearly woefully outdated.
Sure, at first the so-called "Laws" of Thermodynamics were a good idea, but now they're just holding us back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452609</id>
	<title>Scammers</title>
	<author>edivad</author>
	<datestamp>1245859260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's sad that this people get any attention at all.<br>
But then again, if you're so dumb to buy into their BS, you probably deserve to be screwed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's sad that this people get any attention at all .
But then again , if you 're so dumb to buy into their BS , you probably deserve to be screwed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's sad that this people get any attention at all.
But then again, if you're so dumb to buy into their BS, you probably deserve to be screwed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28455209</id>
	<title>Re:How It Works</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245868380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I couldn't even finish that because it's all bullshit designed to sell things and make money. It's like someone let a marketer loose in an undergraduate Electromagnetism text and now he thinks he can define new ideas without explaining what they are or where they come from or how they fit into theory. If you can't link to a journal article where you've published your groundbreaking new theory, then don't bother selling anything because you're likely a fraud.</p><p>Your reaction upon completing that huge string of words is "wow, I certainly do feel stupid."</p><p>This is closely followed by "anyone that can make me feel that stupid certainly is on to something."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could n't even finish that because it 's all bullshit designed to sell things and make money .
It 's like someone let a marketer loose in an undergraduate Electromagnetism text and now he thinks he can define new ideas without explaining what they are or where they come from or how they fit into theory .
If you ca n't link to a journal article where you 've published your groundbreaking new theory , then do n't bother selling anything because you 're likely a fraud.Your reaction upon completing that huge string of words is " wow , I certainly do feel stupid .
" This is closely followed by " anyone that can make me feel that stupid certainly is on to something .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I couldn't even finish that because it's all bullshit designed to sell things and make money.
It's like someone let a marketer loose in an undergraduate Electromagnetism text and now he thinks he can define new ideas without explaining what they are or where they come from or how they fit into theory.
If you can't link to a journal article where you've published your groundbreaking new theory, then don't bother selling anything because you're likely a fraud.Your reaction upon completing that huge string of words is "wow, I certainly do feel stupid.
"This is closely followed by "anyone that can make me feel that stupid certainly is on to something.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453251</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453401</id>
	<title>I had to disprove this to a guy, and got paid!</title>
	<author>Bruiser80</author>
	<datestamp>1245862260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Working as a design engineer and FEA analyst at a small mechanical design shop gives me the chance to work with on a lot of different projects.
<br> <br>
One day, my boss comes in and tells me to look over a design this old guy from Florida has for a power generating machine.
<br> <br>
This guy wasn't taking the "violates the laws of thermodynamics" line, so I had to spend some time to model up his design (a large drum that rotated, with small pistons that would drive up and down in relation to the surface of the drum, driving a crankshaft). He couldn't get it that this was essentially an overly complex gear, except with way more inefficiencies.
<br> <br>
He tried to use the "if you roll a wine bottle with a string attached to the circumference, you can lift a load". He just couldn't accept that this was an example of transfer of work. Sigh.
<br> <br>
What finally got him to calm down was that even if the drum <i>could</i> produce positive energy, it would immediately be gobbled up by the inefficiencies of the drive motor, gearing, and generator.
<br> <br>
Best part of it was that I still got paid!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Working as a design engineer and FEA analyst at a small mechanical design shop gives me the chance to work with on a lot of different projects .
One day , my boss comes in and tells me to look over a design this old guy from Florida has for a power generating machine .
This guy was n't taking the " violates the laws of thermodynamics " line , so I had to spend some time to model up his design ( a large drum that rotated , with small pistons that would drive up and down in relation to the surface of the drum , driving a crankshaft ) .
He could n't get it that this was essentially an overly complex gear , except with way more inefficiencies .
He tried to use the " if you roll a wine bottle with a string attached to the circumference , you can lift a load " .
He just could n't accept that this was an example of transfer of work .
Sigh . What finally got him to calm down was that even if the drum could produce positive energy , it would immediately be gobbled up by the inefficiencies of the drive motor , gearing , and generator .
Best part of it was that I still got paid !
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Working as a design engineer and FEA analyst at a small mechanical design shop gives me the chance to work with on a lot of different projects.
One day, my boss comes in and tells me to look over a design this old guy from Florida has for a power generating machine.
This guy wasn't taking the "violates the laws of thermodynamics" line, so I had to spend some time to model up his design (a large drum that rotated, with small pistons that would drive up and down in relation to the surface of the drum, driving a crankshaft).
He couldn't get it that this was essentially an overly complex gear, except with way more inefficiencies.
He tried to use the "if you roll a wine bottle with a string attached to the circumference, you can lift a load".
He just couldn't accept that this was an example of transfer of work.
Sigh.
 
What finally got him to calm down was that even if the drum could produce positive energy, it would immediately be gobbled up by the inefficiencies of the drive motor, gearing, and generator.
Best part of it was that I still got paid!
:-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28459013</id>
	<title>Re:Crackpotery milestone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245839100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Those are some hardcore ***ards. They have been told by scientists they have nothing, but they carry on.</i></p><p>Canards?  (why would they be small wings on the nose of a plane?)<br>Leotards? (that makes no sense either.)  Bastards?  (getting warmer...)<br>Drunkards?  (hmm.. could be it..)  Fucktards?  Bingo!  Must be fucktards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those are some hardcore * * * ards .
They have been told by scientists they have nothing , but they carry on.Canards ?
( why would they be small wings on the nose of a plane ? ) Leotards ?
( that makes no sense either .
) Bastards ?
( getting warmer... ) Drunkards ?
( hmm.. could be it.. ) Fucktards ?
Bingo ! Must be fucktards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those are some hardcore ***ards.
They have been told by scientists they have nothing, but they carry on.Canards?
(why would they be small wings on the nose of a plane?)Leotards?
(that makes no sense either.
)  Bastards?
(getting warmer...)Drunkards?
(hmm.. could be it..)  Fucktards?
Bingo!  Must be fucktards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453251</id>
	<title>How It Works</title>
	<author>BeardedChimp</author>
	<datestamp>1245861720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its quite simple really. <a href="http://www.steorn.com/orbo/technology/" title="steorn.com" rel="nofollow">They explain it</a> [steorn.com] so even a layman with a wad of cash can understand and invest their money:<p><div class="quote"><p>Orbo is based upon time variant magnetic interactions, i.e. magnetic interactions whose efficiency varies as a function of transaction timeframes.
<br> <br>
It is this variation of energy exchanged as a function of transaction time frame that lies at the heart of Orbo technology, and its ability to contravene the principle of the conservation of energy. Why? Conservation of energy requires that the total energy exchanged using interactions are invariant in time. This principle of time invariance is enshrined in Noether&#226;(TM)s Theorem.
<br> <br>
The time variant nature of Orbo interactions can be engineered using two basic techniques. The first technique utilizes a method of controlling the response time of magnetic materials to make them time variant. This is achieved by controlling the MH position of materials during permanent magnetic interactions.
<br> <br>
The second technique decouples the Counter Electromotive Force (CEMF) from torque for electromagnet interactions. This decoupling of CEMF allows time variant magnetic interactions in electromagnetic systems.</p></div><p>
I may as well get out my cheque book, I'm convinced.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its quite simple really .
They explain it [ steorn.com ] so even a layman with a wad of cash can understand and invest their money : Orbo is based upon time variant magnetic interactions , i.e .
magnetic interactions whose efficiency varies as a function of transaction timeframes .
It is this variation of energy exchanged as a function of transaction time frame that lies at the heart of Orbo technology , and its ability to contravene the principle of the conservation of energy .
Why ? Conservation of energy requires that the total energy exchanged using interactions are invariant in time .
This principle of time invariance is enshrined in Noether   ( TM ) s Theorem .
The time variant nature of Orbo interactions can be engineered using two basic techniques .
The first technique utilizes a method of controlling the response time of magnetic materials to make them time variant .
This is achieved by controlling the MH position of materials during permanent magnetic interactions .
The second technique decouples the Counter Electromotive Force ( CEMF ) from torque for electromagnet interactions .
This decoupling of CEMF allows time variant magnetic interactions in electromagnetic systems .
I may as well get out my cheque book , I 'm convinced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its quite simple really.
They explain it [steorn.com] so even a layman with a wad of cash can understand and invest their money:Orbo is based upon time variant magnetic interactions, i.e.
magnetic interactions whose efficiency varies as a function of transaction timeframes.
It is this variation of energy exchanged as a function of transaction time frame that lies at the heart of Orbo technology, and its ability to contravene the principle of the conservation of energy.
Why? Conservation of energy requires that the total energy exchanged using interactions are invariant in time.
This principle of time invariance is enshrined in Noetherâ(TM)s Theorem.
The time variant nature of Orbo interactions can be engineered using two basic techniques.
The first technique utilizes a method of controlling the response time of magnetic materials to make them time variant.
This is achieved by controlling the MH position of materials during permanent magnetic interactions.
The second technique decouples the Counter Electromotive Force (CEMF) from torque for electromagnet interactions.
This decoupling of CEMF allows time variant magnetic interactions in electromagnetic systems.
I may as well get out my cheque book, I'm convinced.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28457751</id>
	<title>Re:Free Energy is definately for real</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1245834600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Long winded and rambling, check.<br>References to questionable websites, check.<br>Complicated but sciency-sounding descriptions, check.<br>Cool words like "vortex", check.<br>Mention of Tesla, check.<br>Claims of a conspiracy to deliberately cover up the truth, check.</p><p>Congratulations, you've got all the elements of some excellent pseudoscience!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Long winded and rambling , check.References to questionable websites , check.Complicated but sciency-sounding descriptions , check.Cool words like " vortex " , check.Mention of Tesla , check.Claims of a conspiracy to deliberately cover up the truth , check.Congratulations , you 've got all the elements of some excellent pseudoscience !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Long winded and rambling, check.References to questionable websites, check.Complicated but sciency-sounding descriptions, check.Cool words like "vortex", check.Mention of Tesla, check.Claims of a conspiracy to deliberately cover up the truth, check.Congratulations, you've got all the elements of some excellent pseudoscience!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28456075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453363</id>
	<title>How free?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245862140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this free as in beer?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this free as in beer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this free as in beer?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28454407</id>
	<title>Re:I failed physics and even I know this is junk.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245865620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People \_knew\_ the world was flat.<br>People \_knew\_ the sun revolved around the universe.<br>People \_knew\_ the atom was the smallest particle.<br>People \_knew\_ that neutron/electron/protons were the smallest particles.<br>People \_knew\_ that germ theory was complete hogwash.  Little invisible bugs?  Ludicrous!</p><p>Please don't make the mistake of thinking that what we know to be true is true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People \ _knew \ _ the world was flat.People \ _knew \ _ the sun revolved around the universe.People \ _knew \ _ the atom was the smallest particle.People \ _knew \ _ that neutron/electron/protons were the smallest particles.People \ _knew \ _ that germ theory was complete hogwash .
Little invisible bugs ?
Ludicrous ! Please do n't make the mistake of thinking that what we know to be true is true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People \_knew\_ the world was flat.People \_knew\_ the sun revolved around the universe.People \_knew\_ the atom was the smallest particle.People \_knew\_ that neutron/electron/protons were the smallest particles.People \_knew\_ that germ theory was complete hogwash.
Little invisible bugs?
Ludicrous!Please don't make the mistake of thinking that what we know to be true is true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453003</id>
	<title>Re:The answer is obvious</title>
	<author>Rocketship Underpant</author>
	<datestamp>1245860820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bankers seem to think this will work for changing the laws of economics, so why not?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bankers seem to think this will work for changing the laws of economics , so why not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bankers seem to think this will work for changing the laws of economics, so why not?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28458501</id>
	<title>Re:Free Energy is definately for real</title>
	<author>lamare</author>
	<datestamp>1245837180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me say a littlebit more about vortexes, because it is quite significant in understanding the universe, from the very large to the very small.</p><p>Consider the big bang theory. It basically says the whole universe is expanding. You probably know the picture of a guy blowing up a balloon, where some pennies are stitched on, to illustrate the expanding universe.</p><p>Now if you look at the textbooks, you'll find a lot of equations, but you'll find none describing the guy blowing up the balloon. Now wasn't there a "law" which says "action equals minus reaction"?</p><p>So, if we have a whole universe expanding, shouldn't there be something contracting???</p><p>What happens in the textbooks, is that something is postulated: "black matter".</p><p>However, if you look in the universe, you'll find a black hole at the center of every galaxy. You'll find huge vortexes, sometimes millions of light years long, originating at those black holes.</p><p>If you compare these with vortexes, like for example hurricanes, you'll see that in the center of a vortex, there's a "silent" area, that might very well be very similar to a black hole.</p><p>So, actually, it makes a lot of sense to describe the universe using vortexes. And that is what Prof. Meyl has done.</p><p>Now what a remarkable result of "pseudo science" that his theory can do without the postulate of "dark matter", or any postulate at all, isn't it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me say a littlebit more about vortexes , because it is quite significant in understanding the universe , from the very large to the very small.Consider the big bang theory .
It basically says the whole universe is expanding .
You probably know the picture of a guy blowing up a balloon , where some pennies are stitched on , to illustrate the expanding universe.Now if you look at the textbooks , you 'll find a lot of equations , but you 'll find none describing the guy blowing up the balloon .
Now was n't there a " law " which says " action equals minus reaction " ? So , if we have a whole universe expanding , should n't there be something contracting ? ?
? What happens in the textbooks , is that something is postulated : " black matter " .However , if you look in the universe , you 'll find a black hole at the center of every galaxy .
You 'll find huge vortexes , sometimes millions of light years long , originating at those black holes.If you compare these with vortexes , like for example hurricanes , you 'll see that in the center of a vortex , there 's a " silent " area , that might very well be very similar to a black hole.So , actually , it makes a lot of sense to describe the universe using vortexes .
And that is what Prof. Meyl has done.Now what a remarkable result of " pseudo science " that his theory can do without the postulate of " dark matter " , or any postulate at all , is n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me say a littlebit more about vortexes, because it is quite significant in understanding the universe, from the very large to the very small.Consider the big bang theory.
It basically says the whole universe is expanding.
You probably know the picture of a guy blowing up a balloon, where some pennies are stitched on, to illustrate the expanding universe.Now if you look at the textbooks, you'll find a lot of equations, but you'll find none describing the guy blowing up the balloon.
Now wasn't there a "law" which says "action equals minus reaction"?So, if we have a whole universe expanding, shouldn't there be something contracting??
?What happens in the textbooks, is that something is postulated: "black matter".However, if you look in the universe, you'll find a black hole at the center of every galaxy.
You'll find huge vortexes, sometimes millions of light years long, originating at those black holes.If you compare these with vortexes, like for example hurricanes, you'll see that in the center of a vortex, there's a "silent" area, that might very well be very similar to a black hole.So, actually, it makes a lot of sense to describe the universe using vortexes.
And that is what Prof. Meyl has done.Now what a remarkable result of "pseudo science" that his theory can do without the postulate of "dark matter", or any postulate at all, isn't it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28457751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28457235</id>
	<title>the wheel is spinning ...</title>
	<author>porky\_pig\_jr</author>
	<datestamp>1245875820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but the Irish leprechaun is dead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but the Irish leprechaun is dead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but the Irish leprechaun is dead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452435</id>
	<title>What? No Mr. Fusion?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245858480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>And I bought a DeLorean in preparation just for this... Thanks a lot, Steorn.  Bah!</htmltext>
<tokenext>And I bought a DeLorean in preparation just for this... Thanks a lot , Steorn .
Bah !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I bought a DeLorean in preparation just for this... Thanks a lot, Steorn.
Bah!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28456075</id>
	<title>Free Energy is definately for real</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245871200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unlike most people, I have studied the subject of "free energy" quite substantially the past 2 years or so, and since I know quite a bit about the field, it is astonishing to read that people simply disgard the possibility of finding a clean, endless energy source because of "the laws of thermodynamics forbid perpetuum mobile". Yes, you can't create energy out of nothing, but that does not mean there aren't any energy sources that are free for the taking.</p><p>As a matter of fact, it has been known for more then a hundred years that in principle we can tap all the (electrical) energy we need out of the environment, or the vacuum, to be more precise. You see, mankind has known about a free energy source ever since JP Morgan financially crushed the great Nikola Tesla, who already wrote in 1892 (!):<br> <a href="http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1892-02-03.htm" title="tfcbooks.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1892-02-03.htm</a> [tfcbooks.com] </p><p>"We shall have no need to transmit power at all. Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point of the universe. This idea is not novel. Men have been led to it long ago by instinct or reason; it has been expressed in many ways, and in many places, in the history of old and new. We find it in the delightful myth of Antheus, who derives power from the earth; we find it among the subtle speculations of one of your splendid mathematicians and in many hints and statements of thinkers of the present time. Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic! If static our hopes are in vain; if kinetic&#195;f"and this we know it is, for certain&#195;f"then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature."</p><p>It turns out that the basic theory our electrical engineers work with, the Maxwell equations, have been deliberately curtailed such that they won't allow "over-unity" devices nor the so-called "scalar waves" or longitudinal waves, which can be both electrical or magnetic.</p><p>Today, the German Professor Konstantin Meyl shows some remarkable experiments, based on a.o. Tesla's "magnifying transmitter", which show that scalar waves *do* exist and are much more effective then Herzian type of electro-magnetic waves:<br> <a href="http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3545-konstantin-meyl-scalar-faraday-vs-maxwell.html" title="energeticforum.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3545-konstantin-meyl-scalar-faraday-vs-maxwell.html</a> [energeticforum.com] </p><p>He also explains that the currently used Maxwell equations are actually a special case of his complete theory, based on vortexes. His theory can do without postulates like "black matter" and the like and also allows over-unity devices operating with scalar waves. Very interesting videos...</p><p>Another interesting researcher is Professor Claus Turtur, who a.o. calculated the energy density of the vacuum in his paper "Verification and Conversion of the Energy of the Zero-point Oscillations of the Vacuum" to be about 1 * 10^29 J/m3:<br> <a href="http://www.wbabin.net/physics/turtur1e.pdf" title="wbabin.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.wbabin.net/physics/turtur1e.pdf</a> [wbabin.net] </p><p>That's an awful lot of energy present in every qubic meter of space!  If we can only retrieve a fraction thereof, we have all the energy we need.<br>Now that does not mean it's easy to do, but it's certainly waaaay to short around the corner to call this "impossible", "foolish" or anything like that.</p><p>Furthermore, Thomas Bearden shows how and why the Maxwell equations have been deliberately curtailed in order *not* to allow over-unity devices:<br> <a href="http://peswiki.com/index.php/Site:LRP:The\_Deliberate\_Curtailment\_of\_Nikola\_Tesla's\_Primary\_Energy\_Source" title="peswiki.com" rel="nofollow">http://peswiki.com/index.php/Site:LRP:The\_Deliberate\_Curtailment\_of\_Nikola\_Tesla's\_Primary\_Energy\_Source</a> [peswiki.com] </p><p>"Tom Bearden and Leslie R. Pastor discuss how the present electrical engineering model (and practice) was severely curtailed to exclude overunity (COP&gt;1.0) electrical power systems that take their excess electromagnetic energy directly from their interactio</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unlike most people , I have studied the subject of " free energy " quite substantially the past 2 years or so , and since I know quite a bit about the field , it is astonishing to read that people simply disgard the possibility of finding a clean , endless energy source because of " the laws of thermodynamics forbid perpetuum mobile " .
Yes , you ca n't create energy out of nothing , but that does not mean there are n't any energy sources that are free for the taking.As a matter of fact , it has been known for more then a hundred years that in principle we can tap all the ( electrical ) energy we need out of the environment , or the vacuum , to be more precise .
You see , mankind has known about a free energy source ever since JP Morgan financially crushed the great Nikola Tesla , who already wrote in 1892 ( !
) : http : //www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1892-02-03.htm [ tfcbooks.com ] " We shall have no need to transmit power at all .
Ere many generations pass , our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point of the universe .
This idea is not novel .
Men have been led to it long ago by instinct or reason ; it has been expressed in many ways , and in many places , in the history of old and new .
We find it in the delightful myth of Antheus , who derives power from the earth ; we find it among the subtle speculations of one of your splendid mathematicians and in many hints and statements of thinkers of the present time .
Throughout space there is energy .
Is this energy static or kinetic !
If static our hopes are in vain ; if kinetic   f " and this we know it is , for certain   f " then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature .
" It turns out that the basic theory our electrical engineers work with , the Maxwell equations , have been deliberately curtailed such that they wo n't allow " over-unity " devices nor the so-called " scalar waves " or longitudinal waves , which can be both electrical or magnetic.Today , the German Professor Konstantin Meyl shows some remarkable experiments , based on a.o .
Tesla 's " magnifying transmitter " , which show that scalar waves * do * exist and are much more effective then Herzian type of electro-magnetic waves : http : //www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3545-konstantin-meyl-scalar-faraday-vs-maxwell.html [ energeticforum.com ] He also explains that the currently used Maxwell equations are actually a special case of his complete theory , based on vortexes .
His theory can do without postulates like " black matter " and the like and also allows over-unity devices operating with scalar waves .
Very interesting videos...Another interesting researcher is Professor Claus Turtur , who a.o .
calculated the energy density of the vacuum in his paper " Verification and Conversion of the Energy of the Zero-point Oscillations of the Vacuum " to be about 1 * 10 ^ 29 J/m3 : http : //www.wbabin.net/physics/turtur1e.pdf [ wbabin.net ] That 's an awful lot of energy present in every qubic meter of space !
If we can only retrieve a fraction thereof , we have all the energy we need.Now that does not mean it 's easy to do , but it 's certainly waaaay to short around the corner to call this " impossible " , " foolish " or anything like that.Furthermore , Thomas Bearden shows how and why the Maxwell equations have been deliberately curtailed in order * not * to allow over-unity devices : http : //peswiki.com/index.php/Site : LRP : The \ _Deliberate \ _Curtailment \ _of \ _Nikola \ _Tesla 's \ _Primary \ _Energy \ _Source [ peswiki.com ] " Tom Bearden and Leslie R. Pastor discuss how the present electrical engineering model ( and practice ) was severely curtailed to exclude overunity ( COP &gt; 1.0 ) electrical power systems that take their excess electromagnetic energy directly from their interactio</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unlike most people, I have studied the subject of "free energy" quite substantially the past 2 years or so, and since I know quite a bit about the field, it is astonishing to read that people simply disgard the possibility of finding a clean, endless energy source because of "the laws of thermodynamics forbid perpetuum mobile".
Yes, you can't create energy out of nothing, but that does not mean there aren't any energy sources that are free for the taking.As a matter of fact, it has been known for more then a hundred years that in principle we can tap all the (electrical) energy we need out of the environment, or the vacuum, to be more precise.
You see, mankind has known about a free energy source ever since JP Morgan financially crushed the great Nikola Tesla, who already wrote in 1892 (!
): http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1892-02-03.htm [tfcbooks.com] "We shall have no need to transmit power at all.
Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point of the universe.
This idea is not novel.
Men have been led to it long ago by instinct or reason; it has been expressed in many ways, and in many places, in the history of old and new.
We find it in the delightful myth of Antheus, who derives power from the earth; we find it among the subtle speculations of one of your splendid mathematicians and in many hints and statements of thinkers of the present time.
Throughout space there is energy.
Is this energy static or kinetic!
If static our hopes are in vain; if kineticÃf"and this we know it is, for certainÃf"then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature.
"It turns out that the basic theory our electrical engineers work with, the Maxwell equations, have been deliberately curtailed such that they won't allow "over-unity" devices nor the so-called "scalar waves" or longitudinal waves, which can be both electrical or magnetic.Today, the German Professor Konstantin Meyl shows some remarkable experiments, based on a.o.
Tesla's "magnifying transmitter", which show that scalar waves *do* exist and are much more effective then Herzian type of electro-magnetic waves: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3545-konstantin-meyl-scalar-faraday-vs-maxwell.html [energeticforum.com] He also explains that the currently used Maxwell equations are actually a special case of his complete theory, based on vortexes.
His theory can do without postulates like "black matter" and the like and also allows over-unity devices operating with scalar waves.
Very interesting videos...Another interesting researcher is Professor Claus Turtur, who a.o.
calculated the energy density of the vacuum in his paper "Verification and Conversion of the Energy of the Zero-point Oscillations of the Vacuum" to be about 1 * 10^29 J/m3: http://www.wbabin.net/physics/turtur1e.pdf [wbabin.net] That's an awful lot of energy present in every qubic meter of space!
If we can only retrieve a fraction thereof, we have all the energy we need.Now that does not mean it's easy to do, but it's certainly waaaay to short around the corner to call this "impossible", "foolish" or anything like that.Furthermore, Thomas Bearden shows how and why the Maxwell equations have been deliberately curtailed in order *not* to allow over-unity devices: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Site:LRP:The\_Deliberate\_Curtailment\_of\_Nikola\_Tesla's\_Primary\_Energy\_Source [peswiki.com] "Tom Bearden and Leslie R. Pastor discuss how the present electrical engineering model (and practice) was severely curtailed to exclude overunity (COP&gt;1.0) electrical power systems that take their excess electromagnetic energy directly from their interactio</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28458757</id>
	<title>Re:Crackpotery milestone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245838140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Don't do that re self-censoring shit.  It makes you look like a retard.</p></div><p>ftfy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't do that re self-censoring shit .
It makes you look like a retard.ftfy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't do that re self-censoring shit.
It makes you look like a retard.ftfy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28455101</id>
	<title>Re:I failed physics and even I know this is junk.</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1245868080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent up!</p><p>Critical thinking doesn't allow you to "know" anything.  If you are a critical thinker, you simply believe X is true because all current evidence suggest it is true.  The further away from "all" the current evidence is for a theory, the weaker a critical thinker's belief in something should be.</p><p>For example, if there are three competing theories, with one of them looking like the more plausible, a critical thinker will pick the more plausible as best, but not with any amount of certainty.  He will be completely willing to re-asses the theories when new data shows another as more favorable.</p><p>When a new theory comes out that has 40 years of solid physics saying that it is impossible, it automatically goes in to the "do not believe this catagory".  However, a critical thinker will be open to new evidence that proves 40 years of physics wrong.  It's just going to have to be substantial to make the switch.</p><p>A good critical thinker never thinks "this is the way things are, and the way they will always be".  He thinks "This is almost certainly how it is, but who knows? Things change."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up ! Critical thinking does n't allow you to " know " anything .
If you are a critical thinker , you simply believe X is true because all current evidence suggest it is true .
The further away from " all " the current evidence is for a theory , the weaker a critical thinker 's belief in something should be.For example , if there are three competing theories , with one of them looking like the more plausible , a critical thinker will pick the more plausible as best , but not with any amount of certainty .
He will be completely willing to re-asses the theories when new data shows another as more favorable.When a new theory comes out that has 40 years of solid physics saying that it is impossible , it automatically goes in to the " do not believe this catagory " .
However , a critical thinker will be open to new evidence that proves 40 years of physics wrong .
It 's just going to have to be substantial to make the switch.A good critical thinker never thinks " this is the way things are , and the way they will always be " .
He thinks " This is almost certainly how it is , but who knows ?
Things change .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up!Critical thinking doesn't allow you to "know" anything.
If you are a critical thinker, you simply believe X is true because all current evidence suggest it is true.
The further away from "all" the current evidence is for a theory, the weaker a critical thinker's belief in something should be.For example, if there are three competing theories, with one of them looking like the more plausible, a critical thinker will pick the more plausible as best, but not with any amount of certainty.
He will be completely willing to re-asses the theories when new data shows another as more favorable.When a new theory comes out that has 40 years of solid physics saying that it is impossible, it automatically goes in to the "do not believe this catagory".
However, a critical thinker will be open to new evidence that proves 40 years of physics wrong.
It's just going to have to be substantial to make the switch.A good critical thinker never thinks "this is the way things are, and the way they will always be".
He thinks "This is almost certainly how it is, but who knows?
Things change.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28454407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28454111</id>
	<title>Re:Don't bash the jury.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245864660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Except when the laws you're testing are already being constantly tested, by motors, wires, chargers, etc - continuously around you.  I'll admit, the subtle effects of magnetic fields are indeed interesting and strange in the details, but at SOME point one has to rely on the 1000's of prior experiments.  Plus, there's a lot of machinery working because of the laws of physics, around us every day.  "Current" laws of physics wouldn't change, but perhaps a very specialized edge case (usually at extremes of energy) may arise.  This company is nowhere near this level of sophistication.  Instead, it's just the same smoke and mirrors.</p><p>
&nbsp; Would you rather test gravity, magnetic induction, inertia, conservation of energy and a slew of other physical concepts each day?</p><p>
&nbsp; The place for experiment is where the math behind the observations is doubted, or leaves an anomaly.  If there are solid formulas born from prior experiments, one simply can do the experiment "on paper" using the new scenario and deduce what will happen.<br>
&nbsp; Then, if you're still interested, you can compare to a real-world experiment - that's real science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except when the laws you 're testing are already being constantly tested , by motors , wires , chargers , etc - continuously around you .
I 'll admit , the subtle effects of magnetic fields are indeed interesting and strange in the details , but at SOME point one has to rely on the 1000 's of prior experiments .
Plus , there 's a lot of machinery working because of the laws of physics , around us every day .
" Current " laws of physics would n't change , but perhaps a very specialized edge case ( usually at extremes of energy ) may arise .
This company is nowhere near this level of sophistication .
Instead , it 's just the same smoke and mirrors .
  Would you rather test gravity , magnetic induction , inertia , conservation of energy and a slew of other physical concepts each day ?
  The place for experiment is where the math behind the observations is doubted , or leaves an anomaly .
If there are solid formulas born from prior experiments , one simply can do the experiment " on paper " using the new scenario and deduce what will happen .
  Then , if you 're still interested , you can compare to a real-world experiment - that 's real science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Except when the laws you're testing are already being constantly tested, by motors, wires, chargers, etc - continuously around you.
I'll admit, the subtle effects of magnetic fields are indeed interesting and strange in the details, but at SOME point one has to rely on the 1000's of prior experiments.
Plus, there's a lot of machinery working because of the laws of physics, around us every day.
"Current" laws of physics wouldn't change, but perhaps a very specialized edge case (usually at extremes of energy) may arise.
This company is nowhere near this level of sophistication.
Instead, it's just the same smoke and mirrors.
  Would you rather test gravity, magnetic induction, inertia, conservation of energy and a slew of other physical concepts each day?
  The place for experiment is where the math behind the observations is doubted, or leaves an anomaly.
If there are solid formulas born from prior experiments, one simply can do the experiment "on paper" using the new scenario and deduce what will happen.
  Then, if you're still interested, you can compare to a real-world experiment - that's real science.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452995</id>
	<title>Re:The answer is obvious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245860760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If congress can't even change a THEORY like evolution, how do you expect them to change an actual Law?</p><p>(no, I'm not being serious)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If congress ca n't even change a THEORY like evolution , how do you expect them to change an actual Law ?
( no , I 'm not being serious )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If congress can't even change a THEORY like evolution, how do you expect them to change an actual Law?
(no, I'm not being serious)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28456321</id>
	<title>Re:Crackpotery milestone</title>
	<author>delt0r</author>
	<datestamp>1245872220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like doing it, because is seems to offend a lot more of you ****ards than using the full word. *****!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like doing it , because is seems to offend a lot more of you * * * * ards than using the full word .
* * * * * !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like doing it, because is seems to offend a lot more of you ****ards than using the full word.
*****!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452583</id>
	<title>Re:Fraud</title>
	<author>BlueKitties</author>
	<datestamp>1245859140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They're claiming it's almost ready for production in order to draw attention; No company in their right mind would try to sell perpetual energy, in the same sense no company in their right mind would try to sell omnibenevolant hotpink bananas. Snake oil only works when the results are subtle and easily affected by other things. It's going to be hard to claim your device is putting out more energy than is put in, when, you know... it doesn't work?</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're claiming it 's almost ready for production in order to draw attention ; No company in their right mind would try to sell perpetual energy , in the same sense no company in their right mind would try to sell omnibenevolant hotpink bananas .
Snake oil only works when the results are subtle and easily affected by other things .
It 's going to be hard to claim your device is putting out more energy than is put in , when , you know... it does n't work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're claiming it's almost ready for production in order to draw attention; No company in their right mind would try to sell perpetual energy, in the same sense no company in their right mind would try to sell omnibenevolant hotpink bananas.
Snake oil only works when the results are subtle and easily affected by other things.
It's going to be hard to claim your device is putting out more energy than is put in, when, you know... it doesn't work?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452615</id>
	<title>If you believe in zero viscosity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245859320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You believe in perpetual motion:</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z6UJbwxBZI" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z6UJbwxBZI</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>Of course, one still can't extract useful energy from such a system. But as a superfluid, as long as the temperature and pressure were maintained, a superfluid fountain would never stop flowing. I think that counts as "perpetual motion". And for those who say one must expend energy to cool a local environment down to create superfluidity, ask yourselves: are there places in the universe where such conditions could exist naturally? As the universe cools over time, should one expect such conditions to become more widespread? Because if so, then what you're really saying is such conditions need not be artificially created and therefor it is a "natural" effect. Weird stuff.</p><p>None of which gives us so-called "Free Energy".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You believe in perpetual motion : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 2Z6UJbwxBZI [ youtube.com ] Of course , one still ca n't extract useful energy from such a system .
But as a superfluid , as long as the temperature and pressure were maintained , a superfluid fountain would never stop flowing .
I think that counts as " perpetual motion " .
And for those who say one must expend energy to cool a local environment down to create superfluidity , ask yourselves : are there places in the universe where such conditions could exist naturally ?
As the universe cools over time , should one expect such conditions to become more widespread ?
Because if so , then what you 're really saying is such conditions need not be artificially created and therefor it is a " natural " effect .
Weird stuff.None of which gives us so-called " Free Energy " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You believe in perpetual motion:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z6UJbwxBZI [youtube.com]Of course, one still can't extract useful energy from such a system.
But as a superfluid, as long as the temperature and pressure were maintained, a superfluid fountain would never stop flowing.
I think that counts as "perpetual motion".
And for those who say one must expend energy to cool a local environment down to create superfluidity, ask yourselves: are there places in the universe where such conditions could exist naturally?
As the universe cools over time, should one expect such conditions to become more widespread?
Because if so, then what you're really saying is such conditions need not be artificially created and therefor it is a "natural" effect.
Weird stuff.None of which gives us so-called "Free Energy".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452573</id>
	<title>I failed physics and even I know this is junk.</title>
	<author>Garbad Ropedink</author>
	<datestamp>1245859080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact that people take these free energy claims seriously is the prime example of how scientifically illiterate people are, and it's a real problem. It's what allows things like alt-meds to gain a foothold, UFO abduction proponents to have a voice, and free energy claims to waste everybody's time.</p><p>Even somebody like myself with no scientific background whatsoever can understand basic scientific principles like thermodynamics. It's called scientific literacy, it's like regular literacy except you replace regular words with science words.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that people take these free energy claims seriously is the prime example of how scientifically illiterate people are , and it 's a real problem .
It 's what allows things like alt-meds to gain a foothold , UFO abduction proponents to have a voice , and free energy claims to waste everybody 's time.Even somebody like myself with no scientific background whatsoever can understand basic scientific principles like thermodynamics .
It 's called scientific literacy , it 's like regular literacy except you replace regular words with science words .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that people take these free energy claims seriously is the prime example of how scientifically illiterate people are, and it's a real problem.
It's what allows things like alt-meds to gain a foothold, UFO abduction proponents to have a voice, and free energy claims to waste everybody's time.Even somebody like myself with no scientific background whatsoever can understand basic scientific principles like thermodynamics.
It's called scientific literacy, it's like regular literacy except you replace regular words with science words.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28457683</id>
	<title>Scott Adam's did it BEST!!!</title>
	<author>Dogbertius</author>
	<datestamp>1245834300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, our lead engineer immediately shot down our CEO's plan for free engery, and mysteriously wound up dead the next day.

So, we took his body, wrapped it in coil, and replaced his tombstone with a large magnet.

With our CEO's business practises continuing, it should make our former lead engineer roll in his grave, and produce free energy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , our lead engineer immediately shot down our CEO 's plan for free engery , and mysteriously wound up dead the next day .
So , we took his body , wrapped it in coil , and replaced his tombstone with a large magnet .
With our CEO 's business practises continuing , it should make our former lead engineer roll in his grave , and produce free energy : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, our lead engineer immediately shot down our CEO's plan for free engery, and mysteriously wound up dead the next day.
So, we took his body, wrapped it in coil, and replaced his tombstone with a large magnet.
With our CEO's business practises continuing, it should make our former lead engineer roll in his grave, and produce free energy :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452447</id>
	<title>I'm guessing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245858540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they accepted the results gracefully and in the future all their ideas will comply with the laws of physics, just like every other crank out there~</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they accepted the results gracefully and in the future all their ideas will comply with the laws of physics , just like every other crank out there ~</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they accepted the results gracefully and in the future all their ideas will comply with the laws of physics, just like every other crank out there~</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452459</id>
	<title>Fools</title>
	<author>captaindomon</author>
	<datestamp>1245858600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or Geniuses?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or Geniuses ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or Geniuses?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453047</id>
	<title>Re:Crackpotery milestone</title>
	<author>ScentCone</author>
	<datestamp>1245860940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Those are some hardcore ***ards. They have been told by scientists they have nothing, but they carry on. </i>
<br> <br>
But they're not forcing anybody to invest in their venture, so it's really not any worse than talking somebody into investing in a restaurant that you insist on putting in a place that gets no foot traffic, has no parking, and to which you stand no chance of attracting patrons. Somebody might buy into the wishful thinking, but a rational investor will realize that it's not easy (or ever likely) money.
<br> <br>
Now, if they're actually <i>defrauding</i> investors by falsifying data, that's another matter. But they seem to be walking the line pretty cannily, here. At which point, the investors get what they deserve.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those are some hardcore * * * ards .
They have been told by scientists they have nothing , but they carry on .
But they 're not forcing anybody to invest in their venture , so it 's really not any worse than talking somebody into investing in a restaurant that you insist on putting in a place that gets no foot traffic , has no parking , and to which you stand no chance of attracting patrons .
Somebody might buy into the wishful thinking , but a rational investor will realize that it 's not easy ( or ever likely ) money .
Now , if they 're actually defrauding investors by falsifying data , that 's another matter .
But they seem to be walking the line pretty cannily , here .
At which point , the investors get what they deserve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those are some hardcore ***ards.
They have been told by scientists they have nothing, but they carry on.
But they're not forcing anybody to invest in their venture, so it's really not any worse than talking somebody into investing in a restaurant that you insist on putting in a place that gets no foot traffic, has no parking, and to which you stand no chance of attracting patrons.
Somebody might buy into the wishful thinking, but a rational investor will realize that it's not easy (or ever likely) money.
Now, if they're actually defrauding investors by falsifying data, that's another matter.
But they seem to be walking the line pretty cannily, here.
At which point, the investors get what they deserve.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28463893</id>
	<title>Re:I am using free energy right now!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245921180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Honestly, if I gained the power of a god to bend reality to my will, the first thing I'd make is a free energy machine then stick it in a cardboard box. I'd then give the box to...someone. Probably either America, the EU, or the UN because they need some loving too.</p><p>I would tell them that this box will grant all the power the world would ever possibly need...but they aren't allowed to open it or try to figure out how it works. If they do it'll shut down and they'll never figure out how it works.</p><p>I guarantee you, some fuckwad would open the box and screw the world over before a week passes.</p><p>(The machine would be shaped like a dick just for laughs)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , if I gained the power of a god to bend reality to my will , the first thing I 'd make is a free energy machine then stick it in a cardboard box .
I 'd then give the box to...someone .
Probably either America , the EU , or the UN because they need some loving too.I would tell them that this box will grant all the power the world would ever possibly need...but they are n't allowed to open it or try to figure out how it works .
If they do it 'll shut down and they 'll never figure out how it works.I guarantee you , some fuckwad would open the box and screw the world over before a week passes .
( The machine would be shaped like a dick just for laughs )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, if I gained the power of a god to bend reality to my will, the first thing I'd make is a free energy machine then stick it in a cardboard box.
I'd then give the box to...someone.
Probably either America, the EU, or the UN because they need some loving too.I would tell them that this box will grant all the power the world would ever possibly need...but they aren't allowed to open it or try to figure out how it works.
If they do it'll shut down and they'll never figure out how it works.I guarantee you, some fuckwad would open the box and screw the world over before a week passes.
(The machine would be shaped like a dick just for laughs)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452525</id>
	<title>I am using free energy right now!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245858900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am willing to prove it as well.</p><p>But only for the next five minutes.</p><p>You will not be allowed to look inside the box, ONLY to measure the energy going in and out. You're not allowed to touch the machine and it must be in a completely dark room. You must pay all expenses for travel and lodging yourself. You must address me as "esteemed scienctist sir" at all times.</p><p>A-ha, and there the time is up. I see none of you felt brave enough to try to disprove my claims. I am the winner. I'll be sure to quote this in my journal.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am willing to prove it as well.But only for the next five minutes.You will not be allowed to look inside the box , ONLY to measure the energy going in and out .
You 're not allowed to touch the machine and it must be in a completely dark room .
You must pay all expenses for travel and lodging yourself .
You must address me as " esteemed scienctist sir " at all times.A-ha , and there the time is up .
I see none of you felt brave enough to try to disprove my claims .
I am the winner .
I 'll be sure to quote this in my journal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am willing to prove it as well.But only for the next five minutes.You will not be allowed to look inside the box, ONLY to measure the energy going in and out.
You're not allowed to touch the machine and it must be in a completely dark room.
You must pay all expenses for travel and lodging yourself.
You must address me as "esteemed scienctist sir" at all times.A-ha, and there the time is up.
I see none of you felt brave enough to try to disprove my claims.
I am the winner.
I'll be sure to quote this in my journal.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28458923</id>
	<title>Re:I failed physics and even I know this is junk.</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1245838800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People \_knew\_ the world was flat.<br>no, not really.</p><p>People \_knew\_ the sun revolved around the universe.<br>This was supported by evidence, however more evidence latter was taken into account.<br>This(magic machine) is NOT supported by any evidence.</p><p>People \_knew\_ the atom was the smallest particle.<br>Technically atom does mean smallest piece of something.</p><p>Philosophers argued for years about whether or no you can have the smallest part of something. i.e. what happens when you cut an atom in half. By the time we were playing with them we know they weren't the smallest piece.</p><p>People \_knew\_ that neutron/electron/protons were the smallest particles.<br>No one claimed that. only the were the smallest know to date.</p><p>People \_knew\_ that germ theory was complete hogwash. Little invisible bugs? Ludicrous!<br>Germ theory didn't come from nowhere. They already new being clean help prevent 'fevers' they didn't know why.</p><p>ALL these thing you mention were built upon earlier understanding. All of them had evidence.<br>No evidence and completly out of nowhere technology plus they clearly don't understand the math they base it on. All's it shows is Noether&#226;(TM)s Theorem can be hard to understand by people with no mathematical expertise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People \ _knew \ _ the world was flat.no , not really.People \ _knew \ _ the sun revolved around the universe.This was supported by evidence , however more evidence latter was taken into account.This ( magic machine ) is NOT supported by any evidence.People \ _knew \ _ the atom was the smallest particle.Technically atom does mean smallest piece of something.Philosophers argued for years about whether or no you can have the smallest part of something .
i.e. what happens when you cut an atom in half .
By the time we were playing with them we know they were n't the smallest piece.People \ _knew \ _ that neutron/electron/protons were the smallest particles.No one claimed that .
only the were the smallest know to date.People \ _knew \ _ that germ theory was complete hogwash .
Little invisible bugs ?
Ludicrous ! Germ theory did n't come from nowhere .
They already new being clean help prevent 'fevers ' they did n't know why.ALL these thing you mention were built upon earlier understanding .
All of them had evidence.No evidence and completly out of nowhere technology plus they clearly do n't understand the math they base it on .
All 's it shows is Noether   ( TM ) s Theorem can be hard to understand by people with no mathematical expertise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People \_knew\_ the world was flat.no, not really.People \_knew\_ the sun revolved around the universe.This was supported by evidence, however more evidence latter was taken into account.This(magic machine) is NOT supported by any evidence.People \_knew\_ the atom was the smallest particle.Technically atom does mean smallest piece of something.Philosophers argued for years about whether or no you can have the smallest part of something.
i.e. what happens when you cut an atom in half.
By the time we were playing with them we know they weren't the smallest piece.People \_knew\_ that neutron/electron/protons were the smallest particles.No one claimed that.
only the were the smallest know to date.People \_knew\_ that germ theory was complete hogwash.
Little invisible bugs?
Ludicrous!Germ theory didn't come from nowhere.
They already new being clean help prevent 'fevers' they didn't know why.ALL these thing you mention were built upon earlier understanding.
All of them had evidence.No evidence and completly out of nowhere technology plus they clearly don't understand the math they base it on.
All's it shows is Noetherâ(TM)s Theorem can be hard to understand by people with no mathematical expertise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28454407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28464355</id>
	<title>Re:I failed physics and even I know this is junk.</title>
	<author>Nazlfrag</author>
	<datestamp>1245926700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Scientists probe and question the very nature of the laws they have acquired, such as the laws of thermodynamics. Constantly testing them, pushing them to new limits, dreaming up anomolous cases in an effort to expand their knowledge. They take nothing for granted.</p><p>Scientists believe there are no literal truths, just hypotheses and observations. Your attitude towards these basic principles is no different to that of flat earth proponents. Just as language literacy is not set in stone, neither is scientific literacy. The boundaries are constantly pushed and redefined into something new. Thinking the past is set in stone and irrefutable is the antithesis of scientific endeavour.</p><p>I'm not saying free energy is possible, just that it is not 'junk' but an avenue worth exploring no matter what established doctrine says. Even just to prove Newton right we should study the phenomenon or more likely its absence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Scientists probe and question the very nature of the laws they have acquired , such as the laws of thermodynamics .
Constantly testing them , pushing them to new limits , dreaming up anomolous cases in an effort to expand their knowledge .
They take nothing for granted.Scientists believe there are no literal truths , just hypotheses and observations .
Your attitude towards these basic principles is no different to that of flat earth proponents .
Just as language literacy is not set in stone , neither is scientific literacy .
The boundaries are constantly pushed and redefined into something new .
Thinking the past is set in stone and irrefutable is the antithesis of scientific endeavour.I 'm not saying free energy is possible , just that it is not 'junk ' but an avenue worth exploring no matter what established doctrine says .
Even just to prove Newton right we should study the phenomenon or more likely its absence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scientists probe and question the very nature of the laws they have acquired, such as the laws of thermodynamics.
Constantly testing them, pushing them to new limits, dreaming up anomolous cases in an effort to expand their knowledge.
They take nothing for granted.Scientists believe there are no literal truths, just hypotheses and observations.
Your attitude towards these basic principles is no different to that of flat earth proponents.
Just as language literacy is not set in stone, neither is scientific literacy.
The boundaries are constantly pushed and redefined into something new.
Thinking the past is set in stone and irrefutable is the antithesis of scientific endeavour.I'm not saying free energy is possible, just that it is not 'junk' but an avenue worth exploring no matter what established doctrine says.
Even just to prove Newton right we should study the phenomenon or more likely its absence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453073</id>
	<title>Re:Scammers</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1245861060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have no problem these claims getting attention; my problem is that once critical thinking and rigor have been applied and shown it not to work, people don't just pack up their bags, say "Oops,, my mistake and move on, like real scientists do when there theory has been shot down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no problem these claims getting attention ; my problem is that once critical thinking and rigor have been applied and shown it not to work , people do n't just pack up their bags , say " Oops, , my mistake and move on , like real scientists do when there theory has been shot down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no problem these claims getting attention; my problem is that once critical thinking and rigor have been applied and shown it not to work, people don't just pack up their bags, say "Oops,, my mistake and move on, like real scientists do when there theory has been shot down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28460267</id>
	<title>Re:Don't bash the jury.</title>
	<author>sirrunsalot</author>
	<datestamp>1245845100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, NO.

"The law that entropy always increases, holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations &#226;" then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation &#226;" well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation." &#226;" Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , NO .
" The law that entropy always increases , holds , I think , the supreme position among the laws of Nature .
If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell 's equations   " then so much the worse for Maxwell 's equations .
If it is found to be contradicted by observation   " well , these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes .
But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope ; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation .
"   " Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington , The Nature of the Physical World ( 1927 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, NO.
"The law that entropy always increases, holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature.
If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations â" then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations.
If it is found to be contradicted by observation â" well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes.
But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.
" â" Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28460253</id>
	<title>Re:Free Energy is definately for real</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1245845040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You just fell into cognitive trap of thinking how you realized something extraordinary, how special you are thanks to it, and how other people are ignorant.</p><p>Well, honestly, we do that all the time - it's advantegous to survival. It's just that sometimes it goes a bit berserk, a bit against us, which might manifest itself in what you're doing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You just fell into cognitive trap of thinking how you realized something extraordinary , how special you are thanks to it , and how other people are ignorant.Well , honestly , we do that all the time - it 's advantegous to survival .
It 's just that sometimes it goes a bit berserk , a bit against us , which might manifest itself in what you 're doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You just fell into cognitive trap of thinking how you realized something extraordinary, how special you are thanks to it, and how other people are ignorant.Well, honestly, we do that all the time - it's advantegous to survival.
It's just that sometimes it goes a bit berserk, a bit against us, which might manifest itself in what you're doing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28456075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453103</id>
	<title>Re:Fools</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245861180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fools.</p><p>this should be the next poll.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fools.this should be the next poll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fools.this should be the next poll.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453599</id>
	<title>Re:FP</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1245862800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But they could have all the pizza they wanted delivered to the deliberation room!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But they could have all the pizza they wanted delivered to the deliberation room !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But they could have all the pizza they wanted delivered to the deliberation room!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28455501</id>
	<title>Extraordinary Claims Demand Extraordinary Proof...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245869280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Steorn's extraordinary claims are outside of the realm of known physics, many others have made similar claims (Galileo, Newton, Einstein, etc).  The difference is proof...</p><p>Steorn needs to provide substantial proof to the world that their claims are legitimate, that the known laws of physics need revision.<br>Proof would open up enormous possibilities for research and development, now that we know what to look for, and how to test it (think airplanes, transistors, etc).</p><p>But Steorn has failed to provide any basic proof of any of their extraordinary claims.  The scientists have not disproven anything, they have just shown that Steorn can not back up their extraordinary claims when tested properly.</p><p>The scientists go back to work.</p><p>Steorn goes back to "we fixed the little problem, it really works now, send us money, you can trust us..."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Steorn 's extraordinary claims are outside of the realm of known physics , many others have made similar claims ( Galileo , Newton , Einstein , etc ) .
The difference is proof...Steorn needs to provide substantial proof to the world that their claims are legitimate , that the known laws of physics need revision.Proof would open up enormous possibilities for research and development , now that we know what to look for , and how to test it ( think airplanes , transistors , etc ) .But Steorn has failed to provide any basic proof of any of their extraordinary claims .
The scientists have not disproven anything , they have just shown that Steorn can not back up their extraordinary claims when tested properly.The scientists go back to work.Steorn goes back to " we fixed the little problem , it really works now , send us money , you can trust us... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Steorn's extraordinary claims are outside of the realm of known physics, many others have made similar claims (Galileo, Newton, Einstein, etc).
The difference is proof...Steorn needs to provide substantial proof to the world that their claims are legitimate, that the known laws of physics need revision.Proof would open up enormous possibilities for research and development, now that we know what to look for, and how to test it (think airplanes, transistors, etc).But Steorn has failed to provide any basic proof of any of their extraordinary claims.
The scientists have not disproven anything, they have just shown that Steorn can not back up their extraordinary claims when tested properly.The scientists go back to work.Steorn goes back to "we fixed the little problem, it really works now, send us money, you can trust us..."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28462101</id>
	<title>Re:I failed physics and even I know this is junk.</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1245857760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was a little irritated with myself yesterday when I accidentally figured out that the device labels on my universal remote are just for me; the chip inside doesn't care.</p><p>Rather obvious, but even for something like that, I had built up big walls of assumptions that made it so I never even considered that my model of how it worked was incorrect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was a little irritated with myself yesterday when I accidentally figured out that the device labels on my universal remote are just for me ; the chip inside does n't care.Rather obvious , but even for something like that , I had built up big walls of assumptions that made it so I never even considered that my model of how it worked was incorrect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was a little irritated with myself yesterday when I accidentally figured out that the device labels on my universal remote are just for me; the chip inside doesn't care.Rather obvious, but even for something like that, I had built up big walls of assumptions that made it so I never even considered that my model of how it worked was incorrect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453093</id>
	<title>Don't bash the jury.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245861120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look, I admit that their claims sound unlikely, but you can't just dismiss all claims out of hand because "they break the laws of physics". The fact is that they break the <i>current</i> laws of physics.</p><p>Hell, there could be all sorts of unlikely explanations that don't even break the <i>current</i> laws of physics (like perhaps some mass is being converted into energy)</p><p><i>Real</i> Science means conducting <i>experiments</i> and taking <i>measurements</i>. The 'laws' of physics are only as good as the experiments and measurements taken.</p><p>The fact is that the experiments have been conducted, and it appears that it doesn't work. It doesn't mean that the Jury are 'idiots' for trying to test it - it means that they are scientists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , I admit that their claims sound unlikely , but you ca n't just dismiss all claims out of hand because " they break the laws of physics " .
The fact is that they break the current laws of physics.Hell , there could be all sorts of unlikely explanations that do n't even break the current laws of physics ( like perhaps some mass is being converted into energy ) Real Science means conducting experiments and taking measurements .
The 'laws ' of physics are only as good as the experiments and measurements taken.The fact is that the experiments have been conducted , and it appears that it does n't work .
It does n't mean that the Jury are 'idiots ' for trying to test it - it means that they are scientists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, I admit that their claims sound unlikely, but you can't just dismiss all claims out of hand because "they break the laws of physics".
The fact is that they break the current laws of physics.Hell, there could be all sorts of unlikely explanations that don't even break the current laws of physics (like perhaps some mass is being converted into energy)Real Science means conducting experiments and taking measurements.
The 'laws' of physics are only as good as the experiments and measurements taken.The fact is that the experiments have been conducted, and it appears that it doesn't work.
It doesn't mean that the Jury are 'idiots' for trying to test it - it means that they are scientists.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453653</id>
	<title>Reminds me of a Heinlein story....</title>
	<author>opiv6ix</author>
	<datestamp>1245863040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the short story "Waldo," one of the main themes were "magical" energy generating devices called "DeKalbs."  SPOILER: Ended up that they were actually sucking energy from an alternate universe.  At any rate, I'm not inclined to dismiss it outright just because it can't be explained.  However, I agree with a previous comment that they need to produce a working prototype in order for it to be taken seriously.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the short story " Waldo , " one of the main themes were " magical " energy generating devices called " DeKalbs .
" SPOILER : Ended up that they were actually sucking energy from an alternate universe .
At any rate , I 'm not inclined to dismiss it outright just because it ca n't be explained .
However , I agree with a previous comment that they need to produce a working prototype in order for it to be taken seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the short story "Waldo," one of the main themes were "magical" energy generating devices called "DeKalbs.
"  SPOILER: Ended up that they were actually sucking energy from an alternate universe.
At any rate, I'm not inclined to dismiss it outright just because it can't be explained.
However, I agree with a previous comment that they need to produce a working prototype in order for it to be taken seriously.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28456853</id>
	<title>Sorted in seconds</title>
	<author>Linker3000</author>
	<datestamp>1245874320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just ask to see the company's quarterly electricity bill. If it's greater than 0.00EUR (0.00GBP/0.00USD) walk away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just ask to see the company 's quarterly electricity bill .
If it 's greater than 0.00EUR ( 0.00GBP/0.00USD ) walk away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just ask to see the company's quarterly electricity bill.
If it's greater than 0.00EUR (0.00GBP/0.00USD) walk away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28454141</id>
	<title>Re:If you believe in zero viscosity</title>
	<author>growse</author>
	<datestamp>1245864780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>'Perpetual motion' is a bad term to use, because perpetual motion is guaranteed by Newton's first law.</htmltext>
<tokenext>'Perpetual motion ' is a bad term to use , because perpetual motion is guaranteed by Newton 's first law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Perpetual motion' is a bad term to use, because perpetual motion is guaranteed by Newton's first law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452615</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_149247_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28457683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_149247_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_149247_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_149247_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28458175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_149247_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28456471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_149247_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28460253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28456075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_149247_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_149247_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28456321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_149247_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28455713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_149247_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28454261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_149247_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28458923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28454407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_149247_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28456365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_149247_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28454307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_149247_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28458187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_149247_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28454521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_149247_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_149247_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28454141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_149247_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28458501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28457751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28456075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_149247_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28455101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28454407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_149247_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452609
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_149247_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28456679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28456075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_149247_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_149247_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28456041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_149247_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28463893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_149247_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28455501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_149247_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28459549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_149247_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_149247_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28455237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28454407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_149247_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28455209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_149247_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28454111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_149247_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28454117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_149247_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28460267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_149247_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28454695
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_149247_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28458757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_149247_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28457155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_149247_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28464355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_149247_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28461907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_149247_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28459013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_149247_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28462101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_149247_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_149247_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_149247.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28456075
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28460253
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28456679
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28457751
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28458501
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_149247.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453653
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_149247.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453103
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28461907
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_149247.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28456853
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_149247.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452447
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28454307
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_149247.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452593
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_149247.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452609
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453073
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_149247.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452435
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_149247.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453363
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_149247.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452703
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453047
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28459013
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453217
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28458757
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28456321
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_149247.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452497
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28455713
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453003
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28458187
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452995
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_149247.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452525
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28463893
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_149247.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28454141
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_149247.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453251
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28455209
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28454695
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_149247.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452451
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452523
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28454117
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452583
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453945
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28456041
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_149247.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452573
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453033
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28462101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28464355
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452855
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28454407
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28455101
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28458923
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28455237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452841
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_149247.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453307
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_149247.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28458175
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28457155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453881
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28454521
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28454111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28456471
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28460267
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28454261
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_149247.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28452393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28457683
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28453599
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28455501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28456365
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_149247.28459549
</commentlist>
</conversation>
